I remember what that felt like when I was still at college. For some of us, at any rate, the colleg authorities' attempts to segregate the sexes just made us more determined to defy them. How utterly pointless.
I think there are two reasons why the older generation always tries this kind of thing on.
In the first place, there's definitely an element of culture shock. Each generation of teenagers deliberately invents its own culture and the whole point of it is that it *must* be different fronm what went before. After thirty years the difference in accepted modes of behaviour between the two generations is rather significant.
If this were all there probably wouldn't be any trouble (most of the time anyway) because most teenagers are sensible enough to exercise discretion in their illicit experimentations. There would be a moderate amount of drinking, pot smoking and sex going on behind the scenes but nothing really publicly obvious.
But there is the second factor: that in any given generation there is a spectrum of personality types.
Legislators, Judges and University administrators are very often going to be conservative control freaks, because that's what made them choose those careers in the first place.
And in any given generation of teenagers there will be a small proportion of assholes who refuse to exercise discretion, who will seem hellbent on creating a confrontation with the aforementioned authoritarians, and thereby ruining things for everybody. You all know the type of person I'm talking about. Like the STD-ridden slut bragging loudly in public about how many partners she slept with that week (yuck). Or the halfwit who gets drunk and trashes the dorm then shits on the bonnet of somebody's car.
These two personality types do not mix well.
If only all college kids could exercise a little discretion and consideration for the sensibilities of others less...er...liberated...than themselves, and if only the authorities concerned could try to remember that one or two bad apples needn't be representative of the whole bunch. If only, then we could all just party on in peace.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
most American's were screaming and mocking Australia's Internet Censorship efforts (which everyone has been deathly about quiet since it supposedly went into effect on Jan 1 - I haven't noticed)...
Maybe you're the only Australian who can still get Slashdot...?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
You couldn't have stated it better, that there is no benefit to making configuration in unix more complicated. How about making it simpler?
Forget to tab in syslog.conf? : comments got you down in inittab, typo in passwd locked you out? Guessing at possible values for/etc/system variables got you stumped?
I fail to see how moving the data to a different location - or putting it into a tree structure - would make any difference at all.
Without dumbing it down, or removing flexibility, I believe a better way to manage the bits of configuration required by each program would be a centrally managed, accessed, API driven repository for config.
As I've pointed out, front-ending the whole thing with a database manager which keeps everything in memory exposes the whole damn thing to corruption. Obviously you haven't suffered under Windows as much as I have.
I don't pretend to know the right way to begin to code this up, but I'm tired of explaining to new admins that are looking to change X in unix, that the only way to know how to find the config file -- is to already know where to find the config file.
Ha ha. I sympathize with your newbies, but your answer is not strictly true. You only need to know what the file is called - and you can get that from the man page for the utility/program concerned. Once you do know what it's called you just do a 'find/usr -name "whatever"' command. You *do* need to know how X is configured to run on your system though, so start by examining the startx or xdm scripts to see what they call. That's how I managed, anyway.
No doubt some will complain "but that's too complicated". They may be right but it won't be solved just by putting the X config files into a central repository. If you want to master X configuration, you have to learn how it works. There are, unfortunately, not shortcuts to mastering a system with so many configurable options. Even if there was a nice GUI on it, you'd still have to learn what all the parameters mean.
Sorry Mr.Bell, but I'm fundamentally opposed to any scheme to take Unix away from the philosophy which makes it what it is: the most flexible operating system, the most robust application platform and the most feature-rich development platform in the world.
For those of you who have forgotten, or who are simply too young to know, here is that philosophy spelt out (you can find the original here):
The main tenets of the Unix Philosophy are as follows:
1. Small is beautiful.
Small programs are easy to understand.
Small programs are easy to maintain.
Small programs consume fewer system resources.
Small programs are easier to combine with other tools. 2. Make each program do one thing well.
"The best program...does but one task in its life and does it well."
"The program is loaded into memory, accomplishes its function, and then gets out of the way to allow the next single-minded program to begin." 3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
Prototyping is a learning process.
Early prototyping reduces risk. 4. Choose portability over efficiency.
Next ---'s hardware will run faster.
Don't spend too much time making a program run faster.
The most efficient way is rarely portable.
Good programs never die--they are ported to new hardware platforms. 5. Store numerical data in flat ASCII files.
ASCII text is a common interchange format.
ASCII text is easily read and edited.
ASCII data files simplify the use of Unix text tools.
Increased portability overcomes the lack of speed (of flat ASCII text files...)
The lack of speed is overcome by next year's machine. 6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
Good programmers write good code; great programmers "borrow" good code.
Avoid the not-invented-here syndrome.
Allow other people to use your code to leverage their own work.
Automate everything. 7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
Shell scripts give you awesome leverage
Shell scripts leverage your time, too.
Shell scripts are more portable than C.
Resist the desire to rewrite shell scripts in C. 8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
CUIs assume that the user is human.
CUI command parsers are often big and ugly to write.
CUIs tend to adopt a "big is beautiful" approach.
Programs having CUIs are hard to combine with other programs.
CUIs do not scale well.
CUIs do not take advantage of software leverage. 9. Make every program a filter.
Every program written since the dawn of computing is a filter.
Programs do not create data--people do.
Computers convert data from one form to another.
Use stdin for data input;
Use stdout for data output;
Use stderr for out-of-band information.
Ten Lesser Tenets
Allow the User to tailor the environment.
Make operating system kernels small and lightweight.
Use lower case and keep it short.
Save Trees.
Silence is golden.
Think parallel.
The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
Look for the 90 percent solution.
Worse is better. (I won't try to explain this one...)
Think hierarchically.
"Unix owes much of its success to the fact that its developers saw no particular need to retain strong control of its source code."
Forgive me for reproducing the whole page here but I feel it's something everyone should see at least once, even the "click-through challenged".
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Actually I have had good experiences with Groupwise for email & Border Manager for internet access.
That's funny, because I've had experience with those too and I think they suck. Groupwise is about as reliable as MS Exchange, i.e. not very reliable at all. I even had my whole account mysteriously disappear forever one time. Border Manager (because it is designed for dummies to use) is very easy to misconfigure. Ever find yourself behind a firewall which blocks out far more than is necessary - because the sysadmin doesn't know *anything* about the internet? These things should not be made *too* simple to use because then you have simple people using them.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Because the author of the GPL says it's wrong
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 2
The FSF does not use the GPL for books and documents, as it makes no sense. If you use the GPL for books, you put an unnecessary burden on publishers (they have to either include the "source code" -- the LaTeX or XML or whatever, as you say, with every copy, or they have to include a written offer to provide the source to every book buyer who asks for three years).
I don't think this argument is valid. How is it more burdensome to distribute source than the formatted output? As with executable programs, you just provide a link to the source tarball right next to the link for the binaries. After all, you don't see most open source authors offering to send diskettes/tapes out. It appears to be enough just to make the source as easy to download as the binaries.
If you're talking about printed books (and therefore making money out of their sale) and you feel you really *have* to supply machine-readable source then just burn a CD to put inside the cover and charge five bucks more. How hard is that?
IMO if the document is to be deemed "open" then source *should* be available. If you'd spend weeks of nights doing copy editing and text markup then you'd probably think so too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
We already have a centralised repository - it's called/etc.
This works very well because it's infinitely extendable. You just add text files in whatever format seems appropriate for the application. There would be no benefit whatsoever in making this more complicated than it is. To use a virtual file system like/proc instead would be completely pointless and would only mean a huge programming overhead every time you wanted to add config facilities for a new application.
I'm sick and tired of hearing this same tired argument. Unix doesn't need a registry.
Individual hand-edited ASCII config files do what we need and they are robust and independent; a more tightly-bound repository kept in memory and managed by a large program would expose the configuration data to programming screwups like the Windows registry suffers from.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
No problem. Your post was highly informative, mine wasn't...for obvious reasons. But I'd still contend that Novell missed the boat. It still looks clunky because it's not Unix and it's not Windows. Is there even room for another mass-market server platform these days?
The world has moved on; computing is now a much bigger arena than it was in Netware's day, and a large proportion of our computing infrastructure now depends upon services originating from Unix. With Netware 5 they've tried to drag the product into the internet age (like so many other proprietary platform vendors) by adding TCP/IP and making it into a web server platform. You have indicated some scepticism about the latter. I agree, Netware is unlikely to make it as a web server platform because it has no pedigree as such and there is strong competition in the market already.
But then, if Netware is destined to be remain purely as a file-and-print server then who needs it? This is the basis of my complaint that it's not a general purpose OS. Almost all network installations these days require more than just file and print services. All existing requirements can be met with either Unix or NT or a combination of both. Introducing a third platform means requiring sysadmin skills etc. for it in adddition to the other two. It's hard to imagine that any incremental benefit would outweigh the additional cost of network complexity.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think they went with FAT 16 because all of the operating systems support it.
That would be a completely bogus reason to cripple the more capable systems. After all, the file system speed does contribute to the overall system speed in a "real world" deployment. IMHO, using FAT16 on the NT and 2K boxes means this isn't anything like a real world test. Yet another demonstration of MS incompetence.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
It was (until recently) loaded on top of DOS. It still only has a DOS-like shell with no decent text processing utilities. And until Netware 5, it used an outmoded proprietary network protocol. I don't know much about the latest version, but it still looks like something that came out of the ark. I suppose if you view it purely as an application server platform (rather than as a general purpose OS) it does its job well. But I prefer more flexibility and adherence to open standards than Netware has to offer.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I know what you mean. Netware's so clunky. It's DOS on wheels.
In the words of one Lt.Cdr. Montgomery Scott:
"...and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist...
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 2
If they have even temporary possession of it they can easily copy it onto cassette tape if they want, without any help from mp3.com. In other words, the mp3.com service does not really create any new opportunities for piracy. Or are you proposing that stereo equipment with built-in CD player and cassette recorders should be banned also? They can be abused in precisely the same way.
The only reason the RIAA think they can get away with this (and the MPAA too for that matter) is that they think the judges are too stupid to see past all the digital technology mumbo-jumbo and realise that these copying opportunities are no different than what we already had before the age of the PC and the internet.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Before y'all get your panties in a twist...
on
RIAA Sues MP3.com
·
· Score: 2
You're overlooking the possibility that data warehousing is precisely what mp3.com *is* doing.
MP3.COM has to show that they don't make any copies of CDs which haven't been sold from their web site. But as soon as someone orders the first copy of any given CD from them, mp3.com can make a copy because that copy is licenced to the purchaser...and to any subsequent purchasers of that title.
But whether a given CD is legally owned by MP3.COM, or whether it's only owned by one or more customers, as long as the user demonstrates that they have it also by inserting it in the drive, then there's no difference in principle between the user uploading their own copy to the mp3.com site for their own personal use, and mp3.com simply enabling access to their own archived copy. Those who have demonstrated possession of the licensed material simply get access to the very same bit patterns stored in another place.
This is one place where the legal system has yet to get to grips with the difference between IP and other kinds of property. With IP, all copies are in fact the same object. You can't distinguish between one copy and another if the bit patterns are identical.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
BTW, In other circumstances I'd be on your side (say for example regarding the DeCSS issue). I'd be happiest if we didn't have to put up with stupid restrictions about stuff we've bought that we legally own.
I guess this argument is about whether it should be possible for a product to be made, whose sale can be covered by an auto-expiring license (or in more general terms, whose use can be covered by a contract which does not need to be signed by the purchaser).
There are two answers to that question:
(i) Yes, it's possible. In that case using the product (or a copy thereof) after licence expiry is a contravention of the terms under which it was sold, and is therefore illegal.
(ii) No, it isn't possible. In that case the whole business model is impossible and an auto-expiring product cannot survive in the market.
Out of these two possibilities I prefer the former because it allows a useful product to come to market. I'd benefit from these things because I'd no longer get fleeced by the video rental store every time I couldn't return my rented movie to the shop in time to avoid a fine.
If you choose the latter however, then nobody benefits. If the product can't exist then the home "pirates" can't eve get hold of it let alone copy it.
The answer that the courts come up with is bound to be influenced by the fact that software has been "licenced" rather than properly "sold" for quite some time now, and there is a body of law to suport the practise. So I don't hold out much hope for your interpretation. I still think it's wishful thinking.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Am I mis-reading you, ralphclark or are you actually oppsed to documentation?
Ha! Not at all - when I can get it. Or when I'm allowed the time to produce any. But in my experience, although a brand new project will usually be written up with the best of intentions, *very* few software development shops will allocate enough time&resources to keep documentation up to date and in step with bugfixes and enhancements. It's a bit of a vicious circle because the argument can always be made that no-one ever has time to read it anyway...you have to just jump straight into the code and get on with it.
What about documention embedded in the source, like kdoc, javadoc, perl pod, and the like? Do those solve your synchronisation complaints?
This is what I was trying to get at. The cost of maintaining in-line source code comments is far lower as the text is only ever a "Page Up" key away from the code you're working on. Plus then the documentation is right where it's needed when you or another programmer needs to refer to it.
I'm not familiar with the specific examples you named but I'm guessing they are kind of implementations of Donald Knuth's "Literate Programming" concept, where the master copy of the code is actually embedded in the formatted text document which describes its function in natural language. To compile the code you first have to strip it out from the document.
IMHO this is a very good idea...with just one proviso; programmers spend enough time prettying up their code (and reformatting other peoples!). The last thing you'd want is for them to be farting about reformatting paragraphs, selecting heading styles etc. for the comments sections.
Plain unformatted text suitable for viewing on an 80-col-wide dumb terminal is plenty good enough and doesn't waste time. I admit that the ability to add the odd illustration without resorting to "ASCII art" could be useful but this too can be a waste of time and shouldn't be overused.
Finally, apart from source comments there is only one type of application documentation that should ALWAYS be produced for applications, a User/Operations Guide.
Anything else, such as API documentation for programmers can always be most economically done in the body of the source code.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The ruling that just took place at the Santa Clara County Court has nothing to do with the DMCA; the plaintiff's case was that the DeCSS crowd misappropriated a trade secret and in doing so injured their members' business. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the DMCA is a piece of Federal legislation and can only be prosecuted in a Federal court.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I see this product allows the copying of DVD's. I noticed at the bottom of that page, the following warning:
*Use of these products for unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material from DVIX, DVD, VHS or other media is prohibited under federal copyright laws unless the copy qualifies as a far use under the Copyright Laws.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
"THIS MESSAGE IS ENCRYPTED. I REFUSE TO DISTRIBUTE INSTRUCTIONS TO DECRYPT THIS MESSAGE-- IT'S TRADE SECRET. ANYBODY FOUND DISTRIBUTING SOFTWARE WITH THE CAPABILITY OF DECRYPTING THIS MESSAGE, WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF READING THIS MESSAGE (WITHOUT PAYING THE NOMINAL FEE FOR THE DECRYPTION PROGRAM) OR FOR CREATING ILLEGAL PIRATE COPIES OF THIS MESSAGE (WHICH IS COPYRIGHTED BY MYSELF) WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION."
Since I did it by hand in "vi" without even needing to analyse the algorithm (a simple sustitution cipher is the first thing anyone wuould check), I guess my brain is illegal, according to the MPAA's viewpoint. Or vi is, though I could just as easily have used a pencil and paper.
I guess you made your point very well. Why can't those dumb lawyers see this>
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
There's a certain almost poetic beauty to the way this idea juxtaposes with the "archival backup" provision of "fair use", isn't there? When I rent an ordinary disk, I clearly don't own it -- I just have possession of it for the period of the rental and I'm entitled to view it, but that's all. However, if I buy a self-destructing disk, then I do own the physical medium. They may be willing to sell it to me for a rental price on the theory that it will self-destruct, but barring some really fancy legal footwork on their part, I don't see how they could justify denying that I am entitled to use it according to "fair use", including the right to "make a backup copy, solely for archival purposes in the event of [must...keep...straight...face] the loss or destruction of the original".
I think you're getting a bit carried away. There is no way that the courts would consider making a copy of one of these things "fair use". The very idea is ludicrous. Why on earth would you need an archive or backup copy when you're only licensed to view it for one day anyway?
Oh, BTW, Moore's Law was only formulated for integrated semiconductor devices, not magnetic media. Though I take your point about the similar price/performance evolution curve.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
This isn't just for you Jared, it's a reply to all the others who responded to my previous post.
This is all just plain wishful thinking on your part.
All of you are forgetting that the sole purpose of the product would be to expire after a day's play. Even an idiot can surely see that if the user is allowed to make a backup copy then the product would not be sold in the first place. If an idiot can understand that then I believe the courts would too.
You're also forgetting that the law protecting you right to make copies is about "fair use" copies. This is not a "fair use" copy because it would allow you to keep a recording permanently when it was licensed for only one day's viewing. There can be no "fair use" justification for making a backup when the thing only has to last one day, for crying out loud!
With regard to contract law, IANAL and I'm not certain about the US in particular, but in the UK at any rate, when a sale is made there is an implied contract which does not require any signature. This is the basis for consumer rights so I imagine there is a similar provision in the US. What this means is that shrinkwrap licenses are legitimate - at least as long as the terms are displayed on the outside of the packaging. So, as long as there is a prohibition against backups printed on the outside sleeve of these one-day DVDs, any laws about the right to make backups would be superseded.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Separate documentation is a waste of time because it *rarely* gets updated along with the code, and thus gets out of date very quickly. Sad, but true.
The only documentation worth starting therefore is in-line source code comments because future programmers can be made to update the comments as they go along. And even then in some cases the project manager has to beat them with a stick to make them do it.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
It could be argued that it is the construction of a particular type of machine - a biological machine. Just because the parts are made of cells doesn't mean that this is no less a mechanism.
It could be argued in Philosophy 101, but not in a patent infringrement lawsuit. The patent is on a process, not a physical construction.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Remember that you STILL have the right to make backup copies of all software you own. The fact that the media is auto-degrading doesn't deprive you of this right.
Don't be ridiculous. The media companies would take the issue to the courts, and the courts would support them because it's piracy plain and simple. If you have bought an auto-expiring DVD in the full knowledge that it is *meant* to be usable only for one day, and that a condition of the sale is that you *will not* make a copy, then you simply do not have a leg to stand on.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
I remember what that felt like when I was still at college. For some of us, at any rate, the colleg authorities' attempts to segregate the sexes just made us more determined to defy them. How utterly pointless.
I think there are two reasons why the older generation always tries this kind of thing on.
In the first place, there's definitely an element of culture shock. Each generation of teenagers deliberately invents its own culture and the whole point of it is that it *must* be different fronm what went before. After thirty years the difference in accepted modes of behaviour between the two generations is rather significant.
If this were all there probably wouldn't be any trouble (most of the time anyway) because most teenagers are sensible enough to exercise discretion in their illicit experimentations. There would be a moderate amount of drinking, pot smoking and sex going on behind the scenes but nothing really publicly obvious.
But there is the second factor: that in any given generation there is a spectrum of personality types.
Legislators, Judges and University administrators are very often going to be conservative control freaks, because that's what made them choose those careers in the first place.
And in any given generation of teenagers there will be a small proportion of assholes who refuse to exercise discretion, who will seem hellbent on creating a confrontation with the aforementioned authoritarians, and thereby ruining things for everybody. You all know the type of person I'm talking about. Like the STD-ridden slut bragging loudly in public about how many partners she slept with that week (yuck). Or the halfwit who gets drunk and trashes the dorm then shits on the bonnet of somebody's car.
These two personality types do not mix well.
If only all college kids could exercise a little discretion and consideration for the sensibilities of others less...er...liberated...than themselves, and if only the authorities concerned could try to remember that one or two bad apples needn't be representative of the whole bunch. If only, then we could all just party on in peace.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
most American's were screaming and mocking Australia's Internet Censorship efforts (which everyone has been deathly about quiet since it supposedly went into effect on Jan 1 - I haven't noticed)...
Maybe you're the only Australian who can still get Slashdot...?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Forget to tab in syslog.conf? : comments got you down in inittab, typo in passwd locked you out? Guessing at possible values for
I fail to see how moving the data to a different location - or putting it into a tree structure - would make any difference at all.
Without dumbing it down, or removing flexibility, I believe a better way to manage the bits of configuration required by each program would be a centrally managed, accessed, API driven repository for config.
As I've pointed out, front-ending the whole thing with a database manager which keeps everything in memory exposes the whole damn thing to corruption. Obviously you haven't suffered under Windows as much as I have.
I don't pretend to know the right way to begin to code this up, but I'm tired of explaining to new admins that are looking to change X in unix, that the only way to know how to find the config file -- is to already know where to find the config file.
Ha ha. I sympathize with your newbies, but your answer is not strictly true. You only need to know what the file is called - and you can get that from the man page for the utility/program concerned. Once you do know what it's called you just do a 'find
No doubt some will complain "but that's too complicated". They may be right but it won't be solved just by putting the X config files into a central repository. If you want to master X configuration, you have to learn how it works. There are, unfortunately, not shortcuts to mastering a system with so many configurable options. Even if there was a nice GUI on it, you'd still have to learn what all the parameters mean.
Sorry Mr.Bell, but I'm fundamentally opposed to any scheme to take Unix away from the philosophy which makes it what it is: the most flexible operating system, the most robust application platform and the most feature-rich development platform in the world.
For those of you who have forgotten, or who are simply too young to know, here is that philosophy spelt out (you can find the original here):
Tenets of the UNIX Philosophy
from The Unix Philosophy by Mike Gancarz
ISBN:1-555558-123-4. Copyright 1995 Butterworth-Heinemann.
Reprinted with Permission of Digital Press
The main tenets of the Unix Philosophy are as follows:
1. Small is beautiful.Small programs are easy to understand.
Small programs are easy to maintain.
Small programs consume fewer system resources.
Small programs are easier to combine with other tools. 2. Make each program do one thing well.
"The best program...does but one task in its life and does it well."
"The program is loaded into memory, accomplishes its function, and then gets out of the way to allow the next single-minded program to begin." 3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
Prototyping is a learning process.
Early prototyping reduces risk. 4. Choose portability over efficiency.
Next ---'s hardware will run faster.
Don't spend too much time making a program run faster.
The most efficient way is rarely portable.
Good programs never die--they are ported to new hardware platforms. 5. Store numerical data in flat ASCII files.
ASCII text is a common interchange format.
ASCII text is easily read and edited.
ASCII data files simplify the use of Unix text tools.
Increased portability overcomes the lack of speed (of flat ASCII text files...)
The lack of speed is overcome by next year's machine. 6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
Good programmers write good code; great programmers "borrow" good code.
Avoid the not-invented-here syndrome.
Allow other people to use your code to leverage their own work.
Automate everything. 7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
Shell scripts give you awesome leverage
Shell scripts leverage your time, too.
Shell scripts are more portable than C.
Resist the desire to rewrite shell scripts in C. 8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
CUIs assume that the user is human.
CUI command parsers are often big and ugly to write.
CUIs tend to adopt a "big is beautiful" approach.
Programs having CUIs are hard to combine with other programs.
CUIs do not scale well.
CUIs do not take advantage of software leverage. 9. Make every program a filter.
Every program written since the dawn of computing is a filter.
Programs do not create data--people do.
Computers convert data from one form to another.
Use stdin for data input;
Use stdout for data output;
Use stderr for out-of-band information.
Ten Lesser Tenets
- Allow the User to tailor the environment.
- Make operating system kernels small and lightweight.
- Use lower case and keep it short.
- Save Trees.
- Silence is golden.
- Think parallel.
- The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
- Look for the 90 percent solution.
- Worse is better. (I won't try to explain this one...)
- Think hierarchically.
Forgive me for reproducing the whole page here but I feel it's something everyone should see at least once, even the "click-through challenged".Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Obviously, it would be a lot more complex than that
I rest my case.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There already *is* a freshmeat slashbox. Duh.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Actually I have had good experiences with Groupwise for email & Border Manager for internet access.
That's funny, because I've had experience with those too and I think they suck. Groupwise is about as reliable as MS Exchange, i.e. not very reliable at all. I even had my whole account mysteriously disappear forever one time. Border Manager (because it is designed for dummies to use) is very easy to misconfigure. Ever find yourself behind a firewall which blocks out far more than is necessary - because the sysadmin doesn't know *anything* about the internet? These things should not be made *too* simple to use because then you have simple people using them.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The FSF does not use the GPL for books and documents, as it makes no sense. If you use the GPL for books, you put an unnecessary burden on publishers (they have to either include the "source code" -- the LaTeX or XML or whatever, as you say, with every copy, or they have to include a written offer to provide the source to every book buyer who asks for three years).
I don't think this argument is valid. How is it more burdensome to distribute source than the formatted output? As with executable programs, you just provide a link to the source tarball right next to the link for the binaries. After all, you don't see most open source authors offering to send diskettes/tapes out. It appears to be enough just to make the source as easy to download as the binaries.
If you're talking about printed books (and therefore making money out of their sale) and you feel you really *have* to supply machine-readable source then just burn a CD to put inside the cover and charge five bucks more. How hard is that?
IMO if the document is to be deemed "open" then source *should* be available. If you'd spend weeks of nights doing copy editing and text markup then you'd probably think so too.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
We already have a centralised repository - it's called /etc.
/proc instead would be completely pointless and would only mean a huge programming overhead every time you wanted to add config facilities for a new application.
This works very well because it's infinitely extendable. You just add text files in whatever format seems appropriate for the application. There would be no benefit whatsoever in making this more complicated than it is. To use a virtual file system like
I'm sick and tired of hearing this same tired argument. Unix doesn't need a registry.
Individual hand-edited ASCII config files do what we need and they are robust and independent; a more tightly-bound repository kept in memory and managed by a large program would expose the configuration data to programming screwups like the Windows registry suffers from.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
No problem. Your post was highly informative, mine wasn't...for obvious reasons. But I'd still contend that Novell missed the boat. It still looks clunky because it's not Unix and it's not Windows. Is there even room for another mass-market server platform these days?
The world has moved on; computing is now a much bigger arena than it was in Netware's day, and a large proportion of our computing infrastructure now depends upon services originating from Unix. With Netware 5 they've tried to drag the product into the internet age (like so many other proprietary platform vendors) by adding TCP/IP and making it into a web server platform. You have indicated some scepticism about the latter. I agree, Netware is unlikely to make it as a web server platform because it has no pedigree as such and there is strong competition in the market already.
But then, if Netware is destined to be remain purely as a file-and-print server then who needs it? This is the basis of my complaint that it's not a general purpose OS. Almost all network installations these days require more than just file and print services. All existing requirements can be met with either Unix or NT or a combination of both. Introducing a third platform means requiring sysadmin skills etc. for it in adddition to the other two. It's hard to imagine that any incremental benefit would outweigh the additional cost of network complexity.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think they went with FAT 16 because all of the operating systems support it.
That would be a completely bogus reason to cripple the more capable systems. After all, the file system speed does contribute to the overall system speed in a "real world" deployment.
IMHO, using FAT16 on the NT and 2K boxes means this isn't anything like a real world test. Yet another demonstration of MS incompetence.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It was (until recently) loaded on top of DOS. It still only has a DOS-like shell with no decent text processing utilities. And until Netware 5, it used an outmoded proprietary network protocol. I don't know much about the latest version, but it still looks like something that came out of the ark. I suppose if you view it purely as an application server platform (rather than as a general purpose OS) it does its job well. But I prefer more flexibility and adherence to open standards than Netware has to offer.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
In the words of one Lt.Cdr. Montgomery Scott:
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If they have even temporary possession of it they can easily copy it onto cassette tape if they want, without any help from mp3.com. In other words, the mp3.com service does not really create any new opportunities for piracy. Or are you proposing that stereo equipment with built-in CD player and cassette recorders should be banned also? They can be abused in precisely the same way.
The only reason the RIAA think they can get away with this (and the MPAA too for that matter) is that they think the judges are too stupid to see past all the digital technology mumbo-jumbo and realise that these copying opportunities are no different than what we already had before the age of the PC and the internet.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You're overlooking the possibility that data warehousing is precisely what mp3.com *is* doing.
MP3.COM has to show that they don't make any copies of CDs which haven't been sold from their web site. But as soon as someone orders the first copy of any given CD from them, mp3.com can make a copy because that copy is licenced to the purchaser...and to any subsequent purchasers of that title.
But whether a given CD is legally owned by MP3.COM, or whether it's only owned by one or more customers, as long as the user demonstrates that they have it also by inserting it in the drive, then there's no difference in principle between the user uploading their own copy to the mp3.com site for their own personal use, and mp3.com simply enabling access to their own archived copy. Those who have demonstrated possession of the licensed material simply get access to the very same bit patterns stored in another place.
This is one place where the legal system has yet to get to grips with the difference between IP and other kinds of property. With IP, all copies are in fact the same object. You can't distinguish between one copy and another if the bit patterns are identical.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
We seem to be thinking at crossed purposes here.
BTW, In other circumstances I'd be on your side (say for example regarding the DeCSS issue). I'd be happiest if we didn't have to put up with stupid restrictions about stuff we've bought that we legally own.
I guess this argument is about whether it should be possible for a product to be made, whose sale can be covered by an auto-expiring license (or in more general terms, whose use can be covered by a contract which does not need to be signed by the purchaser).
There are two answers to that question:
(i) Yes, it's possible. In that case using the product (or a copy thereof) after licence expiry is a contravention of the terms under which it was sold, and is therefore illegal.
(ii) No, it isn't possible. In that case the whole business model is impossible and an auto-expiring product cannot survive in the market.
Out of these two possibilities I prefer the former because it allows a useful product to come to market. I'd benefit from these things because I'd no longer get fleeced by the video rental store every time I couldn't return my rented movie to the shop in time to avoid a fine.
If you choose the latter however, then nobody benefits. If the product can't exist then the home "pirates" can't eve get hold of it let alone copy it.
The answer that the courts come up with is bound to be influenced by the fact that software has been "licenced" rather than properly "sold" for quite some time now, and there is a body of law to suport the practise. So I don't hold out much hope for your interpretation. I still think it's wishful thinking.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Btw, IAAL.
LOL! I thought I'd never see that!
Pity you weren't working for the EFF. Looks like *their* lawyers were outnumbered (I'm trying not to jump to conclusions about their competence).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Am I mis-reading you, ralphclark or are you actually oppsed to documentation?
Ha! Not at all - when I can get it. Or when I'm allowed the time to produce any. But in my experience, although a brand new project will usually be written up with the best of intentions, *very* few software development shops will allocate enough time&resources to keep documentation up to date and in step with bugfixes and enhancements. It's a bit of a vicious circle because the argument can always be made that no-one ever has time to read it anyway...you have to just jump straight into the code and get on with it.
What about documention embedded in the source, like kdoc, javadoc, perl pod, and the like? Do those solve your synchronisation complaints?
This is what I was trying to get at. The cost of maintaining in-line source code comments is far lower as the text is only ever a "Page Up" key away from the code you're working on. Plus then the documentation is right where it's needed when you or another programmer needs to refer to it.
I'm not familiar with the specific examples you named but I'm guessing they are kind of implementations of Donald Knuth's "Literate Programming" concept, where the master copy of the code is actually embedded in the formatted text document which describes its function in natural language. To compile the code you first have to strip it out from the document.
IMHO this is a very good idea...with just one proviso; programmers spend enough time prettying up their code (and reformatting other peoples!). The last thing you'd want is for them to be farting about reformatting paragraphs, selecting heading styles etc. for the comments sections.
Plain unformatted text suitable for viewing on an 80-col-wide dumb terminal is plenty good enough and doesn't waste time. I admit that the ability to add the odd illustration without resorting to "ASCII art" could be useful but this too can be a waste of time and shouldn't be overused.
Finally, apart from source comments there is only one type of application documentation that should ALWAYS be produced for applications, a User/Operations Guide.
Anything else, such as API documentation for programmers can always be most economically done in the body of the source code.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The ruling that just took place at the Santa Clara County Court has nothing to do with the DMCA; the plaintiff's case was that the DeCSS crowd misappropriated a trade secret and in doing so injured their members' business. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the DMCA is a piece of Federal legislation and can only be prosecuted in a Federal court.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I see this product allows the copying of DVD's. I noticed at the bottom of that page, the following warning:
*Use of these products for unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material from DVIX, DVD, VHS or other media is prohibited under federal copyright laws unless the copy qualifies as a far use under the Copyright Laws.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
"THIS MESSAGE IS ENCRYPTED. I REFUSE TO DISTRIBUTE INSTRUCTIONS TO DECRYPT THIS MESSAGE-- IT'S TRADE SECRET. ANYBODY FOUND DISTRIBUTING SOFTWARE WITH THE CAPABILITY OF DECRYPTING THIS MESSAGE, WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF READING THIS MESSAGE (WITHOUT PAYING THE NOMINAL FEE FOR THE DECRYPTION PROGRAM) OR FOR CREATING ILLEGAL PIRATE COPIES OF THIS MESSAGE (WHICH IS COPYRIGHTED BY MYSELF) WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION."
Since I did it by hand in "vi" without even needing to analyse the algorithm (a simple sustitution cipher is the first thing anyone wuould check), I guess my brain is illegal, according to the MPAA's viewpoint. Or vi is, though I could just as easily have used a pencil and paper.
I guess you made your point very well. Why can't those dumb lawyers see this>
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
There's a certain almost poetic beauty to the way this idea juxtaposes with the "archival backup" provision of "fair use", isn't there? When I rent an ordinary disk, I clearly don't own it -- I just have possession of it for the period of the rental and I'm entitled to view it, but that's all. However, if I buy a self-destructing disk, then I do own the physical medium. They may be willing to sell it to me for a rental price on the theory that it will self-destruct, but barring some really fancy legal footwork on their part, I don't see how they could justify denying that I am entitled to use it according to "fair use", including the right to "make a backup copy, solely for archival purposes in the event of [must...keep...straight...face] the loss or destruction of the original".
I think you're getting a bit carried away. There is no way that the courts would consider making a copy of one of these things "fair use". The very idea is ludicrous. Why on earth would you need an archive or backup copy when you're only licensed to view it for one day anyway?
Oh, BTW, Moore's Law was only formulated for integrated semiconductor devices, not magnetic media. Though I take your point about the similar price/performance evolution curve.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
This isn't just for you Jared, it's a reply to all the others who responded to my previous post.
This is all just plain wishful thinking on your part.
All of you are forgetting that the sole purpose of the product would be to expire after a day's play. Even an idiot can surely see that if the user is allowed to make a backup copy then the product would not be sold in the first place. If an idiot can understand that then I believe the courts would too.
You're also forgetting that the law protecting you right to make copies is about "fair use" copies. This is not a "fair use" copy because it would allow you to keep a recording permanently when it was licensed for only one day's viewing. There can be no "fair use" justification for making a backup when the thing only has to last one day, for crying out loud!
With regard to contract law, IANAL and I'm not certain about the US in particular, but in the UK at any rate, when a sale is made there is an implied contract which does not require any signature. This is the basis for consumer rights so I imagine there is a similar provision in the US. What this means is that shrinkwrap licenses are legitimate - at least as long as the terms are displayed on the outside of the packaging.
So, as long as there is a prohibition against backups printed on the outside sleeve of these one-day DVDs, any laws about the right to make backups would be superseded.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Separate documentation is a waste of time because it *rarely* gets updated along with the code, and thus gets out of date very quickly. Sad, but true.
The only documentation worth starting therefore is in-line source code comments because future programmers can be made to update the comments as they go along. And even then in some cases the project manager has to beat them with a stick to make them do it.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
It could be argued that it is the construction of a particular type of machine - a biological machine. Just because the parts are made of cells doesn't mean that this is no less a mechanism.
It could be argued in Philosophy 101, but not in a patent infringrement lawsuit. The patent is on a process, not a physical construction.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Remember that you STILL have the right to make backup copies of all software you own. The fact that the media is auto-degrading doesn't deprive you of this right.
Don't be ridiculous. The media companies would take the issue to the courts, and the courts would support them because it's piracy plain and simple. If you have bought an auto-expiring DVD in the full knowledge that it is *meant* to be usable only for one day, and that a condition of the sale is that you *will not* make a copy, then you simply do not have a leg to stand on.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction