*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
ONE program shouldn't necessarily require the installation of 4-5 other programs, regardless of how the installations are done.
You're kidding right? The genius of *nix is the ability for one program to use another rather than re-inventing the wheel. You will have far fewer bugs if program X relies on program Y to do what program U does best (assuming that program Y publishes it's interface methods and sticks to them).
We bitch at MS for this - tying multiple programs to IE - but it often happens in the linux world as well with packages - package X requires package A, B & C be installed.
There is a big difference here. If MS had one program for grabbing data from a web server, and that program could be used by others (including IE which would then render html) there would be *much* fewer bugs and security concersn in MS code. Rather what they do is expect IE to do *all* of it *and* expect other programs to use it for *any* aspect of internet access Case in point - why does my Counter Strike install on Linux (using winex) generate an IE error? That's insane...
Why can't just the required bits of A, B & C be rolled into package X by the author? Or - heaven forbid - just provide a binary with all the necessary libraries bundled together.
Oh sure - take a 10Gb desktop linux install and make it 20 or 30GB? No thanks. If you hate rpm dependancy hell, then use debian or gentoo (or come up with a more reasonable fix). But bundling libraries with each package is insane for the following reasons:
It's unfair to expect Programmer of X to also fix bugs in Library Y - it's programmer of Y's responsibility. This is A Good Thing tm - It allows Programmer X to focus on program X, and Programmer Y to focus on library Y Breaking code (and programs) into little, significant sections, has been a halmark of programming (and unix) for decades...
The other reason is this: If you do it your way - you end up with maybe 5 versions of library Y. You thoght it was hard to keep up with bug fixes before?
You forget that we live in a capitalism. Without Google, NYT could simply get its hits from other search engines and news feeds (i.e. slashdot, yahoo, etc).
Not true - the NYT came to Google to work out a deal so that google would spider the NYT's news articles (which would have been unavailable to google's web spiders because of the NYT's registration). This info comes from this column which is referenced by this/. article. It's a good read on how the NYT needs google more than the other way around.
Other search engines would love Google to make stupid decisions to censor some of the better news content. A partnership with NYT would just give them one leg up on Google. Google can't afford that.
Okay, time to drop the crack pipe. Nobody said *anything* about censorship. What *is* being discussed is the NYT's decision to allow google news readers to view NYT's article without having to register (a topic you completly screw up in the next paragraph).
On another note, regarding the "moronic registration process", I'm sure NYT has had plenty of time to re-evaluate its registration process to determine if it is counter-productive. I'm sure the money they save on consulting and profiling studies because they can link their stories to users far outweighs the $.005/hit of advertising money lost due to the 5% of its potential readers that are turned away.
I seriously doubt the *main* reason the NYT has registration is for profiling studies. They want email addresses to sell (IMO) - an email address from a NYT reader is worth more than one from, say, etoys.com (or wherever). They decided it's worth it to them to go without the email addr in order to get the page view from google (and more importantly, a possible daily reader and/or subscriber). Besides, with the referrer-google, you onl;y get to view the *one* article without registration - if you then go to another NYT article linked from within NYT, you have to register.
The nytimes needs google *much* than google needs the nytimes. Without the nyt - google *still* has thousands of news sources - without google, the nyt looses probably 20 to 30% of the page views they would get otherwise.
Besides, all that is being "subverted" is the moronic registration process, something that the nyt willingly gives up for google news readers
If you find a bug in Company A's software, then let A know about it. If A decides not to do anything about it (or if they are taking longer to plug the hole than you thought) I don't see how you are morally justified in leaking that info to the world.
Wrong!! Read the above staement again. Still wrong.
Bugs and exploits make us (as users of the software) vulnerable - and because the software is question (HPunix) is closed source, we are dependant on the software maker to fix these exploits. If they choose to not do so, or take their time, the we are obligated to ourselves and other users of the software to push the issue.
Any eula or law that prevents this is flawed and needs too die (die! die!).
Now, the Finisterre story may still not have been the best argument - the article does say that HP was creating a patch - but no mention of how long it too them.
Buy the Game from TuxGames. Every game they sell will (probably) automatically be counted as a linux sale by the Id folks - and you'll be supporting a very cool company too (I buy most of my games from them but have no other connection).
You are correct about the problems with games on Mac, however, I have on my jaguar box right now:
the Sims Warcraft 3 Myth 2 and 3 BZFlag Unreal Tournament Quake 3 (I wonder if q3rally will work) Diablo2 MOH::AA RTCW
and I just found out (reading this thread) that I can install TuxRacer.
Now, this is a fraction of the games I could run on windows, but it's not a bad list either. It's even better for my linux boxes (I run a gaming center with the one mac and 6 linux boxes):
Plus The Sims is in the mail from transgaming, and thanks to the 3 free months of subscription that comes with it, I will soon be able to play Warcraft III, Grand Theft Auto 3, Civilization III, and Black and White (the latter of which is supposed to run great on os x) on my Linux boxen.
Plus a *ton* of arcade and card games. Again, a fraction, but not a bad list either.
All of the above games work great except multiplayer in SoF.
PC's will probably always be the main gaming platform, but I think the situatin is getting better for mac's and linux boxes thanks to Game developers who care about moer than just the bottom line.
I've read George Dyson's Bydarka book - is he still making them?
For the erst of us, a Bydarka is an ilutian kayak made of whale bones and seal skins. george made (makes?) them from aircraft grade aluminum and coated cotton burlap. You have to see the book in order to understand how beautiful they are.
There's also pictures in the book of his tree house - about 80 feet above the ground!
Yes, this is certainly an option - it would make it easier for first timers. But another aspect of the store is linux advocacy - in this respect I think it's important to show all the cool stuff that comes with a standard linux distro (even though I use gentoo, which doesn't fit this category). Plus, there is a college and high school within blocks of the store, so there are many *curious* people who like to tinker. Then there's the "just wanna play counter-strike" or "read email" folks...
Most of us agree that more users using Linux as a desktop is a good thing. Most of us agree the way to get there is to make Linux easier to use for the more *average* user. I think this goes a long ways in that direction.
As long as RedHat isn't limiting the choices of us geeks (and they are not, as far as I can tell), a simplified, unified desktop is great. I own a internet cafe/gaming center running linux, and most of my customers get a scared look in their eyes the first time they see linux (I use kde 3.01). So many options... Very quickly the scared look goes away, but I think this desktop would scare them *much* less...
Sorry KDE and Gnome, but you folks have to stop bitching about this - in the long run this is better for us all.
I run an internet cafe/gaming center running linux, and have had great luck with xfs. sometimes kids kick the power button, ar the nvidia drivers lock up the box, and so far, my xfs filesystems have come up without fail. When I had ext3, it always did an fsck (even with journaling on) - this took 20 minutes with my 40gb drivers.
Another option would be to use knoppix linux or another cd based linux - then send any data over the network to a central, ups'ed server. Or, boot up via network (from the same central server). Either would let you hit the power button all day long.
Slashdot Mirror
Or am I wrong?
I think you are wrong - and here is why:
*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
At least check out screen. It's amazing software.
Use your brain, if /. hosts the ...
/. anyway? Geez...
Um, use *your* brain - it's a joke, they were kidding, you know, an attempt at humor?.
Since when did we allow Vulcans to post to
You're kidding right? The genius of *nix is the ability for one program to use another rather than re-inventing the wheel. You will have far fewer bugs if program X relies on program Y to do what program U does best (assuming that program Y publishes it's interface methods and sticks to them).
We bitch at MS for this - tying multiple programs to IE - but it often happens in the linux world as well with packages - package X requires package A, B & C be installed.
There is a big difference here. If MS had one program for grabbing data from a web server, and that program could be used by others (including IE which would then render html) there would be *much* fewer bugs and security concersn in MS code. Rather what they do is expect IE to do *all* of it *and* expect other programs to use it for *any* aspect of internet access Case in point - why does my Counter Strike install on Linux (using winex) generate an IE error? That's insane...
Why can't just the required bits of A, B & C be rolled into package X by the author? Or - heaven forbid - just provide a binary with all the necessary libraries bundled together.
Oh sure - take a 10Gb desktop linux install and make it 20 or 30GB? No thanks. If you hate rpm dependancy hell, then use debian or gentoo (or come up with a more reasonable fix). But bundling libraries with each package is insane for the following reasons:
It's unfair to expect Programmer of X to also fix bugs in Library Y - it's programmer of Y's responsibility. This is A Good Thing tm - It allows Programmer X to focus on program X, and Programmer Y to focus on library Y Breaking code (and programs) into little, significant sections, has been a halmark of programming (and unix) for decades...
The other reason is this: If you do it your way - you end up with maybe 5 versions of library Y. You thoght it was hard to keep up with bug fixes before?
What dork modded this down - it's funny, get it?
I hate to be the one...
This was posted this morning.
Not true - the NYT came to Google to work out a deal so that google would spider the NYT's news articles (which would have been unavailable to google's web spiders because of the NYT's registration). This info comes from this column which is referenced by this /. article. It's a good read on how the NYT needs google more than the other way around.
Other search engines would love Google to make stupid decisions to censor some of the better news content. A partnership with NYT would just give them one leg up on Google. Google can't afford that.
Okay, time to drop the crack pipe. Nobody said *anything* about censorship. What *is* being discussed is the NYT's decision to allow google news readers to view NYT's article without having to register (a topic you completly screw up in the next paragraph).
On another note, regarding the "moronic registration process", I'm sure NYT has had plenty of time to re-evaluate its registration process to determine if it is counter-productive. I'm sure the money they save on consulting and profiling studies because they can link their stories to users far outweighs the $.005/hit of advertising money lost due to the 5% of its potential readers that are turned away.
I seriously doubt the *main* reason the NYT has registration is for profiling studies. They want email addresses to sell (IMO) - an email address from a NYT reader is worth more than one from, say, etoys.com (or wherever). They decided it's worth it to them to go without the email addr in order to get the page view from google (and more importantly, a possible daily reader and/or subscriber). Besides, with the referrer-google, you onl;y get to view the *one* article without registration - if you then go to another NYT article linked from within NYT, you have to register.
The nytimes needs google *much* than google needs the nytimes. Without the nyt - google *still* has thousands of news sources - without google, the nyt looses probably 20 to 30% of the page views they would get otherwise.
Besides, all that is being "subverted" is the moronic registration process, something that the nyt willingly gives up for google news readers
Must find these new games
Absolutely - Tux Racer and BZFlag (www.bzflag.org) - best cross-platform, open-source games I know!
If you find a bug in Company A's software, then let A know about it. If A decides not to do anything about it (or if they are taking longer to plug the hole than you thought) I don't see how you are morally justified in leaking that info to the world.
Wrong!! Read the above staement again. Still wrong.
Bugs and exploits make us (as users of the software) vulnerable - and because the software is question (HPunix) is closed source, we are dependant on the software maker to fix these exploits. If they choose to not do so, or take their time, the we are obligated to ourselves and other users of the software to push the issue.
Any eula or law that prevents this is flawed and needs too die (die! die!).
Now, the Finisterre story may still not have been the best argument - the article does say that HP was creating a patch - but no mention of how long it too them.
just my opinionated 2 cents...
This reminds me of 2 more mod categories we need:
+1 LOL
+2 ROTFLMAO
The above should be modded at *least* a +1 LOL
Somebody mod the above as clueless - the prior post was an attempt (successful as far as I'm concerned) at humor.
Here's my vote for the most needed mod categories:
-1 clueless
-1 humorless
-1 needs an ass chewing
-2 needs to get laid
+2 just got laid
-1 needs his lips sugically removed from someones ass
-2 needs his head sugically removed from his own anus
+1 CmdrTaco
-1 CmdrTaco
And this seems to bear that out...
The article says about $100 on ebay
Troll??? Troll??? How can this post be a troll?
C'mon folks, take moderation seriously - there's no way this is a troll.
geez...
Your point is that you didn't read the article, have no intention of reading it, and want us all to be impressed by what you know about dump.
If you want to contribute to this discussion (and indirectly, this community), then read the freaking article first.
thank you
You are correct about the problems with games on Mac, however, I have on my jaguar box right now:
F rozen Bubble
the Sims
Warcraft 3
Myth 2 and 3
BZFlag
Unreal Tournament
Quake 3 (I wonder if q3rally will work)
Diablo2
MOH::AA
RTCW
and I just found out (reading this thread) that I can install TuxRacer.
Now, this is a fraction of the games I could run on windows, but it's not a bad list either. It's even better for my linux boxes (I run a gaming center with the one mac and 6 linux boxes):
Half-Life, Counter-Stike, DoD, Firearms, TFC, etc
RTCW
BZFlag
Civ:CtP
Creatures
Descent3
Insane
Quake3 (and Q3Rally)
Myth2
GLTron
ArmegaTron
Railroad Tycoon2
SimCity 3000
Soldier of Fortune
TuxRacer
Unreal Tournament.
Plus The Sims is in the mail from transgaming, and thanks to the 3 free months of subscription that comes with it, I will soon be able to play Warcraft III, Grand Theft Auto 3, Civilization III, and Black and White (the latter of which is supposed to run great on os x) on my Linux boxen.
Plus a *ton* of arcade and card games. Again, a fraction, but not a bad list either.
All of the above games work great except multiplayer in SoF.
PC's will probably always be the main gaming platform, but I think the situatin is getting better for mac's and linux boxes thanks to Game developers who care about moer than just the bottom line.
just my 2 cents
I've read George Dyson's Bydarka book - is he still making them?
For the erst of us, a Bydarka is an ilutian kayak made of whale bones and seal skins. george made (makes?) them from aircraft grade aluminum and coated cotton burlap. You have to see the book in order to understand how beautiful they are.
There's also pictures in the book of his tree house - about 80 feet above the ground!
Yes, this is certainly an option - it would make it easier for first timers. But another aspect of the store is linux advocacy - in this respect I think it's important to show all the cool stuff that comes with a standard linux distro (even though I use gentoo, which doesn't fit this category). Plus, there is a college and high school within blocks of the store, so there are many *curious* people who like to tinker. Then there's the "just wanna play counter-strike" or "read email" folks...
Most of us agree that more users using Linux as a desktop is a good thing. Most of us agree the way to get there is to make Linux easier to use for the more *average* user. I think this goes a long ways in that direction.
As long as RedHat isn't limiting the choices of us geeks (and they are not, as far as I can tell), a simplified, unified desktop is great. I own a internet cafe/gaming center running linux, and most of my customers get a scared look in their eyes the first time they see linux (I use kde 3.01). So many options... Very quickly the scared look goes away, but I think this desktop would scare them *much* less...
Sorry KDE and Gnome, but you folks have to stop bitching about this - in the long run this is better for us all.
Greg
I run an internet cafe/gaming center running linux, and have had great luck with xfs. sometimes kids kick the power button, ar the nvidia drivers lock up the box, and so far, my xfs filesystems have come up without fail. When I had ext3, it always did an fsck (even with journaling on) - this took 20 minutes with my 40gb drivers.
Another option would be to use knoppix linux or another cd based linux - then send any data over the network to a central, ups'ed server. Or, boot up via network (from the same central server). Either would let you hit the power button all day long.
Hope this helps,
Greg
I hate when that happens...
Are you saying you can place a non-css encrypted vidoe file on a dvd and it will play on a standard dvd player?