But then you are still sending the bitmap of the images... Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
Now enjoy the usability of Windows and the security of a rock! All you have to do is 1) put the disk in the computer and 2) turn it off! Its THAT SIMPLE!!
Why use a complex and insecure, let alone cheap, operating system alternative such as Linux when you can have 100% security and incredible usability?
Full system (single user license): $500 Upgrade (single user licesne): $450
:)
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
What you are describing sounds alot like Ken Thompsons C hack to let him log in to any Unix system.
But if there are intentional security holes in Windows (there probably are some), and they come to light, poeple will become distrustfull of Microsofts monopoly and stop buying their products. Perhaps that is the reason that Microsoft keeps such strict control of their code?
Damn, this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory or The X Files:). Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
Ive been thinking about the same thing for quite a while, but I just dont have the resources to start a movement like that.
What I think would be interesting is for someone to make a CPU out of a PAL device and open source the device-description file. People would then send in "patches" to the chips hardware architecture itself.
>The point was, if I have the source, I can recompile for whatever I happen to use.
Its not always that easy. There are great mountains of bad and machine specific code out there. Sure if everything were open source and ANSI/ISO it would be just fine, but a great many systems are just braindead in the way of portability.
>A transmeta style CPU will of course never run a given ISA as fast as a CPU tweaked out to run one that specific one.
True. But a ISA-morphing CPU will run many orders of magnitude faster than software CPU emulation. Would you rather have one machine that can run many ISAs or a seperate machine for each ISA out there?
Yeah, but the rest of the world later died from an un-sanitary telephone. And that we are the descendants of the B ship's survivors. Remember when they declared leaves official currency and then went on burning forests to combat inflation?? The perfect economic strategy...
Um..., you forgot a ; after can_read_source() Yes, I can read the source.
#include
int main() { int retval; #ifdef __LINUX__ printf("Yes!! A real operating system!\n"); retval=0; #else printf("I puke at thee!!\n"); retval=1; #endif do { ;; } while(1);/* Linux will do this in 10 seconds*/ return(retval);/* remember -- 0 means success */ }
The linux *kernel* has been, and always will be, free software. So will all other GPL'ed software. The inherent nature of GPL'ed software removes users from *any* ties to corporate monstrosities.
No one is obligated to get linux from any one company, or ftp server, or whatever. That is the strength of linux. Successfull companies can package popular distributions of linux, but no one says that you have to use any particular distribution.
It is impossible for a monopoly to form on the basis of free software. There will never be any "free software microsofts".
And business should not have any major effect on linux's evolution. There are many people working on linux that 'believe in the holy Right Way' (myself being one of them). They will balk at any corporate attempts to 'pollute' the 'spirit' of linux.
> I own several guns and will not give them up no matter what ANYONE says. And I'm not alone.
I am in exactly the same place you are. And yes, people with inferior weapons can fight back if you get enough of them together for a cause. No one person can fight a tank, even with a gun, but when many people believe in something, and are willing to fight for it anything is possible.
I think there is already a linux DVD player out there somewhere??
Anyways, it's not that easy -- DVD has some stupid proprietary encryption scheme to prevent copying. I heard about someone cracking that somewhere... Forgive me, I didn't bookmark that website and it was a while ago so I forgot the specifics. I remember first hearing about it on slashdot, so you could probably check the archives...
I agree with you. Because of the lack of BBSs around anymore, I have thought about hosting my own internet site BBS-style, but I just never got to it.
And community size is an issue. Slashdot for example is a great discussion forum, but I have never stopped to remember anyones' name. Occasionally I click on someone's user info page or their web page if they have one, but actually forming relashionships is just too impractical in a cummunity of hundreds of thousands of people.
I would like to see a slashdot with a limited but open user group, a wider range of discussion topics, no moderation system, and keep all threads open, no matter how old they are.
Wasn't all the hype about the internet "breaking down barriers" supposed to be a good thing? I prefer just saying that the internet screwed up a lot of things that were going fine and abolished old traditions that kept many communities alive. The internet isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
30 years ago the crime rate was dramatically lower than it is today and guns were *more* prevelant than they are today -- few, if any *gun laws*.
The fact that many criminals commit crimes with guns does not mean that banning guns will stop, or even reduce, crime. If criminals want to use a gun, they'll get a gun, even if they break ten thousand laws in the process. If they cared about keeping to the law, they wouldn't be criminals!!
However, a far more important (in terms of the *big picture*) reason for *not* banning guns is to protect the people *from* the government. It is a well known and documented fact that before any dictator can come to power, he must first remove from the people the power to defend themselves. This was one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power!
The purpose of the 2nd ammendmant is so that the people can keep the government from taking away the other ammendmants in the Bill of Rights.
BTW, I might have my reference wrong, but I remember somewhere in the beginning of the US code, passed in the first session of the first congress, American citizens are declared "a federal militia". Thus all the arguments about the 'militia' part of the 2nd ammendmant are cast null and void.
Does anyone know if the Library fo Congress has a webpage? If they do, I'll go ahead and find the exact reference.
> If I wrote a book, and marked it as "universal free distribution", could someone make a copy it, then copyright their copy, and possibly sue me for infringment?
Something like that happeneng in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers" trilogy. (An essential work, if you haven't read it, you need to. And it's not a trilogy, it's really a five part series.) The authors of "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" patterned a section of it after the nutrition facts label on a box of breakfast serial. Then they sent it back in time and sued the cereal company for infringement, thus winning the money to build their huge twin-tower corporate headquarters.
Now whether or not someone can do this in real life without time travel, I don't know. I would date the book if I were you, just to be safe. They couldn't sue you if you could prove you wrote your copy before they did.
It seems to me that this business model (we'll give it away, but you pay for support) ignores one simple fact that should make life a whole lot simpler: the GPL places no restrictions on selling open source software. In fact, you could sell some software for a million dollars if there was a market for it. All the GPL says is that the code must be free.
De Icaza, or Red Hat for that matter, shouldn't *stop* selling support, but support doesn't have to be the totality of their revenue.
I agree with you mostly, but here are some points I disagree with you about:
Alot of artist are in it simply for the popularity and/or the money, but there are a few, those blessed few, that actually are in it because music beats in their hearts and they feel called to do it.
Also, the caliber of an artist does not depend on how long it takes to memorize their licks. I must admit though that if you can learn and play *everything* of theirs easily, that's ridiculous. I am a guitarist (because I love to do it), my father was, and so was one of my friends. One day my father and I went to play with that friend and afterwards my father said under his breath, "This was his whole style..." and played one lick. He was right, and I realized that I didn't want to become that kind of musician.
So art does not depend on the complexity of the things you do, it depends on how much feeling you put into what you *do* do and how much variety you have in you *whole* style.
If someone only does one thing, then it's not art. But it's not exactly *how many* things that person does that make it art.
Yes, an OS can exist without a compiler, but it is quite useless. Anyways, I merely wanted to say that that definition is out there, by posting it I didn't mean to imply that it was the "right" one.
But isn't that how people bootstrap a new operating system? Write up a kernel with a text editor, compile it, and point LILO to it (or whatever you use)?
Apparantly, since it was in the assembly programming howto, the definition leans towards system development.
Exactly Correct!! I have had similar experiences and what you say is true to the letter.
Linux is *not* a stand-alone product like FreeBSD and should not be touted as one. "Linux" is just the kernel--the very heart of the operating system. But what most users see everyday is not "linux" it is/bin/bash or X or something entirely different. The problem is that most people fail to make that distinction and call anything with the linux kernel "linux", or even worse, "GNU/Linux".
In fact, in embedded applications, in which linux is becoming increasingly popular, all that usually exists is the kernel, some networking, and romfs. No shell, no GUI, none of the things most users associate with linux.
We need to keep reminding people: Linux is only a small part of what you see on your screen right there. A very essential part, but a part nonetheless.
(On a side note, I usually use the bash commandline, but some relatives/friends were over the other day so I showed them GNOME/Enlightenment. They all said that they liked it better than windows.:)
Slashdot Mirror
But then you are still sending the bitmap of the images...
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
Windows 2000 Powered Off (PO) Edition!!
Now enjoy the usability of Windows and the security of a rock!
All you have to do is 1) put the disk in the computer and 2) turn it off! Its THAT SIMPLE!!
Why use a complex and insecure, let alone cheap, operating system alternative such as Linux when you can have 100% security and incredible usability?
Full system (single user license): $500
Upgrade (single user licesne): $450
:)
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
What you are describing sounds alot like Ken Thompsons C hack to let him log in to any Unix system.
:).
But if there are intentional security holes in Windows (there probably are some), and they come to light, poeple will become distrustfull of Microsofts monopoly and stop buying their products. Perhaps that is the reason that Microsoft keeps such strict control of their code?
Damn, this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory or The X Files
Dilbert: I have become one with my computer. It is a feeling of ecstacy... the blend of logic and emotion. I have reached...
Ive been thinking about the same thing for quite a while, but I just dont have the resources to start a movement like that.
What I think would be interesting is for someone to make a CPU out of a PAL device and open source the device-description file. People would then send in "patches" to the chips hardware architecture itself.
>The point was, if I have the source, I can recompile for whatever I happen to use.
Its not always that easy. There are great mountains of bad and machine specific code out there. Sure if everything were open source and ANSI/ISO it would be just fine, but a great many systems are just braindead in the way of portability.
>A transmeta style CPU will of course never run a given ISA as fast as a CPU tweaked out to run one that specific one.
True. But a ISA-morphing CPU will run many orders of magnitude faster than software CPU emulation. Would you rather have one machine that can run many ISAs or a seperate machine for each ISA out there?
Yeah, but the rest of the world later died from an un-sanitary telephone. And that we are the descendants of the B ship's survivors. Remember when they declared leaves official currency and then went on burning forests to combat inflation?? The perfect economic strategy...
Easy, I've seen touch screen systems that work like this...
Have a graphical 'keyboard' with 'keys' that you click on (or touch) to input text! It's slow but it works.
But I don't know if you could do key combinations like Ctrl+Alt+Del which is so often needed in Windows...
Um..., you forgot a ; after can_read_source()
/* Linux will do this in 10 seconds*/ /* remember -- 0 means success */
Yes, I can read the source.
#include
int main()
{
int retval;
#ifdef __LINUX__
printf("Yes!! A real operating system!\n");
retval=0;
#else
printf("I puke at thee!!\n");
retval=1;
#endif
do {
;;
} while(1);
return(retval);
}
The linux *kernel* has been, and always will be, free software. So will all other GPL'ed software. The inherent nature of GPL'ed software removes users from *any* ties to corporate monstrosities.
No one is obligated to get linux from any one company, or ftp server, or whatever. That is the strength of linux. Successfull companies can package popular distributions of linux, but no one says that you have to use any particular distribution.
It is impossible for a monopoly to form on the basis of free software. There will never be any "free software microsofts".
And business should not have any major effect on linux's evolution. There are many people working on linux that 'believe in the holy Right Way' (myself being one of them). They will balk at any corporate attempts to 'pollute' the 'spirit' of linux.
> I own several guns and will not give them up no matter what ANYONE says. And I'm not alone.
I am in exactly the same place you are. And yes, people with inferior weapons can fight back if you get enough of them together for a cause. No one person can fight a tank, even with a gun, but when many people believe in something, and are willing to fight for it anything is possible.
I think there is already a linux DVD player out there somewhere??
Anyways, it's not that easy -- DVD has some stupid proprietary encryption scheme to prevent copying. I heard about someone cracking that somewhere... Forgive me, I didn't bookmark that website and it was a while ago so I forgot the specifics. I remember first hearing about it on slashdot, so you could probably check the archives...
I agree with you. Because of the lack of BBSs around anymore, I have thought about hosting my own internet site BBS-style, but I just never got to it.
And community size is an issue. Slashdot for example is a great discussion forum, but I have never stopped to remember anyones' name. Occasionally I click on someone's user info page or their web page if they have one, but actually forming relashionships is just too impractical in a cummunity of hundreds of thousands of people.
I would like to see a slashdot with a limited but open user group, a wider range of discussion topics, no moderation system, and keep all threads open, no matter how old they are.
Wasn't all the hype about the internet "breaking down barriers" supposed to be a good thing? I prefer just saying that the internet screwed up a lot of things that were going fine and abolished old traditions that kept many communities alive. The internet isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
30 years ago the crime rate was dramatically lower than it is today and guns were *more* prevelant than they are today -- few, if any *gun laws*.
The fact that many criminals commit crimes with guns does not mean that banning guns will stop, or even reduce, crime. If criminals want to use a gun, they'll get a gun, even if they break ten thousand laws in the process. If they cared about keeping to the law, they wouldn't be criminals!!
However, a far more important (in terms of the *big picture*) reason for *not* banning guns is to protect the people *from* the government. It is a well known and documented fact that before any dictator can come to power, he must first remove from the people the power to defend themselves. This was one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power!
The purpose of the 2nd ammendmant is so that the people can keep the government from taking away the other ammendmants in the Bill of Rights.
BTW, I might have my reference wrong, but I remember somewhere in the beginning of the US code, passed in the first session of the first congress, American citizens are declared "a federal militia". Thus all the arguments about the 'militia' part of the 2nd ammendmant are cast null and void.
Does anyone know if the Library fo Congress has a webpage? If they do, I'll go ahead and find the exact reference.
> If I wrote a book, and marked it as "universal free distribution", could someone make a copy it, then copyright their copy, and possibly sue me for infringment?
Something like that happeneng in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers" trilogy. (An essential work, if you haven't read it, you need to. And it's not a trilogy, it's really a five part series.) The authors of "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" patterned a section of it after the nutrition facts label on a box of breakfast serial. Then they sent it back in time and sued the cereal company for infringement, thus winning the money to build their huge twin-tower corporate headquarters.
Now whether or not someone can do this in real life without time travel, I don't know. I would date the book if I were you, just to be safe. They couldn't sue you if you could prove you wrote your copy before they did.
It seems to me that this business model (we'll give it away, but you pay for support) ignores one simple fact that should make life a whole lot simpler: the GPL places no restrictions on selling open source software. In fact, you could sell some software for a million dollars if there was a market for it. All the GPL says is that the code must be free.
De Icaza, or Red Hat for that matter, shouldn't *stop* selling support, but support doesn't have to be the totality of their revenue.
I agree with you mostly, but here are some points I disagree with you about:
Alot of artist are in it simply for the popularity and/or the money, but there are a few, those blessed few, that actually are in it because music beats in their hearts and they feel called to do it.
Also, the caliber of an artist does not depend on how long it takes to memorize their licks. I must admit though that if you can learn and play *everything* of theirs easily, that's ridiculous.
I am a guitarist (because I love to do it), my father was, and so was one of my friends. One day my father and I went to play with that friend and afterwards my father said under his breath, "This was his whole style..." and played one lick. He was right, and I realized that I didn't want to become that kind of musician.
So art does not depend on the complexity of the things you do, it depends on how much feeling you put into what you *do* do and how much variety you have in you *whole* style.
If someone only does one thing, then it's not art. But it's not exactly *how many* things that person does that make it art.
Perzonelly, I thinks thu splellink wuz gret!
Yes, an OS can exist without a compiler, but it is quite useless. Anyways, I merely wanted to say that that definition is out there, by posting it I didn't mean to imply that it was the "right" one.
But isn't that how people bootstrap a new operating system? Write up a kernel with a text editor, compile it, and point LILO to it (or whatever you use)?
Apparantly, since it was in the assembly programming howto, the definition leans towards system development.
Well, if you're gonna' do that, why not ditch the kernel all together and use punched cards for everything--like the olden days.
Exactly Correct!! I have had similar experiences and what you say is true to the letter.
/bin/bash or X or something entirely different. The problem is that most people fail to make that distinction and call anything with the linux kernel "linux", or even worse, "GNU/Linux".
:)
Linux is *not* a stand-alone product like FreeBSD and should not be touted as one. "Linux" is just the kernel--the very heart of the operating system. But what most users see everyday is not "linux" it is
In fact, in embedded applications, in which linux is becoming increasingly popular, all that usually exists is the kernel, some networking, and romfs. No shell, no GUI, none of the things most users associate with linux.
We need to keep reminding people: Linux is only a small part of what you see on your screen right there. A very essential part, but a part nonetheless.
(On a side note, I usually use the bash commandline, but some relatives/friends were over the other day so I showed them GNOME/Enlightenment. They all said that they liked it better than windows.
There you go, meckardt. I did my part and gave your site one hit!
I couldn't get it either.
/. -- a testimony to their poularity
For me it's 9:30 am, and it's not too early, it's too late.
:)
Please, have mercy on my poor, sleepy soul.
This could be exactly what's happening. :(
But if it is, it means we would still have to wait quite a while for 'it' to come out.
Or, if it's a penguin farm, I say the penguins need a home!
Then how did you get online?