Thanks for the info. I've been wanting to switch over to Linux for over a year now, but two things have kept me back: ease of use (I like GUIliciousness, and can't stand too many command lines), and the lack of easily available and easy to use security programmes which can replace all the functionality of those I use in Windoz. Thankfully, both issues seem to be being addressed increasingly well, and maybe next year I can take the final plunge.:-)
> I'm not a data recovery expert, but wouldn't a random sequence of bits written between > each step of writing the specified sequential pattern of bits make it harder to > establish physical patterns during data recovery?
The point of using specified patterns when wiping is so that those patterns will have the combined effect of completely obliterating the magnetic signature of any stored data. That's why certain patterns are mathematically thought to have a much more useful effect in the secure deletion of files than just using random data.
Think about it this way; the following parallel isn't accurate as to the exact process, but should illustrate the same methodology: You have a few lines of text written on a sheet of paper, and you wish to render them unreadable even to very close examination. (Obviously you'd burn the paper, but for the sake of example assume we have to keep the paper.) Now, what would be most effective in destroying your writing, randomly scribbling over each character, or carefully writing successive patterns of other letters over the existing ones in order to methodically obliterate them? A simplistic analogy, but that's the easiest way to grok it. I doubt 100 passes of random data could be as effective as 35-pass Guttmann wiping.
The DOD standard you and others mention specifies a specific set of patterns to be used for each pass, in order to maximize the chances of making the data unrecoverable. It's specified in DOD 5220.22-M and generally referred to as "DOD standard 7-pass extended character rotation wiping," which is quite a mouthful.
Sami Tolvanen has done some excellent research into the area, however, and at
http://www.tolvanen.com/eraser/
he goes into specifics, including scientific papers and providing links to the actual text of the DOD standard. He also provides a Windows binary for download and *GPL'd SOURCE CODE*, for a program he wrote called Eraser which is probably the best file shredding util out there. He concludes, based in part on a scientific paper at
that the DOD standard is outdated, and that the best answer is to use 35-pass "Gutmann shredding" using passes of specific characters as suggested by Dr. Gutmann in his paper linked above.
Maybe some people should start porting Eraser to Linux, nudge-nudge wink-wink hint-hint.
> If you want to clutter up your root directory, be my guest, but don't try to argue > that having the ability to keep your files in your own space is a hardship.
And when did I argue that? You are being such a stubborn dolt about the whole matter. I was clearly, clearly, *clearly* speaking about the directory structures on a single-user or single-profile system, not a shared server or multi-user workstation. Of course you *always* have the choice of keeping files "in your own space," or whatever. But, the Windows dirctory structure is simply easier to customize, that's what I was arguing. Try getting rid of some of the "customary" directories on a Linux box, and see how well installations and general use go. Why do programmes on Linux scatter stuff here, there, everywhere, so that getting rid of or moving one of the standard dirs will confuse many install routines and fuck stuff up? Contrast this with Windows, where the only root directory you need to keep around is \Windows, and even then you can call it something else during installation and it will still work well with most install routines and in general day to day operation. All I ever argued is that the Windows dir structure makes more sense than all the obscure mostly-three-lettered dir names in Linux, and that customizability makes sense. I don't understand how so many Linux users like to customize window managers and desktops, and tweak everything--*except* the directory structure. People complain like hell whenever a distro places something in a nonstandard place, and talk about how it breaks this or that. Well, in Windows that just doesn't happen. Things don't break if you tank \My Documents or change the location of \Windows\Temp to just C:\Temp, or if you install all your apps into subdirectories of a root folder called \Apps instead of \Program Files. Changing a few registry settings can even change locations of system folders inside \Windows without breaking anything.
That is all I was arguing, along with the fact that customization of directory structure is good and helps productivity when done right. But if you say *anything* contrary to the party line around here, you instantly get suspected of trolling, just as you accused me in your first reply to my post. You immediately came at it from the perspective of a sysadmin, not an end user, despite the fact that I was obviously talking about the experience and needs of end users. This just highlights the sad state of affairs which is preventing Linux from capturing the desktop/workstation market from MS. Linux coders, for the most part, write stuff that experienced Linux users like--stuff with command lines and text configuration, or graphical proggies with complicated menus. That's fine, unless of course you'd like Windoze and Mac people to start switching over to Linux. Linux will never, ever, beat MS on the desktop unless most coders start thinking like end users. And, if MS continues to win on the desktop, it'll also start retaking the server market, since Windows Server will be able to provide "extras" for those running Windows Consumer/Workstation, and because thin clients will be able to run sessions on Windows Server complete with all the point-and-click ease and customizability that a Windows desktop OS offers. MS's ultimate vision would be to have users everwhere log in to ASPs through fat pipes, and be running almost their whole desktop remotely, transparently, so it looks just like a real OS is there on your thin-client "computer." I don't want that to happen, but the only way it won't happen is if Linux or another OS steps up and provides a nice friendly easy-as-Windoze-or-Mac experience. But I don't see Linux moving there, because Linux coders are not thinking like end users, as your own attitude proves. I hope things change, and that Linux developers start developing apps and an easier to use OS which will provide for the requirements of end users; if they don't, Windows *will* win, and we don't want that to happen.
Come on, the whole concept of symlinks to do this sort of customization is a clumsy hack. Why would you symlink to things, instead of just putting them in the structure you want them in in the first place? So, that just creates a *more* confusing file structure than anything Windows does. A link to a folder here, and then the real folder there. Bah. Messy, messy, messy. Just put the files where they belong in the first place, if you're not on a multiple user machine.
I repeat, the next consumer release of Windows will be a merging of the Win2K and WinME codebases, as will the next workstation release. Now, there are 2 possibilities: either there'll be a separate "home" and "professional" version for each segment, or there will be a home/workstation combined purpose release. In either event, I'd be willing to wager heavily that the directory structure of the next consumer release of Windows will be based on the Win9x/ME dir structure.
Now a little bit of analysis will let you realize that it's most economically feasible for MS to release one version for both home and workstation, and it also fits well with their overall strategy. It's most economically feasible because they can make one disc design and one packaging design instead of two, cutting down production costs. Further, they can price the new OS higher than the current consumer release of WinME, but lower than the current workstation release of Win2K Pro, and still be making as much or more money as they would by having the 2 price points due to the increased/combined volume; the bean counters will doubtless come up with the perfect compromise figure to maximize profitability. Also, bringing the stability (relative to Win9x, that is) of Win2K to the home user, but keeping a separate corporate workstation version, wouldn't make sense because many businesses would just purchase the cheaper consumer version.
As for it fitting within their overall strategy to do so, both MS's continued PR and leaked builds confirm that the merging of Win2K/WinME is going on; but, MS is pushing server-centric computing, and for that there's going to be, of course, the Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server versions of the next-gen Windows OS. For the corporate desktop, MS will push client/server business models based around the Server family of Windows OSes executing all apps remotely for thin clients. THAT is what will satisfy sysadmins, and corporate IT gurus, and make it damn near impossible for a schmuck who doesn't know what he's doing to hose the system. Forget the outdated notion you mentioned of sysadmins imaging standardized workstation setups for fat-client workstation computers: it'll be dead within a few years. Thin-client solutions are more cost effective for almost all workstation needs; the remaining sorts of workstation users, who will require fat clients with local processing power, will be power-users who can be expected to customize their machines and tweak their systems to fit their own needs. Non-power-users will just get thin clients plugged into powerful iron. It makes more sense for MS to do this, too, because they can raise the price of Server licenses and seat licenses in order to offset the lessened sales of the workstation release--and they won't even have to stamp CDs and box them, just sell electronically transferrable licenses. I like this idea for business use: it lowers IT costs. But I dread the push for server-centric computing at home, because remotely-hosted apps and files means software is less free and privacy is nonexistent.
So, think ahead, the landscape is changing, and like I said, it makes more sense for the next consumer/fat-workstation release of Windows to have a dir structure like that in Win9x, while most actual corporate workstations will be thin clients with Windows Server taking the lead and reducing IT costs. Not that I don't want Linux to succeed there, mind you, it's just that we were talking specifically about Windows.
Why do so many of the more zealous people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is trolling?
> Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents
Most Windows users do not use Win2K. Most Windows users, especially end users, use Win9x/ME, and that has the dir structure I outlined. When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer. So my point stands and I'll ignore your tangential argument about the NT/2K dir structure, which I repeat will probably be replaced in the next release with a more consumer friendly 9x style since it will be intended for home users too.
> And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system?
No, because I am an end user and not a systems administrator. I don't need to do a damned thing remotely, like 99% of computer users. Don't assume that the average user does stuff like that, they don't, so it's a pointless argument. While I do have more knowledge than the *average* user, and less than an *average sysadmin*, at least I know enough to make arguments and points that are useful and relevant to a discussion about how OSes work for the vast majority of people. The vast majority find the Linux directory structure confusing and too restrictive, with the Windows system making much more sense.
> Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications
Poorly coded ones, I'm sure, however any third party apps made by *real* developers work fine. I did once try that; for fun I installed Win95 on my laptop in a directory called FuckingUseless.
> Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad.
I repeat, start thinking like a user, not like a developer. What percentage of Windows machines used as either workstations or home computers are single-user? I'd bet the vast, vast majority are, in which case customizing the directory structure is fine. Not just fine: PRODUCTIVE. I get things done much faster when the PC is set up with the directories how I like them. And since most Windows boxen are single-user, this means that it's a great feature. Stop thinking like an admin, start thinking like a user.
> I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single > user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made
No no no no no no no. You don't seem to understand that I'm talking about workstations and home computers, not servers and shared corporate machines. This is the fundamental problem with a faction in the Linux community: some people refuse to start looking at how Linux needs to evolve in order to replace Windows both at the workstation and the home computer levels. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and I'm not a troll. I use MS operating systems because, for a GUI user like me, who also likes easier-to-use Windows-style apps, I can get things done faster and more efficiently in Windows even when I factor in a daily crash. I don't expect the Linux community to make things more like Windows in order to cater to my personal needs, but the *fact* remains that if you ever want to replace Windows, if you ever want to eradicate MS both from the corporate and home desktops, you have to start thinking about what non-geek and even windoze-geek and mac-geek end users want: ease of use. We don't care about how it works well in a milti-user setup, because most users use single-user workstations and home PCs. MS understands this, and as long as Linux geeks want to continue to write for Linux geeks while ignoring the mass of users, MS will always dominate. I don't want it to, but that's the way it is.
Do a search on pgpi.org for free versions of PGP for the Mac which contain PGPdisk. PGPdisk was included in the free/international versions up to, I believe, 6.02. Personally, I use the Windows version of 6.02ckt which contains PGPdisk even though it's free--and the newer versions add no actual functionality over the 6.02 series, either; in fact, PGP hasn't changed all that much since 5.5 or so. I have a friend who also uses Macs, and we encrypt all our e-mails to one another, and I pointed him to pgpi.org where he got just what I was talking about: Mac binaries with PGPdisk included.
There's zero chance that I'd trust the U.S. companies to have not made deals with the NSA/FBI/CIA triad, especially if they've been exporting crypto even before the relaxation of export restrictions. It was common practice for the NSA to send a man around to U.S. crypto vendors hinting that if they'd make a few changes to the code here, or alter the S-Box there, they'd get an export license for their 128-bit etc. product.
Granted, there are a few noteworthy cases of the U.S. tainting foreign crypto vendors, like the Crypto AG fiasco in which the Swiss(?) firm inserted a back door which allowed the U.S. access to messages encrypted with their very, very expensive hardware crypto devices. But I'd still trust a European vendor over an American one, though these days the important thing is having access to the source code.
For example, why use a PGP binary provided by Network Associates when you could either download the full-strength PGPi version from overseas, or better yet if you actually know your code you could dload the source and compile it yourself. Getting a binary from an American company just adds one more layer of uncertainty to the mix.
My favorite product for disk encryption is a perfect example. There are many American companies which offer encryption utilities, but why use one of those when I can download Scramdisk from www.scramdisk.clara.net along with the source code? It isn't GPL, but the source is still available for inspection and for personal use. Scramdisk comes from Britain, whose own crypto regulations are getting insane, but still Britain doesn't have the same long tradition of sabotaging their own domestically produced crypto products, as well as international ones, that the U.S. does.
Buying U.S. crypto, unless you have access to the source code and the skills to verify it, is just asking for trouble.
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that), a \Program Files folder for applications, a \Recycle Bin for trashed files, and a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
But the most important thing about Windows is that you don't even have to use its directory structure at all. You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want--and because the information about which folder does what is stored in the Registry, almost all installation routines will still work properly, and if they don't automatically pick the right folder a few clicks will point them to the right one.
Of course, there's little reason to completely change most system folder names, but the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." For example, my root directory looks like this:
Desktop - I like to use an open folder for my main workspace, and keep the "real desktop" clear.
Downloads - I put all my downloaded stuff here, subdivided into \Documents \Installers \Icons \Pictures and several other types.
Games - All my game programs, because I prefer them separate from the rest of my apps and adding them to a subdir in \Program Files doesn't seem as useful as giving them their own dir.
Girls - Well, pictures of girls, mostly porn, further subdirectoried into \Amateurs \Bestiality \BJs \Bondage \Cartoons \Cheerleaders \Facials, and many others.;-)
MP3s - Since I have so many, and use them so often, they deserve their own root folder instead of being in Downloads.
My Documents- I use this folder only for documents I myself write and pictures and mpegs I myself scan and capture, not for all user stuff.
Program Files- Duh, all the non-game programs
Temp - I prefer my Temp dir in the root of the drive, not in \Windows, so I changed it.
Toolbars - I use two big toolbars on my desktop, which is one of the reasons I work in a window called Desktop instead of putting documents and icons and shortcuts on the real desktop--the Left and Right toolbars list all the shortcuts I ever use, and put everything just 1-click away. So, the folders full of shortcuts which I use in the toolbars are here.
Windows - The system files.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. And what the Hell is up with/usr/usr/local/lib/usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
As for your question about how the directory structure under C:\Progam Files\ should be, the answer is "whatever you like it to be." I find it amusing how Linux users like to be able to customize their window managers and desktops, but say woe to the man who customizes his directory structure... Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or anything, I'm just saying that Windows *does* make sense in its directory structure, more so than Linux because customizing that structure is easy and you aren't expected to always stay within a rigid hierarchy. For example, in my ow \Program Files directory, I subdivide by type of application, like \CD Burners \Compression \DVD Utils \Graphics \HTML Editors \Internet \Office Apps \System Utils and a few other directories. It makes perfect sense and makes me able to navigate quickly and easily.
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
> MS have hardly been pushing Java or J++ for over a year now
Strictly speaking, you're right in that they haven't been actively pushing it for developers, but look at how many times Java is mentioned in a typical Win2K press release. "Best platform for Java" "best platform for developing and deploying Java based applications" etc. etc. I think at last count the number of times Java is mentioned in Win2K resources almost outnumbers the bugs in Win2K.:-)
MS has proven yet again that they can't be trusted, that they either change their corporate mind or obfuscate their strategy well. You'd think that Java were the center of the computer world in the coming century from looking at what they themselves gave as rationale for extending it with their own add-ons.
Is it just me, or does this whole C# thing seem especially brutal considering the fact that MS was, right up to the very announcement of C#, pushing Java and especially their own bastardized version of it? Let's see: MS takes a semi-open standard invented and managed by arch-nemesis Sun, breaks it through alteration, fights a bitter court battle over the right to "innovate" on what Sun intended to be a cross-platform and uniform thing, succeeds in court and succeeds in screwing Java up with "improvements" which of course benefit mostly MS's own products, and then...as a grand finale...they drop Java like a hot potato, without warning, in favor of their own proprietary C# which will surely tilt the balance of power even further into MS's grasp?
I think that pretty much sums it up. The anti-trust case must be ruled on and upheld as soon as possible, or else we're all royally fscked. Microsoft.NET is looking more and more like a dystopian corporate-controlled world worse than those in cyberpunk scifi. Imagine a world in which software firms buy pricey MS toolkits to develop in an MS language for a yearly-licensed MS operating system which is seamlessly integrated into the MS.Network, which provides monthly-licensed access to programmes you don't own executed by machines which MS does own filled with files we own but won't be able to access unless we keep paying for monthly MS.NET accounts. That is the future MS wants, a future in which we don't own good hardware or software or the tools necessary to develop for the leading platform, but instead we own WebTerms melded to MS.NET which rents us all our applications and Internet access, hosts all our files remotely, and locks us in forever.
Okay, here's a point of view that's been rarely expressed here, but here goes: font antialiasing is a crufty outdated process which isn't really very useful on today's monitors.
Antialiasing of fonts was invented because screens had fairly low resolution and so fonts looked jagged compared to typefaces in the real world, like books and magazines. Also, unlike black typeface on white paper, computer programs and Web pages used some interesting background and font colors, which could be visually jarring in their contrast. Solution: Blend the edges of fonts into the surrounding background color, and the fonts were more pleasing to the eye both because jaggies got eliminated and because the color gradient made the color transition between font and background less jarring.
Fast forward to today, and 15 inch monitors capable of 1024 by 768 are the minimal norm, and 17 inch monitors capable of 1600 by 1200 are fast becoming commonplace. So, the problem with jaggies is no longer a problem at all. The problem with visually jarring combinations of color is no longer a problem, either, because people are as used to Web and application colors as they are to standard black-on-white printing.
Font antialiasing becomes useless unless you're going to be running at very low resolutions. Otherwise, it just makes the text look more hazy and less well defined, which puts more strain on the eyes. It also impacts system performance: I noticed a significant speed boost in Explorer responsiveness when turning anti-aliasing off in Win98 on a K6-2 400. Anti-aliasing is great for games and graphics displayed at fairly low resolutions, but on the modern desktop of a contemporary OS it is unneeded and impacts system performance negatively.
I'm constantly amazed at the number of posters on/. whose answer to everything is open sourcing something. I have nothing but respect for both open source and Free Software, but realism dictates that open sourcing one of the few applications that Corel actually manages to sell decent volume of, "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
The problem is, Corel isn't a Linux company. Tack on a "yet" to that last sentence if you believe, as many do, that Corel will be making Linux a topmost priority. Corel is a Windows applications company, and in the Windows world, the idea of open source or Free Software hasn't taken hold yet. Few in the Windows world, for instance, would pay for WordPerfect Office Suite if they could download it for free, while in the Linux world there are many people who would purchase their favorite distro in a boxed set even after they've downloaded it. Windows users are too used to having to pay ungodly high prices for every piece of software they own, to give much thought on how to compensate a company which has just given them something free. Software is still very much a commodity, a good to be purchased, to a typical Windows user--if you don't make him either go to the store and buy it, or enter a credit card # for a paid download, but instead let him freely download something, you're not going to get any money even if he uses it every day.
As for businesses, they wouldn't pay for a WordPerfect Office Suite which they could get for free, either. Unlike Linux companies as service companies, Corel wouldn't have any services to offer--office applications are pretty damned straightforward; there's little configuration to be done, and even a clueless newbie can figure out a word processing proggie in record time. In other words, Corel would have no source of revenue from WordPerfect Office, whereas now they have a small-compared-to-MS Office but still very tangible cashflow from it.
Netscape/Mozilla was another matter, entirely--there was essentially little choice but to open source the browser, since Microsoft was now giving one away for free and very, very few people were buying Netscape any more. Therefore it made economic sense to give away what you couldn't sell, anyway.
While it would be nice if Corel would open source WordPerfect, and it would benefit both the Linux community and all users in general (MS Office sales would start taking a huge dent, yay!), it wouldn't be in Corel's best interest to do it, and so there's zero chance of it happening unless Corel gets bought out by a *real* Linux company.
On a side note, I applaud Corel for their attempts to make a Linux distro easy enough for a Windows user to transition to, but they made things damned complicated in order to do it. I installed Corel Linux 1.0, and when I couldn't even get X to load in standard SVGA mode, I decided to just uninstall it. That worked, but left their customized version of LILO in the boot sector, the fancy graphical menu version Corel made, and it hung my machine when it realized that Linux was no longer there. I couldn't boot the damned thing at all, and no keystrokes in the world could bypass the thing. Finally I had to install Mandrake 6.1, whose own normal copy of LILO bypassed Corel's monstrosity, and then my system could boot again. Corel, be careful until you have more Linux experience...
Licensing broadcast media makes sense because, and was originally done because, there's a limited amount of broadcast frequency available and because broadcasting effectively travels across everyone else's property.
Not so of web broadcasts--there's an effectively unlimited number of frequencies (URLs) and bandwidth is plentiful. The two rationales for licensing streaming content are therefore censorship and taxation.
As for taxation, I don't know how it is in Australia (can someone from Down Under inform us?), but here in the U.S. we don't even tax traditional broadcasters much for the frequencies they use--it's always annoyed me that the airwaves in the U.S. are practically given away to large corporations, when they should be rented by the government at a fair market value instead. But instead of taxing the corporations in this country, we tax the people... blech...
Censorship is of course the biggest issue here, and probably the one which most excites the Australian government. It amazes me that the same country which used to fairly often publish pictures of naked 16 year olds in the Australian version of Playboy, now restricts tightly even mildly sexual content on web sites, not to mention mere stories and text. Western cultures and societies have to start moving towards less censorship and more understanding of different viewpoints and their value, or endure a tyranny of the majority which will stamp out all individuality and turn us into something from an Orwell novel. Regulating Net video streams may not seem a step in this direction, but it is. Restricting violent video games, as a story from earlier today says Canada is doing, doesn't seem a step in this direction, but it is. Things which are personally offensive must be tolerated, if for no other reason than that each of us likes something or another that someone else will find offensive, and if we each got the government to censor what we don't like, nothing unique would be left uncensored.
That's why it bothers me so much when Australians censor sex, violence, and drugs on the Net, when Americans censor sex on TV and everywhere else, and when Europeans censor even unrealistic violence, when France censors opinions about WWII and even WWII relics, and when Canadians censor books and magazines about homosexuality. What kind of a Western Civilization does that leave us with? What kind of a future can we look forward to, when "global culture" emerges full of the censorships and biases of each country melded into one seamless McDonaldsization of mediocre sameness? We have to start working extra hard to make sure we emphasize our rights and freedoms, not our selfish desire to censor, because we're living in times when those very rights are in flux thanks to new media.
If such a thing were ever to happen, or even if a commercial S/NES, N64, Genesis, etc., emulator were to hit store shelves, then the game companies would kill off the whole semi-legit side of emulation. As it stands now, there are many websites which have been around for over a year, which are the center of the emulation scene. Some of these sites literally have tens of thousands of ROMS for download, everything from early 80s arcade games to Nes and Genesis to 90s NeoGeo stuff. And as of yet, no one except for the N64 emulator people (N64 is too recent--still being sold--so Nintendo cares about preventing ROM download) and Bleem! have been hit by the game companies.
But if a widely sold commercial product offered to play these ROMs, Nintendo and Sega and SNK and the rest would sick the lawyers. It would be a horrible bloodbath, since using emulators is legal but offering ROMs for download isn't. I hope no one ever, ever, tries that.
I mean, this is surprising. I've heard tales of people in like, jungles and stuff, who used paper, but I didn't think it happened here in our own country. Is paper expensive now that e-communication is the standard? Does it have to be imported from Brazil or something? I've heard that Cuban paper is the best paper in the world, but because of the embargo...
It's great that so many old arcade games are being preserved in ROM images and played by programs like MAME and Retrocade. I'm especially glad that the companies who own these old games haven't come down hard on the ROM sites, at least not yet. Even though the games are effectively no longer marketable, the companies involved could still throw a fit and destroy the top ROM sites, because unlike the warez scene the emulation scene tends to try to stay open and above-board; they just want to be able to freely use old games which are more useful to nostalgics like us than to the game companies themselves.
This is one of the big reasons that copyright law needs to be changed back to something like its original shorter terms, instead of this bullshit corporate agenda of "life of the creator plus 100 years." This is especially true in the information age, when things get out of date very quickly and the media we use doesn't last very long. Books can exist for a thousand years if stored in a dry place, but the boards used by old arcade machines are more likely to last 10-20 years unless they're stored extremely well and even then there can be damage from the board just getting burned out--that's why it was so important for the emulation scene to get these ROMs into a digital, downloadable format and distribute them to as many sources as possible. But to do that, they had to break copyright law, over something which isn't very marketable anyway. Arcade collections for the PC put out by authorized companies only contain three or four games which were unusually popular in their day, but if it weren't for the emulation scene 99% of the arcade games, part of our history, would probably have ended up disappearing forever.
There are currently several sites which are all very big and carry tens of thousands of ROMs, but with a few cease and desist orders they could disappear. I'd name my favorite one, but I don't want to lead the corporate lawyers who doubtless read Slashdot to their door, especially since Microsoft of all companies has a couple of arcade-derived collections. The corporate, abusive extension of copyright terms has to stop, or else we may lose other digital artifacts, not just video games.
And as a final note, MAME plays far more games, but Retrocade plays over 100 games with the slickest UI you could ever slap onto an emulator, it's just unfuckingbelieveably cool. Check it out.
When was the last time you heard of anyone being prosecuted for copying KDE? Last I heard KDE was on this here CD-ROM I got free in a magazine. And oh, I see KDE on this here FTP server.
Tell me exactly how it is that KDE is illegal to copy, and how it is that TrollTech has been forcing KDE sites to be taken down. Tell me about all the people who are4 being sued by TrollTech for hosting/distributing/copying KDE. Then, tell me when you've grown up. If TrollTech's license has such a big hole in it, then it's really very smart of the Linux crowd to start annoying them by denouncing them and their license, now isn't it? Brilliant strategy: anger the people who can start destroying all Linux useage of Qt, if that hole does indeed exist. that's a much better strategy than being nice to them and not denouncing them and pissing them off. Nothing personal, don't take this as an insult or flame or flamebait, but I must scream now or my head will explode...MORONS! IT'S NOT SMART TO PISS PEOPLE OFF WHO WERE NICE ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING, BUT CAN STILL TAKE IT BACK!!! There, I feel better now. See what I mean about not pissing them off? If such a loophole does exist, it would be smart to be nice to them and try to persuade, not to denounce and make them feel like yanking the distribution rights back. However, I'm not convinced that such a loophole exists. I'm looking at the Qt license now, and don't see anything like that; could it perhaps be propaganda from the extremists? I think so. Otherwise, kindly point out where in the license this hole exists. I don't see it.
> The only thing standing in the way (as I see it) of KDE being the dominant > desktop for Linux is this persistant, irritating, annoying, pointless > debate over the nature of the Qt libraries. Its a boat anchor that has been > dragged behind KDE for far, far too long. Get it over with, guys.
And just who is it that whines and complains like spoilt children, thus causing "this persistent, irritating, annoying, pointless debate over the nature of the Qt libraries"? It's not the Qt people, and it's not the KDE people, it's a small group of the more zealous folk who refuse to use pragmatism when they've had a perfectly good library handed to them. No one at TrollTech had to make anything free for any use under any license; they were nice enough to let the Linux community, the KDE folks in particular, use their library for free, and for that they get continually villified and crucified here on/. by people who should know better than to bite the hand that feeds it. Because, next time, maybe a company will say "fuck those Linux people, why should we let them use our code when the last people who let them use theirs got raped every five minutes by complaints about not using the GPL; let them write their own stuff." TrollTech has been very nice to the Linux community by giving something of theirs which they had no obligation to give; they deserve to be treated nicely in return. What will make them more likely to GPL Qt, a nice reaction from a bunch of idealists trying to build a software utopia, or constant attacks by crazy zealots trying to cut a swath through the software community like a bunch of Huns sacking Rome? Try to be objective, and see how such behaviour appears to non-FSF types, and you'll realize that more is gotten with honey than with insults.
I respect the FSF and RMS; I agree with 99% of what RMS says. However, I cannot agree that alienating people by attempting to force them to accept the GPL on their own works is a good thing. No matter the ends, no matter how positive, there can be no excuse whatsoever for employing the same sorts of tactics which unscrupulous corporations like Microsoft employ. It is unscrupulous to try to force or coerce or intimidate people into giving up their work; it is commendable to try to educate, to recruit, to the Free Software ideology.
And as for the notion that licensing issues are what keeps KDE from being the dominant desktop, I don't buy it. Most end users, and the majority of the Linux community, aren't hung up so inextricably and single-mindedly on a very minor licensing issue--for all intents and purposes, Qt is good open-source free software. Not Free by the FSF's definition, but free in the more general open-source sense which divides RMS and the zealots from the moderates. In other words, the average user doesn't care about the Qt licensing issue, and the average company which puts together the CDs that those people will install, also doesn't care. And they don't have to care because it's a minor issue, and second for both the average user and the average company to the consideration as to which desktop is easier to use and more productive. That's KDE right now, though that could change with the next GNOME release or two. But, it's silly to think that the licensing issue is really holding KDE back, because it's not--it'll ward off some developers, but they'll have enough to not worry about it; I haven't seen any scarcities yet, have you? And as I said, the end user just wants something which is easy to use. That's what more people around here should keep in mind, because most people around here would like to see Linux become a dominant OS replacing mostly the need for Windows, Netware, etc., not shrink back into obscurity, and the more people engage in holy wars the further away that good future gets. Always remember that in any holy war, there are good people on both sides, and heavy casualties all around.
> I agree with your entire position on Intel, but logically you cannot exempt > AMD from your ire. While they are surely less evil than Intel, they are > still evil for contributing to the continued existence of x86.
Actually, I never said that I personally think x86 is bad, evil, or otherwise undesirable. I used the phrase "since everyone here hates the x86 architecture so much"--and generally they do, but I'm an exception. In a recent post [ http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/29/22272 57&cid=170 ], I argued that x86 is the "open-source ISA" since anyone can use it, while Intel and HP will demand steep royalties for anyone wanting to do IA64 processors. As long as you don't have to code in assembler for it--and few code in assembler these days, anyway--there's nothing wrong with x86 since modern x86 CPUs are really a RISC core with an x86 decoder tacked on, which according to Ars Technica only adds about 1% penalty to the processor's speed. My point was that I find it contradictory that so many people hate x86, but love Intel. People just hate x86 because it's old and ugly as an ISA, but these days it's not such a real-world problem since few people code in hand assembler. ISA is really less important than how efficient the actual RISCy core of a modern CPU is; a 1% speed penalty is really insignificant in exchange for compatibility with the last 20 years worth of x86 apps, and despite people claiming for the last 5 years that x86 is going to hit a performance ceiling "soon", it still hasn't and probably won't for some time.
So, I never said Intel was evil for pushing x86 for so long, I said that it's dumb for people to hate x86 but not fault Intel for creating a better ISA long ago. That leaves AMD in the clear as far as I'm concerned, since I'm glad they're going to extend x86 to 64bits and maintain backwards compatibility and maintain an open, freely usable ISA--putting the next big ISA into Intel's licensing control is a very, very, very dangerous idea--I'll keep incurring that 1% penalty in exchange for keeping an open chip platform, thank you. The reasons Intel is evil include its sloth, especially in keeping the P6 core so long, and its predatory M$ like nature. I congratulate AMD for starting out as having really crappy inferior processors, but making honest and huge leaps with almost every generation, almost every year, while Intel sat on its hands with the P6 core *for 5+ years*. AMD processors are now at least equal to their Intel brethren, and most benchmarks put them at a slight edge now that cache is all on-die, and in price/performance they whomp Intel completely and mercilessly.
> Quality, high-performance workstations from Sun, SGI, and Decompaq can > be had for less than USD 5000
Yes, I agree that the PC architecture is lacking woefully, but the oppenness of that platform is what allowed the Internet boom and Information Age to happen. Cheap commodity hardware that even people who live in trailer parks can afford, but which scales up to performance powerhouses which equal the horsepower (for most applications, but obviously not all) of a RISC unix workstation for a fraction of the price. The sheer brute force and clockspeed of a commodity x86 processor, even on the hobbled buses of the PC platform, make Alphas and Ultrasparcs unnecessory for all but the highest-ed uses. It may take an 800MHz Athlon to get the FP performance of a 400MHz Alpha, but when the Athlon and its mobo are so inexpensive, there's no contest as to which is most useful. Why in God's name would I pay $5000 for a DEC or Sun box which won't run most things any faster than a $2500 x86 box I could build myself? For the elegance? Fuck elegance, give me just as fast for half the price and I'll take x86 ugliness any day. Depending on which processor the DEC or Sparc has, either an Athlon Tbird or SMP P!!!s could get equal performance for between $1600 and $2500 total, not near the $5000 for a non-x86 workstation or server. If you need those big caches, the 500MHz Xeon with 2MB cache goes for between $700 and $900, though for most applications regular P!!!s at higher clockspeed/smaller cache would be better, or a regular 1 GHz Athlon Tbird. Jeezus, one could build a Quad Xeon for less than the price of a typical DEC workstation: mobo $2500, processors P!!! Xeon 733MHz $500 each, add a hard disk and video card to taste. Unfortunately, AMD is still behind with its multiprocessor solutions...
Most PC platform problems could be cured by moving to faster and wider buses, and a Unified Memory Architecture like SGI used on its short-lived line of Wintel workstaions. And, most existing operating systems and the software which run on them would work fine with just a minor OS patch, like the one SGI used to get NT 4.0 to run on its UMA Visual Workstations.
Intel's philosophy is no different from Microsoft's: Embrace, extend, extinguish. I'm just amazed that your typical Microsoft-bashing/.ers aren't Intel bashers, too, because Intel deserves a big ol' can of whoopass opened right by their corporate asses. Let's examine a little...
First off, Intel has been in the process of developing standards for the PC architecture for some time, as well it should. However, they've doing it the same way Microsoft has been "contributing" to Internet standards. For example, they developed AGP up to 4x, which has proven to be very useful; however, rumours are churning out from reputable sources discussing an Intel project to create a successor to AGP 4x, and this successor is to be limited to Intel chipsets and chipsets made by select Intel partners--i.e., anyone who annoys Intel will get left behind. Intel developed PC-100 memory standards--a great service, but...then it refused to develop PC-133 standard or DDR-SDRAM specifications, because of its own interest in RDRAM as a wholesale replacement for all SDRAM.
Many have questioned that Intel has much to gain from Rambus becoming the new standard instead of DDR-SDRAM; after all, contrary to popular belief Intel doesn't completely own Rambus, and their deal with Rambus would only give them compensation in the tens of millions, which isn't much for a company whose revenues are in the billions each year. But what Intel has to gain isn't direct monetary compensation by Rambus, it's *control* over the standards for memory and memory controllers--and the rights to manufacture and license those memory controller technologies. This is exactly what MS did with IE--it didn't directly make a profit by developing a new web browser and bundling it with Windows; it gained market control and the ability to manipulate the Internet protocols so that all its products, from IIS to Frontpage to NT Server and the rest, had an advantage of guaranteed interoperability and increased functionality over competing products.
Intel wants to do the same with RDRAM and its new IA64 architecture, and its new forays into the emerging appliance market. Intel will make royalties on all chipsets which support RDRAM. Intel will make direct profits on its IA64 processors and has probably been hoping to licence the ISA to competitors once x86 plateaus. Intel has purchased the StronARM and other embedded/appliance hardware companies, hoping to leverage its market dominance to push it into every area. And, let's not forget that they tried and tried and tried to force their way into the graphics market, but failed there due to too-short product cycles and competitors with much more graphics experience.
It's clear that Intel wants to be the Microsoft of the hardware world. If they leverage enough tech patents on all fronts, they can force use of their products in the same unfair ways Microsoft leveraged itself into every crevice: big OEMs unable to get the best prices on Intel desktop processors unless they agree to use StrongARM in their embedded/appliance products instead of Transmeta or MIPS, or unable to get hold of ahort-supplied IA64 for workstations/servers unless they use P4 in their desktops, VIA unable to make the most advanced RDRAM chipsets unless they cut back on DDR or agree not to pursue QDR, etc. Don't think it won't happen, even with M$ as an example: there are many sneaky, below-the-board ways to hint at such matters without bluntly making demands.
And, since everyone here hates the x86 architecture so much, why the Hell are so many/.ers such big Intel fans? They're the companywhich kept pushing x86 for decades instead of developing something new and improved and more RISCy, so why so many Intel apologists and AMD naysayers? After all, as good and serviceable as the P6 core was, it didn't deserve to stay in service for 5+ years. AMD may have been a dog back then, but at least it made radical improvements with almost every product cycle; Intel just wasn't trying at all. And look at the disaster which is the new Celeron/Culeron: it may be overclockable to 900MHz easily, but because of the set associativity lost by savagely destroying half the cache like Huns sacking Rome, it barely rivals a P!!! 700MHz and gets blown away by a lower-clocked Duron too--and the Duron is also very OCable. Intel is being just as evil as M4.
Younger people have always been more in-touch with contemporary times than older people. New technologies are always emerging. Social norms are always changing. And, always, the people most able to embrace new technologies, new social norms, new ways of life, are the young.
Young people make their own worlds as they grow up, forging thier own moral and social views (sometimes similar to their parents', sometimes radically different), experimenting with new things and not being afraid to try something new or different. Older people, though, are already set in their ways, they already have lifestyles, morals, and recreations based on the things they discovered when they themselves were young. The world changes, but usually, adults don't change much at all. I'm only 23, and already I find myself annoyed whenever things I really liked are changing; I can only imagine how people in their forties must feel, since the world has moved forward 20 years since they reached adulthood and started getting their own ideals set.
The young have always been a force of change, both technological and social, while the old have always been a force of stagnation. Look at Henry Ford as an example: in his younger years he revolutionalized not just the auto industry, but every industry, by popularizing the notion of putting together standardized parts on assembly lines to drastically reduce costs over those of one-off manufacturing. And then as he got older he foolishly kept pushing the Model T even after newer, bigger, faster cars were becoming popular, and would have ruined his company if his advisors and family hadn't dissuaded him from bringing back a simplistic Model T like car in the thirties.
That's just the way it's worked, probably for the whole of history. You see it at work everywhere: in the 1950s older people instituted censorship of comic books because they had cartoonish gore, yet today the same mild gore which was prohibited in the 1950s has become a staple of comics and few older people care, because the older people of today were the children of the 50s who grew up wanting to see that comic violence which their parents thought was so bad. Elvis was considered positively satanic early in his career, because older folk thought his hip swaggering walk was sinfully provocative, yet today people don't complain about hip movements at concerts they complain about Marilyn Manson and a bandmate having oral sex on stage.
Technology is no different in that respect than forces of social or political liberalism. Older people get along just fine knowing little about computers; they have no reason to learn, they've already developed their own careers and hobbies. Thus more young people getting deeply into computers than adults who do so. Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo!, and most of the other companies which have been instrumental in bringing the personal computing and Internet revolutions to the masses, were founded by young people in their twenties or teens. The Information Age is a revolutionary thing, and revolution is the pursuit mostly of the young. Old people and companies have established ways and markets, and don't want change--thus the RIAA vs. Napster mess, the MPAA vs. DeCSS affair, and the USPTO's complete inability to handle Net-related patent claims in a reasonable manner. They're just old and out of touch, and it's time to get rid of their outdated foolishness. But, I digres...;-)
> I think it is unfortunate but I don't believe that the younger generation > has much incentive to look under the hood. With the lack of interest in Computer > Science that colleges are seeing as of late, I can imagine that the population > that understands how things work, how to make them work, and how to fix them > when they are broken is getting smaller and smaller.
I don't really see it that way. You're right that it appears that fewer people are interested in CS degrees lately, but there are really at least 2 good reasons for this.
To begin with, computers are being so thoroughly integrated into all disciplines in college and high school and elementary school that there's less need to take any computer courses at all in order to be able to understand them fairly well and use them proficiently. In college, for example, pretty much all students have to use computers in order to do their papers for any given class, and while that doesn't require more than basic knowledge of how to use a word processing program, it gets people to use computers from day 1 even if they've never before touched them. E-mail is just as pervasive and, on campus, usually requires a bit more know-how than just starting Word: my first experience with computers was my first week at college, when we went to the Computing Center in groups to learn the basics of telnetting to our campus VAX and logging in to our new accounts. Many schools now include the cost of a laptop or PC in first-year's tuition, like mine now does, and that gives all students at least a fair familiarity with computer use. Just being around computers for those two functions will give most users a slow but steady learning curve into how to use a computer, and when people learn about all the cool games and video clips you can play on a PC or Mac it usually makes them learn enough to get around fairly well. But if you expect them to learn CLI beyond maybe telnet, you're dreaming, because it's becoming obsolete for all but programmers and old-school "power users".
But it's going to be increasingly rare for college freshmen to need to learn these things, since computer labs are commonplace in high schools, and even in many classrooms. I was shocked the other day to run into an ex-neighbor who became a fifth-grade teacher--she told me that she had three iMacs and two G3s in her classroom, and lesson plans for the students to learn the basics of navigating a GUI and using educational games and an encyclopaedia program. Not bad for elementary education; beats the hell out of the one Apple ][c we had in my elementary classrooms, running useless LOGO...
Of course, what you're specifically referring to is CS type people who know all the inner workings and would be comfortable if dropped to a command prompt in Linux or maybe even VMS. But as computers with high-level user interfaces permeate other disciplines, and the general school and home experience, there is quite frankly less need for such people. The average person will know enough to do all of the things he really wants to do, like e-mail and websurf and maybe get in a few rounds of Q3, but there is zero reason for him to *need* to know how to tinker under the hood. That isn't bad, it's just fine. Not everyone needs or wants to know how everything works, and I think that's a problem with some slashdotters: they think people should have to or want to learn what works a machine, when in reality all most of them need to do is learn to use the Win32 or MacOS shell. That's why we call these people "end users"--they use the end result of programmers' hours of toiling, toiling which is done so that end users can do thing quickly and easily. It's not laziness on behalf of the average person which keeps them from learning something like the Linux CLI--it's the fact that they prefer to do other things with their time, to use software with virtually no learning curve because it allows them to have all the benefits of computers with none of the time-consuming in-depth stuff which they really don't need to know to perform the few basic tasks they ever will need a computer to do.
I think there was an upswing in CS enrollment in the 90s because of the perception that computers were the future, high-tech CS jobs would pay very well, and that the emerging Net was cool and by learning CS you'd learn more about it. But after that brief surge we're returning to a more level state of growth commensurate with the fact that you don't need a CS degree to operate a computer, just to program for one. The population of people who "know how to fix" computers isn't getting smaller, it's just settling into a post-boom level, while the number of computer users in general continues to increase.
I've always been amazed by the shortsightedness and selfishness of people who think that raising the MHz bar every month or two is a bad thing. They usually think it's a bad thing precisely because they're the type of person who wants to have the top-of-the-line processor, and when the speed bump comes they no longer have a supreme God Box. That's the reality of the situation, because NO ONE LOSES when processor speeds increase.
After all, processors are commodities whose values are expected to fall fairly quickly; they're not investments, they're tools, tools which are always being improved upon. No one ever says, "I wish they would stop making racing cars faster. I mean, it's absurd adding more horsepower and speed, when 120MPH is fast enough for anyone. They should just race around with that as the top speed, or they should invent new engine technologies to push performance up, they shouldn't tweak existing engine technologies to go faster." That's how absurd the argument that processor speeds should be limited is: it makes no sense, at least for the consumer. No one's use of Photoshop or Quake 3 or Premiere or compiling the Linux kernel was ever slowed down by monthly speedups in processor speed. You're no longer the fastest, but unless you're a complete jerk who has to compensate for small penis size or low self esteem by engaging in a Geek pissing contest about who has the fastest processor, it doesn't hurt you. And if you are that jerk, get a fucking life and a clue because there's more to life than bragging rights and there's more to a fast/useful system than just the CPU. And BTW, now that cache is integrated on-die in all new processor families, speed scales pretty linearly and reasonably with incremental MHz increases; the only exception is the dumbass Celeron on its starved 66MHz bus; but the P!!! at 133MHz FSB is good, and the Athlon or Duron with 200MHz effective EV6 bus isn't being starved for data and won't be for some time, as long as you have 133MHz or greater memory and a decent disk subsystem. Which isn't unreasonable, since PC-133 memory is about as cheap as PC-100 and can often be pushed up to 143MHz and sometimes 150MHz if you buy from the best manufacturers (look at the memory comparisons on Anandtech).
The only people faster processor speeds hurt is Intel and the big OEMs, and we should lose no sleep over that. AMD has, in part, made its progress based on not just better design but faster processors; being the first out at most major speed grades has given them prestige they wouldn't had if they'd stuck to slower speed grades. Pushing the MHz envelope has helped AMD's reputation. Keeping up with AMD has hurt Intel's pocketbook. And the large OEMs like Compaq and Dell and HP, they get hurt because they buy massive quantities of CPUs ahgead of time, for building crappy integrated systems on bulk assembly lines--which is good for smaller screwdriver shops, who buy fewer CPUs at a time and buy less far in advance, thus helping the small guy relative to the big corporations. Who can complain about that? Especially on Slashdot, where we mostly like the underdog and the little guy rather than the corporate empire.
Plus, in the long run, speed bumps are great for us consumers. I'm still using an old 400MHz box, ancient by today's standards, but I look at the long term and realize that every speed grade I fall behind is one I will gain when I can afford to upgrade. I think it's wonderful that early next year I will be able to afford a 1GHz or faster Athlon. I cannot complain in the least, and without the incremental speed bumps we end users would never be able to afford such a beast so soon.
The OEMs saying nay to an 800MHz Xeon is good for them, but bad for consumers. It helps them maintain value for their slower MHz Xeon systems, but does nothing for the advancement of consumer interests. Not that Xeons have much use for the average consumer, since only wealthy consumers and, more likely, businesses have use for the Xeon's big selling point, 4-way SMP. But businesses and Net companies who could have used the extra horsepower would have benefitted a little by the speed bump. The one caveat is that I doubt the relatively old Intel bus could handle 4-way SMP at 800MHz very efficiently, anyway, but that's a bus issue and not strictly a processor issue, since the other selling point of the Xeon was always its integrated L2 even when other P!!!s didn't have L2 cache integration. Also, the advantage for consumers would be the lowering in price of slower Xeons. At any rate, processor speed increases are nothing for users to complain about, now that L2 is integrated and bus speeds on high end processors are reasonable and the main bottlenecks are memory and disk subsystems, which aren't the responsibility of Intel or AMD. Make Seagate make faster hard disks, and make Micron hurry up with DDR-SDRAM, but it's just plain silly to complain about faster processors and lower prices.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the info. I've been wanting to switch over to Linux for over a year now, but two things have kept me back: ease of use (I like GUIliciousness, and can't stand too many command lines), and the lack of easily available and easy to use security programmes which can replace all the functionality of those I use in Windoz. Thankfully, both issues seem to be being addressed increasingly well, and maybe next year I can take the final plunge. :-)
> I'm not a data recovery expert, but wouldn't a random sequence of bits written between
> each step of writing the specified sequential pattern of bits make it harder to
> establish physical patterns during data recovery?
The point of using specified patterns when wiping is so that those patterns will have the combined effect of completely obliterating the magnetic signature of any stored data. That's why certain patterns are mathematically thought to have a much more useful effect in the secure deletion of files than just using random data.
Think about it this way; the following parallel isn't accurate as to the exact process, but should illustrate the same methodology: You have a few lines of text written on a sheet of paper, and you wish to render them unreadable even to very close examination. (Obviously you'd burn the paper, but for the sake of example assume we have to keep the paper.) Now, what would be most effective in destroying your writing, randomly scribbling over each character, or carefully writing successive patterns of other letters over the existing ones in order to methodically obliterate them? A simplistic analogy, but that's the easiest way to grok it. I doubt 100 passes of random data could be as effective as 35-pass Guttmann wiping.
*Link to GPL'd Source Code Below*!
l .html
The DOD standard you and others mention specifies a specific set of patterns to be used for each pass, in order to maximize the chances of making the data unrecoverable. It's specified in DOD 5220.22-M and generally referred to as "DOD standard 7-pass extended character rotation wiping," which is quite a mouthful.
Sami Tolvanen has done some excellent research into the area, however, and at
http://www.tolvanen.com/eraser/
he goes into specifics, including scientific papers and providing links to the actual text of the DOD standard. He also provides a Windows binary for download and *GPL'd SOURCE CODE*, for a program he wrote called Eraser which is probably the best file shredding util out there. He concludes, based in part on a scientific paper at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/secure_de
that the DOD standard is outdated, and that the best answer is to use 35-pass "Gutmann shredding" using passes of specific characters as suggested by Dr. Gutmann in his paper linked above.
Maybe some people should start porting Eraser to Linux, nudge-nudge wink-wink hint-hint.
> If you want to clutter up your root directory, be my guest, but don't try to argue
> that having the ability to keep your files in your own space is a hardship.
And when did I argue that? You are being such a stubborn dolt about the whole matter. I was clearly, clearly, *clearly* speaking about the directory structures on a single-user or single-profile system, not a shared server or multi-user workstation. Of course you *always* have the choice of keeping files "in your own space," or whatever. But, the Windows dirctory structure is simply easier to customize, that's what I was arguing. Try getting rid of some of the "customary" directories on a Linux box, and see how well installations and general use go. Why do programmes on Linux scatter stuff here, there, everywhere, so that getting rid of or moving one of the standard dirs will confuse many install routines and fuck stuff up? Contrast this with Windows, where the only root directory you need to keep around is \Windows, and even then you can call it something else during installation and it will still work well with most install routines and in general day to day operation. All I ever argued is that the Windows dir structure makes more sense than all the obscure mostly-three-lettered dir names in Linux, and that customizability makes sense. I don't understand how so many Linux users like to customize window managers and desktops, and tweak everything--*except* the directory structure. People complain like hell whenever a distro places something in a nonstandard place, and talk about how it breaks this or that. Well, in Windows that just doesn't happen. Things don't break if you tank \My Documents or change the location of \Windows\Temp to just C:\Temp, or if you install all your apps into subdirectories of a root folder called \Apps instead of \Program Files. Changing a few registry settings can even change locations of system folders inside \Windows without breaking anything.
That is all I was arguing, along with the fact that customization of directory structure is good and helps productivity when done right. But if you say *anything* contrary to the party line around here, you instantly get suspected of trolling, just as you accused me in your first reply to my post. You immediately came at it from the perspective of a sysadmin, not an end user, despite the fact that I was obviously talking about the experience and needs of end users. This just highlights the sad state of affairs which is preventing Linux from capturing the desktop/workstation market from MS. Linux coders, for the most part, write stuff that experienced Linux users like--stuff with command lines and text configuration, or graphical proggies with complicated menus. That's fine, unless of course you'd like Windoze and Mac people to start switching over to Linux. Linux will never, ever, beat MS on the desktop unless most coders start thinking like end users. And, if MS continues to win on the desktop, it'll also start retaking the server market, since Windows Server will be able to provide "extras" for those running Windows Consumer/Workstation, and because thin clients will be able to run sessions on Windows Server complete with all the point-and-click ease and customizability that a Windows desktop OS offers. MS's ultimate vision would be to have users everwhere log in to ASPs through fat pipes, and be running almost their whole desktop remotely, transparently, so it looks just like a real OS is there on your thin-client "computer." I don't want that to happen, but the only way it won't happen is if Linux or another OS steps up and provides a nice friendly easy-as-Windoze-or-Mac experience. But I don't see Linux moving there, because Linux coders are not thinking like end users, as your own attitude proves. I hope things change, and that Linux developers start developing apps and an easier to use OS which will provide for the requirements of end users; if they don't, Windows *will* win, and we don't want that to happen.
Come on, the whole concept of symlinks to do this sort of customization is a clumsy hack. Why would you symlink to things, instead of just putting them in the structure you want them in in the first place? So, that just creates a *more* confusing file structure than anything Windows does. A link to a folder here, and then the real folder there. Bah. Messy, messy, messy. Just put the files where they belong in the first place, if you're not on a multiple user machine.
I repeat, the next consumer release of Windows will be a merging of the Win2K and WinME codebases, as will the next workstation release. Now, there are 2 possibilities: either there'll be a separate "home" and "professional" version for each segment, or there will be a home/workstation combined purpose release. In either event, I'd be willing to wager heavily that the directory structure of the next consumer release of Windows will be based on the Win9x/ME dir structure.
Now a little bit of analysis will let you realize that it's most economically feasible for MS to release one version for both home and workstation, and it also fits well with their overall strategy. It's most economically feasible because they can make one disc design and one packaging design instead of two, cutting down production costs. Further, they can price the new OS higher than the current consumer release of WinME, but lower than the current workstation release of Win2K Pro, and still be making as much or more money as they would by having the 2 price points due to the increased/combined volume; the bean counters will doubtless come up with the perfect compromise figure to maximize profitability. Also, bringing the stability (relative to Win9x, that is) of Win2K to the home user, but keeping a separate corporate workstation version, wouldn't make sense because many businesses would just purchase the cheaper consumer version.
As for it fitting within their overall strategy to do so, both MS's continued PR and leaked builds confirm that the merging of Win2K/WinME is going on; but, MS is pushing server-centric computing, and for that there's going to be, of course, the Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server versions of the next-gen Windows OS. For the corporate desktop, MS will push client/server business models based around the Server family of Windows OSes executing all apps remotely for thin clients. THAT is what will satisfy sysadmins, and corporate IT gurus, and make it damn near impossible for a schmuck who doesn't know what he's doing to hose the system. Forget the outdated notion you mentioned of sysadmins imaging standardized workstation setups for fat-client workstation computers: it'll be dead within a few years. Thin-client solutions are more cost effective for almost all workstation needs; the remaining sorts of workstation users, who will require fat clients with local processing power, will be power-users who can be expected to customize their machines and tweak their systems to fit their own needs. Non-power-users will just get thin clients plugged into powerful iron. It makes more sense for MS to do this, too, because they can raise the price of Server licenses and seat licenses in order to offset the lessened sales of the workstation release--and they won't even have to stamp CDs and box them, just sell electronically transferrable licenses. I like this idea for business use: it lowers IT costs. But I dread the push for server-centric computing at home, because remotely-hosted apps and files means software is less free and privacy is nonexistent.
So, think ahead, the landscape is changing, and like I said, it makes more sense for the next consumer/fat-workstation release of Windows to have a dir structure like that in Win9x, while most actual corporate workstations will be thin clients with Windows Server taking the lead and reducing IT costs. Not that I don't want Linux to succeed there, mind you, it's just that we were talking specifically about Windows.
Why do so many of the more zealous people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is trolling?
> Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents
Most Windows users do not use Win2K. Most Windows users, especially end users, use Win9x/ME, and that has the dir structure I outlined. When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer. So my point stands and I'll ignore your tangential argument about the NT/2K dir structure, which I repeat will probably be replaced in the next release with a more consumer friendly 9x style since it will be intended for home users too.
> And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system?
No, because I am an end user and not a systems administrator. I don't need to do a damned thing remotely, like 99% of computer users. Don't assume that the average user does stuff like that, they don't, so it's a pointless argument. While I do have more knowledge than the *average* user, and less than an *average sysadmin*, at least I know enough to make arguments and points that are useful and relevant to a discussion about how OSes work for the vast majority of people. The vast majority find the Linux directory structure confusing and too restrictive, with the Windows system making much more sense.
> Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications
Poorly coded ones, I'm sure, however any third party apps made by *real* developers work fine. I did once try that; for fun I installed Win95 on my laptop in a directory called FuckingUseless.
> Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad.
I repeat, start thinking like a user, not like a developer. What percentage of Windows machines used as either workstations or home computers are single-user? I'd bet the vast, vast majority are, in which case customizing the directory structure is fine. Not just fine: PRODUCTIVE. I get things done much faster when the PC is set up with the directories how I like them. And since most Windows boxen are single-user, this means that it's a great feature. Stop thinking like an admin, start thinking like a user.
> I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single
> user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made
No no no no no no no. You don't seem to understand that I'm talking about workstations and home computers, not servers and shared corporate machines. This is the fundamental problem with a faction in the Linux community: some people refuse to start looking at how Linux needs to evolve in order to replace Windows both at the workstation and the home computer levels. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and I'm not a troll. I use MS operating systems because, for a GUI user like me, who also likes easier-to-use Windows-style apps, I can get things done faster and more efficiently in Windows even when I factor in a daily crash. I don't expect the Linux community to make things more like Windows in order to cater to my personal needs, but the *fact* remains that if you ever want to replace Windows, if you ever want to eradicate MS both from the corporate and home desktops, you have to start thinking about what non-geek and even windoze-geek and mac-geek end users want: ease of use. We don't care about how it works well in a milti-user setup, because most users use single-user workstations and home PCs. MS understands this, and as long as Linux geeks want to continue to write for Linux geeks while ignoring the mass of users, MS will always dominate. I don't want it to, but that's the way it is.
Do a search on pgpi.org for free versions of PGP for the Mac which contain PGPdisk. PGPdisk was included in the free/international versions up to, I believe, 6.02. Personally, I use the Windows version of 6.02ckt which contains PGPdisk even though it's free--and the newer versions add no actual functionality over the 6.02 series, either; in fact, PGP hasn't changed all that much since 5.5 or so. I have a friend who also uses Macs, and we encrypt all our e-mails to one another, and I pointed him to pgpi.org where he got just what I was talking about: Mac binaries with PGPdisk included.
There's zero chance that I'd trust the U.S. companies to have not made deals with the NSA/FBI/CIA triad, especially if they've been exporting crypto even before the relaxation of export restrictions. It was common practice for the NSA to send a man around to U.S. crypto vendors hinting that if they'd make a few changes to the code here, or alter the S-Box there, they'd get an export license for their 128-bit etc. product.
Granted, there are a few noteworthy cases of the U.S. tainting foreign crypto vendors, like the Crypto AG fiasco in which the Swiss(?) firm inserted a back door which allowed the U.S. access to messages encrypted with their very, very expensive hardware crypto devices. But I'd still trust a European vendor over an American one, though these days the important thing is having access to the source code.
For example, why use a PGP binary provided by Network Associates when you could either download the full-strength PGPi version from overseas, or better yet if you actually know your code you could dload the source and compile it yourself. Getting a binary from an American company just adds one more layer of uncertainty to the mix.
My favorite product for disk encryption is a perfect example. There are many American companies which offer encryption utilities, but why use one of those when I can download Scramdisk from www.scramdisk.clara.net along with the source code? It isn't GPL, but the source is still available for inspection and for personal use. Scramdisk comes from Britain, whose own crypto regulations are getting insane, but still Britain doesn't have the same long tradition of sabotaging their own domestically produced crypto products, as well as international ones, that the U.S. does.
Buying U.S. crypto, unless you have access to the source code and the skills to verify it, is just asking for trouble.
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that), a \Program Files folder for applications, a \Recycle Bin for trashed files, and a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
;-)
/usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
But the most important thing about Windows is that you don't even have to use its directory structure at all. You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want--and because the information about which folder does what is stored in the Registry, almost all installation routines will still work properly, and if they don't automatically pick the right folder a few clicks will point them to the right one.
Of course, there's little reason to completely change most system folder names, but the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." For example, my root directory looks like this:
Desktop - I like to use an open folder for my main workspace, and keep the "real desktop" clear.
Downloads - I put all my downloaded stuff here, subdivided into \Documents \Installers \Icons \Pictures and several other types.
Games - All my game programs, because I prefer them separate from the rest of my apps and adding them to a subdir in \Program Files doesn't seem as useful as giving them their own dir.
Girls - Well, pictures of girls, mostly porn, further subdirectoried into \Amateurs \Bestiality \BJs \Bondage \Cartoons \Cheerleaders \Facials, and many others.
MP3s - Since I have so many, and use them so often, they deserve their own root folder instead of being in Downloads.
My Documents- I use this folder only for documents I myself write and pictures and mpegs I myself scan and capture, not for all user stuff.
Program Files- Duh, all the non-game programs
Temp - I prefer my Temp dir in the root of the drive, not in \Windows, so I changed it.
Toolbars - I use two big toolbars on my desktop, which is one of the reasons I work in a window called Desktop instead of putting documents and icons and shortcuts on the real desktop--the Left and Right toolbars list all the shortcuts I ever use, and put everything just 1-click away. So, the folders full of shortcuts which I use in the toolbars are here.
Windows - The system files.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. And what the Hell is up with
As for your question about how the directory structure under C:\Progam Files\ should be, the answer is "whatever you like it to be." I find it amusing how Linux users like to be able to customize their window managers and desktops, but say woe to the man who customizes his directory structure... Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or anything, I'm just saying that Windows *does* make sense in its directory structure, more so than Linux because customizing that structure is easy and you aren't expected to always stay within a rigid hierarchy. For example, in my ow \Program Files directory, I subdivide by type of application, like \CD Burners \Compression \DVD Utils \Graphics \HTML Editors \Internet \Office Apps \System Utils and a few other directories. It makes perfect sense and makes me able to navigate quickly and easily.
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
> MS have hardly been pushing Java or J++ for over a year now
:-)
Strictly speaking, you're right in that they haven't been actively pushing it for developers, but look at how many times Java is mentioned in a typical Win2K press release. "Best platform for Java" "best platform for developing and deploying Java based applications" etc. etc. I think at last count the number of times Java is mentioned in Win2K resources almost outnumbers the bugs in Win2K.
MS has proven yet again that they can't be trusted, that they either change their corporate mind or obfuscate their strategy well. You'd think that Java were the center of the computer world in the coming century from looking at what they themselves gave as rationale for extending it with their own add-ons.
Is it just me, or does this whole C# thing seem especially brutal considering the fact that MS was, right up to the very announcement of C#, pushing Java and especially their own bastardized version of it? Let's see: MS takes a semi-open standard invented and managed by arch-nemesis Sun, breaks it through alteration, fights a bitter court battle over the right to "innovate" on what Sun intended to be a cross-platform and uniform thing, succeeds in court and succeeds in screwing Java up with "improvements" which of course benefit mostly MS's own products, and then...as a grand finale...they drop Java like a hot potato, without warning, in favor of their own proprietary C# which will surely tilt the balance of power even further into MS's grasp?
I think that pretty much sums it up. The anti-trust case must be ruled on and upheld as soon as possible, or else we're all royally fscked. Microsoft.NET is looking more and more like a dystopian corporate-controlled world worse than those in cyberpunk scifi. Imagine a world in which software firms buy pricey MS toolkits to develop in an MS language for a yearly-licensed MS operating system which is seamlessly integrated into the MS.Network, which provides monthly-licensed access to programmes you don't own executed by machines which MS does own filled with files we own but won't be able to access unless we keep paying for monthly MS.NET accounts. That is the future MS wants, a future in which we don't own good hardware or software or the tools necessary to develop for the leading platform, but instead we own WebTerms melded to MS.NET which rents us all our applications and Internet access, hosts all our files remotely, and locks us in forever.
Okay, here's a point of view that's been rarely expressed here, but here goes: font antialiasing is a crufty outdated process which isn't really very useful on today's monitors.
Antialiasing of fonts was invented because screens had fairly low resolution and so fonts looked jagged compared to typefaces in the real world, like books and magazines. Also, unlike black typeface on white paper, computer programs and Web pages used some interesting background and font colors, which could be visually jarring in their contrast. Solution: Blend the edges of fonts into the surrounding background color, and the fonts were more pleasing to the eye both because jaggies got eliminated and because the color gradient made the color transition between font and background less jarring.
Fast forward to today, and 15 inch monitors capable of 1024 by 768 are the minimal norm, and 17 inch monitors capable of 1600 by 1200 are fast becoming commonplace. So, the problem with jaggies is no longer a problem at all. The problem with visually jarring combinations of color is no longer a problem, either, because people are as used to Web and application colors as they are to standard black-on-white printing.
Font antialiasing becomes useless unless you're going to be running at very low resolutions. Otherwise, it just makes the text look more hazy and less well defined, which puts more strain on the eyes. It also impacts system performance: I noticed a significant speed boost in Explorer responsiveness when turning anti-aliasing off in Win98 on a K6-2 400. Anti-aliasing is great for games and graphics displayed at fairly low resolutions, but on the modern desktop of a contemporary OS it is unneeded and impacts system performance negatively.
I'm constantly amazed at the number of posters on /. whose answer to everything is open sourcing something. I have nothing but respect for both open source and Free Software, but realism dictates that open sourcing one of the few applications that Corel actually manages to sell decent volume of, "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture."
The problem is, Corel isn't a Linux company. Tack on a "yet" to that last sentence if you believe, as many do, that Corel will be making Linux a topmost priority. Corel is a Windows applications company, and in the Windows world, the idea of open source or Free Software hasn't taken hold yet. Few in the Windows world, for instance, would pay for WordPerfect Office Suite if they could download it for free, while in the Linux world there are many people who would purchase their favorite distro in a boxed set even after they've downloaded it. Windows users are too used to having to pay ungodly high prices for every piece of software they own, to give much thought on how to compensate a company which has just given them something free. Software is still very much a commodity, a good to be purchased, to a typical Windows user--if you don't make him either go to the store and buy it, or enter a credit card # for a paid download, but instead let him freely download something, you're not going to get any money even if he uses it every day.
As for businesses, they wouldn't pay for a WordPerfect Office Suite which they could get for free, either. Unlike Linux companies as service companies, Corel wouldn't have any services to offer--office applications are pretty damned straightforward; there's little configuration to be done, and even a clueless newbie can figure out a word processing proggie in record time. In other words, Corel would have no source of revenue from WordPerfect Office, whereas now they have a small-compared-to-MS Office but still very tangible cashflow from it.
Netscape/Mozilla was another matter, entirely--there was essentially little choice but to open source the browser, since Microsoft was now giving one away for free and very, very few people were buying Netscape any more. Therefore it made economic sense to give away what you couldn't sell, anyway.
While it would be nice if Corel would open source WordPerfect, and it would benefit both the Linux community and all users in general (MS Office sales would start taking a huge dent, yay!), it wouldn't be in Corel's best interest to do it, and so there's zero chance of it happening unless Corel gets bought out by a *real* Linux company.
On a side note, I applaud Corel for their attempts to make a Linux distro easy enough for a Windows user to transition to, but they made things damned complicated in order to do it. I installed Corel Linux 1.0, and when I couldn't even get X to load in standard SVGA mode, I decided to just uninstall it. That worked, but left their customized version of LILO in the boot sector, the fancy graphical menu version Corel made, and it hung my machine when it realized that Linux was no longer there. I couldn't boot the damned thing at all, and no keystrokes in the world could bypass the thing. Finally I had to install Mandrake 6.1, whose own normal copy of LILO bypassed Corel's monstrosity, and then my system could boot again. Corel, be careful until you have more Linux experience...
Licensing broadcast media makes sense because, and was originally done because, there's a limited amount of broadcast frequency available and because broadcasting effectively travels across everyone else's property.
Not so of web broadcasts--there's an effectively unlimited number of frequencies (URLs) and bandwidth is plentiful. The two rationales for licensing streaming content are therefore censorship and taxation.
As for taxation, I don't know how it is in Australia (can someone from Down Under inform us?), but here in the U.S. we don't even tax traditional broadcasters much for the frequencies they use--it's always annoyed me that the airwaves in the U.S. are practically given away to large corporations, when they should be rented by the government at a fair market value instead. But instead of taxing the corporations in this country, we tax the people... blech...
Censorship is of course the biggest issue here, and probably the one which most excites the Australian government. It amazes me that the same country which used to fairly often publish pictures of naked 16 year olds in the Australian version of Playboy, now restricts tightly even mildly sexual content on web sites, not to mention mere stories and text. Western cultures and societies have to start moving towards less censorship and more understanding of different viewpoints and their value, or endure a tyranny of the majority which will stamp out all individuality and turn us into something from an Orwell novel. Regulating Net video streams may not seem a step in this direction, but it is. Restricting violent video games, as a story from earlier today says Canada is doing, doesn't seem a step in this direction, but it is. Things which are personally offensive must be tolerated, if for no other reason than that each of us likes something or another that someone else will find offensive, and if we each got the government to censor what we don't like, nothing unique would be left uncensored.
That's why it bothers me so much when Australians censor sex, violence, and drugs on the Net, when Americans censor sex on TV and everywhere else, and when Europeans censor even unrealistic violence, when France censors opinions about WWII and even WWII relics, and when Canadians censor books and magazines about homosexuality. What kind of a Western Civilization does that leave us with? What kind of a future can we look forward to, when "global culture" emerges full of the censorships and biases of each country melded into one seamless McDonaldsization of mediocre sameness? We have to start working extra hard to make sure we emphasize our rights and freedoms, not our selfish desire to censor, because we're living in times when those very rights are in flux thanks to new media.
If such a thing were ever to happen, or even if a commercial S/NES, N64, Genesis, etc., emulator were to hit store shelves, then the game companies would kill off the whole semi-legit side of emulation. As it stands now, there are many websites which have been around for over a year, which are the center of the emulation scene. Some of these sites literally have tens of thousands of ROMS for download, everything from early 80s arcade games to Nes and Genesis to 90s NeoGeo stuff. And as of yet, no one except for the N64 emulator people (N64 is too recent--still being sold--so Nintendo cares about preventing ROM download) and Bleem! have been hit by the game companies.
But if a widely sold commercial product offered to play these ROMs, Nintendo and Sega and SNK and the rest would sick the lawyers. It would be a horrible bloodbath, since using emulators is legal but offering ROMs for download isn't. I hope no one ever, ever, tries that.
I mean, this is surprising. I've heard tales of people in like, jungles and stuff, who used paper, but I didn't think it happened here in our own country. Is paper expensive now that e-communication is the standard? Does it have to be imported from Brazil or something? I've heard that Cuban paper is the best paper in the world, but because of the embargo...
:-) Not a troll, just a bit of humor...hehe.
It's great that so many old arcade games are being preserved in ROM images and played by programs like MAME and Retrocade. I'm especially glad that the companies who own these old games haven't come down hard on the ROM sites, at least not yet. Even though the games are effectively no longer marketable, the companies involved could still throw a fit and destroy the top ROM sites, because unlike the warez scene the emulation scene tends to try to stay open and above-board; they just want to be able to freely use old games which are more useful to nostalgics like us than to the game companies themselves.
This is one of the big reasons that copyright law needs to be changed back to something like its original shorter terms, instead of this bullshit corporate agenda of "life of the creator plus 100 years." This is especially true in the information age, when things get out of date very quickly and the media we use doesn't last very long. Books can exist for a thousand years if stored in a dry place, but the boards used by old arcade machines are more likely to last 10-20 years unless they're stored extremely well and even then there can be damage from the board just getting burned out--that's why it was so important for the emulation scene to get these ROMs into a digital, downloadable format and distribute them to as many sources as possible. But to do that, they had to break copyright law, over something which isn't very marketable anyway. Arcade collections for the PC put out by authorized companies only contain three or four games which were unusually popular in their day, but if it weren't for the emulation scene 99% of the arcade games, part of our history, would probably have ended up disappearing forever.
There are currently several sites which are all very big and carry tens of thousands of ROMs, but with a few cease and desist orders they could disappear. I'd name my favorite one, but I don't want to lead the corporate lawyers who doubtless read Slashdot to their door, especially since Microsoft of all companies has a couple of arcade-derived collections. The corporate, abusive extension of copyright terms has to stop, or else we may lose other digital artifacts, not just video games.
And as a final note, MAME plays far more games, but Retrocade plays over 100 games with the slickest UI you could ever slap onto an emulator, it's just unfuckingbelieveably cool. Check it out.
When was the last time you heard of anyone being prosecuted for copying KDE? Last I heard KDE was on this here CD-ROM I got free in a magazine. And oh, I see KDE on this here FTP server.
Tell me exactly how it is that KDE is illegal to copy, and how it is that TrollTech has been forcing KDE sites to be taken down. Tell me about all the people who are4 being sued by TrollTech for hosting/distributing/copying KDE. Then, tell me when you've grown up. If TrollTech's license has such a big hole in it, then it's really very smart of the Linux crowd to start annoying them by denouncing them and their license, now isn't it? Brilliant strategy: anger the people who can start destroying all Linux useage of Qt, if that hole does indeed exist. that's a much better strategy than being nice to them and not denouncing them and pissing them off. Nothing personal, don't take this as an insult or flame or flamebait, but I must scream now or my head will explode...MORONS! IT'S NOT SMART TO PISS PEOPLE OFF WHO WERE NICE ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING, BUT CAN STILL TAKE IT BACK!!! There, I feel better now. See what I mean about not pissing them off? If such a loophole does exist, it would be smart to be nice to them and try to persuade, not to denounce and make them feel like yanking the distribution rights back. However, I'm not convinced that such a loophole exists. I'm looking at the Qt license now, and don't see anything like that; could it perhaps be propaganda from the extremists? I think so. Otherwise, kindly point out where in the license this hole exists. I don't see it.
> The only thing standing in the way (as I see it) of KDE being the dominant
/. by people who should know better than to bite the hand that feeds it. Because, next time, maybe a company will say "fuck those Linux people, why should we let them use our code when the last people who let them use theirs got raped every five minutes by complaints about not using the GPL; let them write their own stuff." TrollTech has been very nice to the Linux community by giving something of theirs which they had no obligation to give; they deserve to be treated nicely in return. What will make them more likely to GPL Qt, a nice reaction from a bunch of idealists trying to build a software utopia, or constant attacks by crazy zealots trying to cut a swath through the software community like a bunch of Huns sacking Rome? Try to be objective, and see how such behaviour appears to non-FSF types, and you'll realize that more is gotten with honey than with insults.
> desktop for Linux is this persistant, irritating, annoying, pointless
> debate over the nature of the Qt libraries. Its a boat anchor that has been
> dragged behind KDE for far, far too long. Get it over with, guys.
And just who is it that whines and complains like spoilt children, thus causing "this persistent, irritating, annoying, pointless debate over the nature of the Qt libraries"? It's not the Qt people, and it's not the KDE people, it's a small group of the more zealous folk who refuse to use pragmatism when they've had a perfectly good library handed to them. No one at TrollTech had to make anything free for any use under any license; they were nice enough to let the Linux community, the KDE folks in particular, use their library for free, and for that they get continually villified and crucified here on
I respect the FSF and RMS; I agree with 99% of what RMS says. However, I cannot agree that alienating people by attempting to force them to accept the GPL on their own works is a good thing. No matter the ends, no matter how positive, there can be no excuse whatsoever for employing the same sorts of tactics which unscrupulous corporations like Microsoft employ. It is unscrupulous to try to force or coerce or intimidate people into giving up their work; it is commendable to try to educate, to recruit, to the Free Software ideology.
And as for the notion that licensing issues are what keeps KDE from being the dominant desktop, I don't buy it. Most end users, and the majority of the Linux community, aren't hung up so inextricably and single-mindedly on a very minor licensing issue--for all intents and purposes, Qt is good open-source free software. Not Free by the FSF's definition, but free in the more general open-source sense which divides RMS and the zealots from the moderates. In other words, the average user doesn't care about the Qt licensing issue, and the average company which puts together the CDs that those people will install, also doesn't care. And they don't have to care because it's a minor issue, and second for both the average user and the average company to the consideration as to which desktop is easier to use and more productive. That's KDE right now, though that could change with the next GNOME release or two. But, it's silly to think that the licensing issue is really holding KDE back, because it's not--it'll ward off some developers, but they'll have enough to not worry about it; I haven't seen any scarcities yet, have you? And as I said, the end user just wants something which is easy to use. That's what more people around here should keep in mind, because most people around here would like to see Linux become a dominant OS replacing mostly the need for Windows, Netware, etc., not shrink back into obscurity, and the more people engage in holy wars the further away that good future gets. Always remember that in any holy war, there are good people on both sides, and heavy casualties all around.
> I agree with your entire position on Intel, but logically you cannot exempt
2 57&cid=170 ], I argued that x86 is the "open-source ISA" since anyone can use it, while Intel and HP will demand steep royalties for anyone wanting to do IA64 processors. As long as you don't have to code in assembler for it--and few code in assembler these days, anyway--there's nothing wrong with x86 since modern x86 CPUs are really a RISC core with an x86 decoder tacked on, which according to Ars Technica only adds about 1% penalty to the processor's speed. My point was that I find it contradictory that so many people hate x86, but love Intel. People just hate x86 because it's old and ugly as an ISA, but these days it's not such a real-world problem since few people code in hand assembler. ISA is really less important than how efficient the actual RISCy core of a modern CPU is; a 1% speed penalty is really insignificant in exchange for compatibility with the last 20 years worth of x86 apps, and despite people claiming for the last 5 years that x86 is going to hit a performance ceiling "soon", it still hasn't and probably won't for some time.
> AMD from your ire. While they are surely less evil than Intel, they are
> still evil for contributing to the continued existence of x86.
Actually, I never said that I personally think x86 is bad, evil, or otherwise undesirable. I used the phrase "since everyone here hates the x86 architecture so much"--and generally they do, but I'm an exception. In a recent post [ http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/06/29/2227
So, I never said Intel was evil for pushing x86 for so long, I said that it's dumb for people to hate x86 but not fault Intel for creating a better ISA long ago. That leaves AMD in the clear as far as I'm concerned, since I'm glad they're going to extend x86 to 64bits and maintain backwards compatibility and maintain an open, freely usable ISA--putting the next big ISA into Intel's licensing control is a very, very, very dangerous idea--I'll keep incurring that 1% penalty in exchange for keeping an open chip platform, thank you. The reasons Intel is evil include its sloth, especially in keeping the P6 core so long, and its predatory M$ like nature. I congratulate AMD for starting out as having really crappy inferior processors, but making honest and huge leaps with almost every generation, almost every year, while Intel sat on its hands with the P6 core *for 5+ years*. AMD processors are now at least equal to their Intel brethren, and most benchmarks put them at a slight edge now that cache is all on-die, and in price/performance they whomp Intel completely and mercilessly.
> Quality, high-performance workstations from Sun, SGI, and Decompaq can
> be had for less than USD 5000
Yes, I agree that the PC architecture is lacking woefully, but the oppenness of that platform is what allowed the Internet boom and Information Age to happen. Cheap commodity hardware that even people who live in trailer parks can afford, but which scales up to performance powerhouses which equal the horsepower (for most applications, but obviously not all) of a RISC unix workstation for a fraction of the price. The sheer brute force and clockspeed of a commodity x86 processor, even on the hobbled buses of the PC platform, make Alphas and Ultrasparcs unnecessory for all but the highest-ed uses. It may take an 800MHz Athlon to get the FP performance of a 400MHz Alpha, but when the Athlon and its mobo are so inexpensive, there's no contest as to which is most useful. Why in God's name would I pay $5000 for a DEC or Sun box which won't run most things any faster than a $2500 x86 box I could build myself? For the elegance? Fuck elegance, give me just as fast for half the price and I'll take x86 ugliness any day. Depending on which processor the DEC or Sparc has, either an Athlon Tbird or SMP P!!!s could get equal performance for between $1600 and $2500 total, not near the $5000 for a non-x86 workstation or server. If you need those big caches, the 500MHz Xeon with 2MB cache goes for between $700 and $900, though for most applications regular P!!!s at higher clockspeed/smaller cache would be better, or a regular 1 GHz Athlon Tbird. Jeezus, one could build a Quad Xeon for less than the price of a typical DEC workstation: mobo $2500, processors P!!! Xeon 733MHz $500 each, add a hard disk and video card to taste. Unfortunately, AMD is still behind with its multiprocessor solutions...
Most PC platform problems could be cured by moving to faster and wider buses, and a Unified Memory Architecture like SGI used on its short-lived line of Wintel workstaions. And, most existing operating systems and the software which run on them would work fine with just a minor OS patch, like the one SGI used to get NT 4.0 to run on its UMA Visual Workstations.
Intel's philosophy is no different from Microsoft's: Embrace, extend, extinguish. I'm just amazed that your typical Microsoft-bashing /.ers aren't Intel bashers, too, because Intel deserves a big ol' can of whoopass opened right by their corporate asses. Let's examine a little...
/.ers such big Intel fans? They're the companywhich kept pushing x86 for decades instead of developing something new and improved and more RISCy, so why so many Intel apologists and AMD naysayers? After all, as good and serviceable as the P6 core was, it didn't deserve to stay in service for 5+ years. AMD may have been a dog back then, but at least it made radical improvements with almost every product cycle; Intel just wasn't trying at all. And look at the disaster which is the new Celeron/Culeron: it may be overclockable to 900MHz easily, but because of the set associativity lost by savagely destroying half the cache like Huns sacking Rome, it barely rivals a P!!! 700MHz and gets blown away by a lower-clocked Duron too--and the Duron is also very OCable. Intel is being just as evil as M4.
First off, Intel has been in the process of developing standards for the PC architecture for some time, as well it should. However, they've doing it the same way Microsoft has been "contributing" to Internet standards. For example, they developed AGP up to 4x, which has proven to be very useful; however, rumours are churning out from reputable sources discussing an Intel project to create a successor to AGP 4x, and this successor is to be limited to Intel chipsets and chipsets made by select Intel partners--i.e., anyone who annoys Intel will get left behind. Intel developed PC-100 memory standards--a great service, but...then it refused to develop PC-133 standard or DDR-SDRAM specifications, because of its own interest in RDRAM as a wholesale replacement for all SDRAM.
Many have questioned that Intel has much to gain from Rambus becoming the new standard instead of DDR-SDRAM; after all, contrary to popular belief Intel doesn't completely own Rambus, and their deal with Rambus would only give them compensation in the tens of millions, which isn't much for a company whose revenues are in the billions each year. But what Intel has to gain isn't direct monetary compensation by Rambus, it's *control* over the standards for memory and memory controllers--and the rights to manufacture and license those memory controller technologies. This is exactly what MS did with IE--it didn't directly make a profit by developing a new web browser and bundling it with Windows; it gained market control and the ability to manipulate the Internet protocols so that all its products, from IIS to Frontpage to NT Server and the rest, had an advantage of guaranteed interoperability and increased functionality over competing products.
Intel wants to do the same with RDRAM and its new IA64 architecture, and its new forays into the emerging appliance market. Intel will make royalties on all chipsets which support RDRAM. Intel will make direct profits on its IA64 processors and has probably been hoping to licence the ISA to competitors once x86 plateaus. Intel has purchased the StronARM and other embedded/appliance hardware companies, hoping to leverage its market dominance to push it into every area. And, let's not forget that they tried and tried and tried to force their way into the graphics market, but failed there due to too-short product cycles and competitors with much more graphics experience.
It's clear that Intel wants to be the Microsoft of the hardware world. If they leverage enough tech patents on all fronts, they can force use of their products in the same unfair ways Microsoft leveraged itself into every crevice: big OEMs unable to get the best prices on Intel desktop processors unless they agree to use StrongARM in their embedded/appliance products instead of Transmeta or MIPS, or unable to get hold of ahort-supplied IA64 for workstations/servers unless they use P4 in their desktops, VIA unable to make the most advanced RDRAM chipsets unless they cut back on DDR or agree not to pursue QDR, etc. Don't think it won't happen, even with M$ as an example: there are many sneaky, below-the-board ways to hint at such matters without bluntly making demands.
And, since everyone here hates the x86 architecture so much, why the Hell are so many
Younger people have always been more in-touch with contemporary times than older people. New technologies are always emerging. Social norms are always changing. And, always, the people most able to embrace new technologies, new social norms, new ways of life, are the young.
;-)
Young people make their own worlds as they grow up, forging thier own moral and social views (sometimes similar to their parents', sometimes radically different), experimenting with new things and not being afraid to try something new or different. Older people, though, are already set in their ways, they already have lifestyles, morals, and recreations based on the things they discovered when they themselves were young. The world changes, but usually, adults don't change much at all. I'm only 23, and already I find myself annoyed whenever things I really liked are changing; I can only imagine how people in their forties must feel, since the world has moved forward 20 years since they reached adulthood and started getting their own ideals set.
The young have always been a force of change, both technological and social, while the old have always been a force of stagnation. Look at Henry Ford as an example: in his younger years he revolutionalized not just the auto industry, but every industry, by popularizing the notion of putting together standardized parts on assembly lines to drastically reduce costs over those of one-off manufacturing. And then as he got older he foolishly kept pushing the Model T even after newer, bigger, faster cars were becoming popular, and would have ruined his company if his advisors and family hadn't dissuaded him from bringing back a simplistic Model T like car in the thirties.
That's just the way it's worked, probably for the whole of history. You see it at work everywhere: in the 1950s older people instituted censorship of comic books because they had cartoonish gore, yet today the same mild gore which was prohibited in the 1950s has become a staple of comics and few older people care, because the older people of today were the children of the 50s who grew up wanting to see that comic violence which their parents thought was so bad. Elvis was considered positively satanic early in his career, because older folk thought his hip swaggering walk was sinfully provocative, yet today people don't complain about hip movements at concerts they complain about Marilyn Manson and a bandmate having oral sex on stage.
Technology is no different in that respect than forces of social or political liberalism. Older people get along just fine knowing little about computers; they have no reason to learn, they've already developed their own careers and hobbies. Thus more young people getting deeply into computers than adults who do so. Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo!, and most of the other companies which have been instrumental in bringing the personal computing and Internet revolutions to the masses, were founded by young people in their twenties or teens. The Information Age is a revolutionary thing, and revolution is the pursuit mostly of the young. Old people and companies have established ways and markets, and don't want change--thus the RIAA vs. Napster mess, the MPAA vs. DeCSS affair, and the USPTO's complete inability to handle Net-related patent claims in a reasonable manner. They're just old and out of touch, and it's time to get rid of their outdated foolishness. But, I digres...
> I think it is unfortunate but I don't believe that the younger generation
> has much incentive to look under the hood. With the lack of interest in Computer
> Science that colleges are seeing as of late, I can imagine that the population
> that understands how things work, how to make them work, and how to fix them
> when they are broken is getting smaller and smaller.
I don't really see it that way. You're right that it appears that fewer people are interested in CS degrees lately, but there are really at least 2 good reasons for this.
To begin with, computers are being so thoroughly integrated into all disciplines in college and high school and elementary school that there's less need to take any computer courses at all in order to be able to understand them fairly well and use them proficiently. In college, for example, pretty much all students have to use computers in order to do their papers for any given class, and while that doesn't require more than basic knowledge of how to use a word processing program, it gets people to use computers from day 1 even if they've never before touched them. E-mail is just as pervasive and, on campus, usually requires a bit more know-how than just starting Word: my first experience with computers was my first week at college, when we went to the Computing Center in groups to learn the basics of telnetting to our campus VAX and logging in to our new accounts. Many schools now include the cost of a laptop or PC in first-year's tuition, like mine now does, and that gives all students at least a fair familiarity with computer use. Just being around computers for those two functions will give most users a slow but steady learning curve into how to use a computer, and when people learn about all the cool games and video clips you can play on a PC or Mac it usually makes them learn enough to get around fairly well. But if you expect them to learn CLI beyond maybe telnet, you're dreaming, because it's becoming obsolete for all but programmers and old-school "power users".
But it's going to be increasingly rare for college freshmen to need to learn these things, since computer labs are commonplace in high schools, and even in many classrooms. I was shocked the other day to run into an ex-neighbor who became a fifth-grade teacher--she told me that she had three iMacs and two G3s in her classroom, and lesson plans for the students to learn the basics of navigating a GUI and using educational games and an encyclopaedia program. Not bad for elementary education; beats the hell out of the one Apple ][c we had in my elementary classrooms, running useless LOGO...
Of course, what you're specifically referring to is CS type people who know all the inner workings and would be comfortable if dropped to a command prompt in Linux or maybe even VMS. But as computers with high-level user interfaces permeate other disciplines, and the general school and home experience, there is quite frankly less need for such people. The average person will know enough to do all of the things he really wants to do, like e-mail and websurf and maybe get in a few rounds of Q3, but there is zero reason for him to *need* to know how to tinker under the hood. That isn't bad, it's just fine. Not everyone needs or wants to know how everything works, and I think that's a problem with some slashdotters: they think people should have to or want to learn what works a machine, when in reality all most of them need to do is learn to use the Win32 or MacOS shell. That's why we call these people "end users"--they use the end result of programmers' hours of toiling, toiling which is done so that end users can do thing quickly and easily. It's not laziness on behalf of the average person which keeps them from learning something like the Linux CLI--it's the fact that they prefer to do other things with their time, to use software with virtually no learning curve because it allows them to have all the benefits of computers with none of the time-consuming in-depth stuff which they really don't need to know to perform the few basic tasks they ever will need a computer to do.
I think there was an upswing in CS enrollment in the 90s because of the perception that computers were the future, high-tech CS jobs would pay very well, and that the emerging Net was cool and by learning CS you'd learn more about it. But after that brief surge we're returning to a more level state of growth commensurate with the fact that you don't need a CS degree to operate a computer, just to program for one. The population of people who "know how to fix" computers isn't getting smaller, it's just settling into a post-boom level, while the number of computer users in general continues to increase.
I've always been amazed by the shortsightedness and selfishness of people who think that raising the MHz bar every month or two is a bad thing. They usually think it's a bad thing precisely because they're the type of person who wants to have the top-of-the-line processor, and when the speed bump comes they no longer have a supreme God Box. That's the reality of the situation, because NO ONE LOSES when processor speeds increase.
After all, processors are commodities whose values are expected to fall fairly quickly; they're not investments, they're tools, tools which are always being improved upon. No one ever says, "I wish they would stop making racing cars faster. I mean, it's absurd adding more horsepower and speed, when 120MPH is fast enough for anyone. They should just race around with that as the top speed, or they should invent new engine technologies to push performance up, they shouldn't tweak existing engine technologies to go faster." That's how absurd the argument that processor speeds should be limited is: it makes no sense, at least for the consumer. No one's use of Photoshop or Quake 3 or Premiere or compiling the Linux kernel was ever slowed down by monthly speedups in processor speed. You're no longer the fastest, but unless you're a complete jerk who has to compensate for small penis size or low self esteem by engaging in a Geek pissing contest about who has the fastest processor, it doesn't hurt you. And if you are that jerk, get a fucking life and a clue because there's more to life than bragging rights and there's more to a fast/useful system than just the CPU. And BTW, now that cache is integrated on-die in all new processor families, speed scales pretty linearly and reasonably with incremental MHz increases; the only exception is the dumbass Celeron on its starved 66MHz bus; but the P!!! at 133MHz FSB is good, and the Athlon or Duron with 200MHz effective EV6 bus isn't being starved for data and won't be for some time, as long as you have 133MHz or greater memory and a decent disk subsystem. Which isn't unreasonable, since PC-133 memory is about as cheap as PC-100 and can often be pushed up to 143MHz and sometimes 150MHz if you buy from the best manufacturers (look at the memory comparisons on Anandtech).
The only people faster processor speeds hurt is Intel and the big OEMs, and we should lose no sleep over that. AMD has, in part, made its progress based on not just better design but faster processors; being the first out at most major speed grades has given them prestige they wouldn't had if they'd stuck to slower speed grades. Pushing the MHz envelope has helped AMD's reputation. Keeping up with AMD has hurt Intel's pocketbook. And the large OEMs like Compaq and Dell and HP, they get hurt because they buy massive quantities of CPUs ahgead of time, for building crappy integrated systems on bulk assembly lines--which is good for smaller screwdriver shops, who buy fewer CPUs at a time and buy less far in advance, thus helping the small guy relative to the big corporations. Who can complain about that? Especially on Slashdot, where we mostly like the underdog and the little guy rather than the corporate empire.
Plus, in the long run, speed bumps are great for us consumers. I'm still using an old 400MHz box, ancient by today's standards, but I look at the long term and realize that every speed grade I fall behind is one I will gain when I can afford to upgrade. I think it's wonderful that early next year I will be able to afford a 1GHz or faster Athlon. I cannot complain in the least, and without the incremental speed bumps we end users would never be able to afford such a beast so soon.
The OEMs saying nay to an 800MHz Xeon is good for them, but bad for consumers. It helps them maintain value for their slower MHz Xeon systems, but does nothing for the advancement of consumer interests. Not that Xeons have much use for the average consumer, since only wealthy consumers and, more likely, businesses have use for the Xeon's big selling point, 4-way SMP. But businesses and Net companies who could have used the extra horsepower would have benefitted a little by the speed bump. The one caveat is that I doubt the relatively old Intel bus could handle 4-way SMP at 800MHz very efficiently, anyway, but that's a bus issue and not strictly a processor issue, since the other selling point of the Xeon was always its integrated L2 even when other P!!!s didn't have L2 cache integration. Also, the advantage for consumers would be the lowering in price of slower Xeons. At any rate, processor speed increases are nothing for users to complain about, now that L2 is integrated and bus speeds on high end processors are reasonable and the main bottlenecks are memory and disk subsystems, which aren't the responsibility of Intel or AMD. Make Seagate make faster hard disks, and make Micron hurry up with DDR-SDRAM, but it's just plain silly to complain about faster processors and lower prices.