Should companies' be liable for security holes? I really don't think so. Everytime you install software you get the EULA that says how 'by using this software, you agree not to blame us if the program formats your hard drive' thing. We all know the risks we take by using a computer to make our jobs easier. As an amateur programmer, I sure wouldn't (and couldn't financially) be able to be liable for some obscure security failure, whether I charged for the software or not. However, I do think that companies should be swift to follow up on security problems that are currently known, and deliver fixes in a convienient and easy manner. Perhaps there should be a universal security upgrade protocol, by which a company can upgrade installed software. That way, any software distributed with support for that protocol would carry a 'Seal of Approval'. Consumers would learn quickly to not buy software without this certification.
Obviously, that upgrade protocol itself would hav to be securely implemented, and I don't know how you'd regulate something like that. But at least programmers wouldn't have to always wonder if they might be liable if their software did some Bad Thing. If programmers (or program companies) were held strictly liable for security issues (including possibly class-action suits for damages), you'd see a lot less diversity in software, since only a few companies would be able to take that risk. Is that something we want?
OK, I can actually understand with your argument.
However, the RIAA is far from being a good neighbor itself. The DMCA severely limits citizen's freedoms to do even absolutely legitimate things. The RIAA certainly had something to do with the DMCA, and whose money did they use to do it? Their customers'.
Also, there is a big difference between sticking it to the RIAA and sticking it to the artists. If I download some music from Green Day, and decide to attend thier next concert (or buy thier merchandise), Green Day is gonna come out rosier than thier record label. The artist ends up with more money, and the record label gets fucked.
So why do that to the record label? Its really simple. It is near-impossible for an artist to be heard from coast-to-coast without recording with a major label. Back in the day, this used to be because record labels helped advertise artists and handle the distribution of music. These days, an indie recording studio can do damned near the same thing, but you won't end up on MTV. By screwing over the record labels, the playing field between major and indie labels gets a much-needed levelling.
In my opinion, I'd like to see music move away from the whole MTV teen-pop stardom thing and allow more talented artists to be heard on the airwaves. Also, I don't like how the RIAA has so much control over its industry and even worse, the government. Its just not right. For me, it's more a conflict of socio-political ideaologies with the RIAA than a matter of money. I don't have a problem slapping down 15 bucks for my favorite artist's new album. I do, however, have a problem with 14 of those bucks going to the label, and a paltry dollar for the artist.
If the RIAA had any foresight, they'd move away from the MTV generation, and actually put out quality music. Is it really necessary to spend millions of dollars promoting an artist? Couldn't less money be put to equal or better use? The major labels have a really good excuse for why CDs cost 20 bucks apiece. The record company spends millions on its artist, hoping they will cash in on thier investment. Only a small percentage of artists actually make the label money, so they have to adjust accordingly. OK, that makes sense and all, but what about this: If the vast majority of your signed artists are actually talented, and have an actual fan following that persists (like Phish and much unlike this week's boy band), the odds dictate you will make money on your investments the majority of the time. Thus, the labels _could_ ajust prices accordingly (way lower). Of course, the labels could probably lower prices substantially and still stay well above the red.
So, with all that said, I think the labels need to keep in mind that they are feeling the effect of thier customer's displeasure. We've found a much better way to filter through the crap and only support the artists we want to. Is that so bad? Do you like buying a CD only to find out that it only has one good song and the rest are pure crap? I don't. There wouldn't be so much file-sharing if there wasn't an itch to scratch. Its not anybody's fault that the RIAA is finding out that capitalism has a downside. Sure, you can make as much money as you are determined to make, but only if you can convince people to give it to you willingly. Maybe they need to try harder to convince people to willingly pay for their product. That shouldn't include pushing legislation, which has already happened. Its kind of sad that in this day and age, the dollar carries more weight than a ballot.
I heard about it a couple of days ago. Its kind of ironic that I saw a banner ad from Aerie about this (on a site that may or may not have been slashdot). Hehehe. Funny.
Anyway, I'm not terribly familiar with the limitations of wireless. Can anyone provide a link to some good info about its capabilities, pros/cons, etc? In these parts, there is really no other hope for broadband, and I'm wondering if wireless could eventually flourish in rural areas.
First off, I've used SuSE 7.3 (got the CD's right here, actually), and RedHat 7.2. I can say that they are pretty, but that alone does not a desktop distro make.
First off, neither one installed without a hitch. I can't figure out why. I don't have a wierd hardware configuration, and my components are not faulty (it all works fine in WinXP). Yet both RedHat and SuSE choked on the install every single time I tried. Eventually I was able to get SuSE to install, but I'm still very much less than impressed. The disto is completely broken, and it appears to be destroying its filesystem. Ever since the 2.4.x kernel, I've had nothing but trouble with Linux, though the 2.2.x distros (RH 5.xx - 6.xx) worked wonderfully, even if they were ugly.
WinXP, on the other hand, installed quite gracefully, and its about as stable as one can expect of the Windows platform. I haven't seen a BSOD once, though heavy media use tends to pull down the machine (still).
As far as Linux has come, I'm growing more disappointed with it. I never had a systemwide Linux crash until the 2.4 series. Whats the deal? I shouldn't have to retrograde for better performance/stability!
I, for one, am getting pretty irritated with Linux these days. Maybe its my hardware, maybe its not, all I know is that (gasp!) windows is more usable and stable as far as I can tell. A shame, but thats life.
My question is: How does OSX measure up in this regard? Is it terribly prone to systemwide crashes and other inconvieniences? I'm considering getting a TiBook, and wonder if its much of an improvement over the offerings of MS and Linus.
Like Cringely or not, I must admit that at least he gives valid reasons for the point he's arguing.
I don't think it would really hurt Apple's hardware sales to release an x86 version of OSX.
I also think it would be good if consumers had a valid alternative to MS. Sorry, I'm a Linux fan too, but its still a work in progress and IS NOT ready for prime time. At least this way we have a decent alternative that is already established and proven.
On the other hand, Apple would be taking a risk to do such a thing. Just because its not likely (IMHO) to damage Apple's hardware sales, it could.
Plus, in the larger scheme of things, Apple would also be shooting themselves in the foot unless they want the world to belong to Intel (and AMD). Wouldn't Apple rather that the G-series processors dominated instead of Athlon/P4?
Also, I must confess that I've grown weary of the PC (x86 archetechure), and actually perfer Apple's hardware these days. I've grown rather disenchanted with PC hardware. As far as we've come, I can't figure out why my damned computer crashes more than it did in 1994! I've played with a G3/OS at school for awhile, and I don't ever remember it so much as hiccupping. Can't say that for any PC hardware I've used, ever.
So while yes, maybe it would be cool to have OSX in PC, its a moot point for me at least, cuz my next computer's going to be a Titanium laptop.
Seems to me by the looks of that paragraph, that if you agree to the EULA, you permit MS to check your WinXP version info, and upgrade any old components. Thats all. If those updated components contain any sort of 'spyware', that is, collecting personal information, then I am pretty sure MS will get in trouble for invading thier customers' privacy without the customers' explict consent to do so. The EULA does not give MS the right to do this.
Okay, so it can be argued maybe you don't want your components upgraded (say because MS is breaking a standard), but hell, why not? If you're running XP, you've already ditched your old OS for a new one, so whats the difference? I'd rather hope that once in a while MS will sneak a _good_ update in, so that some bug that crashes my computer finally goes away. I have no problem with MS sending my computer updates, as long as thats ALL they're doing.
It would be unwise for MS to try to do anything much else, because if they were, and it was illegal, the court would have to sapoena (sp?) MS source code to bring a case against them. MS does not want that, believe me.
Besides, what does MS need your personal info for? MS doesn't depend on advertising cash, as it still has a strong foothold in the PC/Server OS markets. While even if MS did get caught doing something they weren't supposed to, the US must have a domiation in the computer industry (good for the economy), we can't let microsoft crumble till they'res a formidible player to take its place, so they just get a slap on the hand. They won't get in trouble, but they will be forbidden to do it again. Microsoft doesn't really want to lose the government's favor (when you start messing with the population's privacy rights), but they will do as they please until they are told not to.
Which begs the question, then, would we really be better off without MS? I could understand and agree with both sides of that.
And if MS fell, who would take its place? Linux? Uhm, what Linux company? *BSD? Who's going to run the company to distribute it? If we are to stay near the top of the tech industry, we need a company large enough to handle global marketing. You can have all kinds of little companies sparring with each other, but hey, RedHat Linux has an install base of what? A hundred thousand? Half a million? MS has an install base of what? A lot more, and thats for a reason. Marketing is a big part of the game. Not just marketing doublespeech, but I mean as in advertising, distribution, support, classes, etc.
Sorry, this got wayyy offtopic, but who'd be a suitable replacement (as a company) for microsoft? I'd love to see that poll.;-)
Okay, lets intelligently look at why they're claiming that the gaming industry is doing so well (in terms of dollars):
Three new consoles came out within the last 6 quarters. They obviously make up a good percentage of the money made (gross, not net, if we're to assume the units were sold at a loss). And with new consoles come new games, ergo another percentage.
Also, you have to take into account that consoles, games, perhipherals, etc cost WAY more than they used to. That in itself is why its a 'good year' for gaming, because companies made a lot of money. But how about the numbers of units sold, not the total sales figure? It could be that there really isn't as large an interest in gaming this year than normal (whatever that is), but since the stuff costs so much, the gaming companies made more this year than ever.
If I was a marketing exec for one of these gaming companies, I'd be paying more attention to the number of units sold than anything else. Profits are not an accurate gauge of how well you are doing in pushing your product, believe it or not. Thats how you ensure your survival, by increasing unit sales, not unit price. Blah.
I sure wouldn't invest in a company that is bragging about this year's profits, but rather would go with a company that is able to show where its at, and where it expects to be, and how so. $9B in sales is no good if you're only $2B clear and you haven't paid anyone yet.
Like the electorial college uses.. heh. Or claiming that a processor with a higher clock speed means it can process faster. Blah.
So am I to understand that WinXX has had less reported vulnerabilities over the last 5 years? I believe that. MS believes in security thru obscurity, and god only knows how many hidden security flaws there are in say, Win9x that have never even been discovered.
However, that doesn't mean they won't be. Anyone who's got a clue (the meager minority, I'm afraid) seem to understand that reporting and fixing bugs is kinda how open-source works. I'd be MUCH more concerned if Linux (distros)_didn't_ have more reported security problems, for an unreported security flaw is the one that goes unfixed. Microsoft can probably tell you all about it.
that these new copy-protected CD's will play on? Companies like Sony, perhaps? I'm starting to think the roaring success of the Playstation hasn't corrupted them. So the recording industry (of which Sony has a hand) demands a copy-protected CD format, because they are claiming they are losing money (to MP3's, CD copying, etc). What, its not compatible with regular CD-ROM/Audio drives? Well then somebody will just have to make new drives for us. Who will do that? (Sony quietly raises hand at this point)
I swear the Recording Industry is as slimy as they get. Not only do they give the consumer an assraping solely for the company's benefit, the comsumer also has to pay the company for thier trouble. I can't think of too many companies like that, save for Microsoft. Perhaps there are more. Maybe all big business is like that?
The whole Lindows concept sounds like a Good Thing(TM) to me. I really hate having to dual boot all the time. Really, this is what I have wanted since I was first introduced to Linux. The only reason the netadmin at my old high school wouldn't use linux is because it wouldn't run a few rather exotic (and expensive) programs that were strictly Win32.
There is a lot of Windows software that I have, because I actually enjoy using the software. Who cares that it runs on a Microsoft. I do, but only because I'd rather have the same exact software running on top of Linux.
However, Lindows won't be able to leech off Microsoft's market share very much if it doesn't support the.NET API. This is supposedly the next greatest thing for MS. And, if I understand the.NET strategy, MS can break compatibility by releasing "update patches". How does the Lindows CEO plan to get around this?
The worst case scenario is that MS will build a security layer for thier API's, so that the API's can only be accessed after MS authentication. Just imagine doing #include stdio.h ($license_id, $checksum)
and you can only compile the source if the authentication returns true.
Obviously ZDNet is not spinning this issue, because by doing so would only call greater attention to the fact. Believe me, ZDNet is not the be-all end all when it comes to business news. Not by a long shot. By pointing the finger at MS, it automatically calls greater attention to itself. Unless it is a marketing ploy by ZDNet to gain more regular users, I highly doubt that anyone but Microsoft is at fault as far as this topic goes.
Besides, ZDNet has the logs that prove MS did rig the polls. Of course, they could be made up, but I bet there is a 3rd party somewhere down the line between microsoft and ZDNet that can authenticate what the logs say.
This girl from work took me and paid for everything! Thats all pretty cool, seein how she's hot, and I got to see FOTR.
I read The Hobbit when I was in 4th or 5th grade, so thats why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. I haven't actually read Lord Of The Rings, and I can tell you the movie, while visually stunning and interesting enough, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at all. I grasped the main concept (Frodo ends up with The One Ring, and set out to some badass mountain to destroy it before this dick Sauron gets ahold of it again). It wasn't immediately obvious that Saruman had alterior motives in his alliance with Sauron. It seemed Saruman was nothing more than Sauron's crony, while I suspect his involvement in the book is more complex. I read a post that said that Saruman Sauron and Gandalf are all of the same race, which would have been nice to know during the movie. It would also have been helpful to more fully flesh out the significance of Elves.
I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had previously read the book, and now I'm going to have to in order to clear up what I didn't understand. I think they could have cut down some of the fight scenes for better plot development, but whatever. I'll read the book, see the movie, and probably live the rest of my life thinking FOTR was a fucking great movie.
Dude, that is by far the coolest fucking thing I have ever heard of! Good idea. The slashdot community, pop. ~500,000. The only thing is, you are going to have these supernodes where certain people have a ton of friends and foes... such as RMS for example. An added bonus I guess, you can determine someone's slashdot popularity by the size of thier respective nodes. I am just an atom in the same graph that CowboyNeal is 10 solar masses. Freaky!;-)
I'd hardly say Windows is getting better at an exponential rate. I was pretty disappointed by XP. It was supposed to be so great, but really its what the finished version of Win2K was supposed to be.
Microsoft has and does release products that are not up to par, and we get to wait for the Service Packs to play catch up. And, since users are getting wise to the whole Service Pack thing, MS released thier unfinished work as Win2K, and finished its development as XP. At least thats what I feel has happened.
Also, consider that Microsoft has had an OS for 20 some years. Linux (the OS) is just to the point where its stable and has support for current hardware. From an OS standpoint, I feel that both Linux and XP have about the same merits. Linux has done well in 10 years to catch up to present MS fare (in terms of hardware compatibility and such, I mean).
Microsoft has had much more time to develop their desktop system (Office Suites and such), while the Linux crowd is quickly catching up with offerings from KDE and Gnome. I don't think you understand how productive the Linux camp is. One popular development philosophy related to open source software is to release early, and release often. Cuts down on major bugs, and the necessity of a 20MB service pack every few months. Linux as a distribution is made up by a lot of GPL software, which pretty well disclaims that the software might not work for shit, and thats how it goes. I find that a lot of the GPL software is very functional. Some Linux vendors do provide various levels of support, which is something they are not required to do at all. Some amount of the money from support contracts finds its way back into development.
Personally, I think the service from Microsoft sucks balls. They charge you to fix thier own mistakes, when I can download all the Linux upgrades and documentation that I could possibly want, for FREE. I find Microsoft's service worthless (for the price), while any Linux support tends to be a better buy for the price. Ditto as far as software goes.
Sure, a multi-million dollar company might not have qualms with giving Microsoft lump sums of money, but as an individual, I DO. Why in god's name would I want to give MS $200-500 worth of my hard-earned money, when I can get the same thing from SuSE at Best Buy for $30, or off the net for free? When Microsoft can give me a good answer to that question, I'll think about abandoning Linux. I don't suppose that will happen in my lifetime.
While I generally agree with your idea that open source programmers will eventually move on to other things, I think you underestimate Linux's impact. There are also more and more CS students who dabble in open source projects. Most of the newer CS grads I know are aware of what Linux is, what it does, and appreciate the mindset of its continual evolution. These kids are getting in the guts of Linux too. I think that as long as Linux exists at all in open source form, there will be those who will use it and further develop it.
Of course that doesn't mean that Linux will be the desktop of choice, but its not now either.
...at least in this kind of development situation. I would think that if you open sourced your protocol and a sample client, you'd have the major bugs worked out fairly early in development. That tends to cut down on the number of users affected by any bugs that may crop up. You can't really fault the programmers for letting this security hole happen. Everyone makes boneheaded mistakes, including the project manager for not implementing a better development method.
Over the last year or so, I've been coding a slash-like weblog. I started the project because the new version of slash wasn't stable yet, and because I found slash a huge pain to install... a nightmare! Anyhow, so I've been working on this for awhile now, and I'm just now getting around to implementing real database use (as opposed to text files for everything). While the code seems to have taken everything I've thrown at it, I wouldn't just throw the scripts up for download and send the DB abstraction module off to CPAN, declaring it stable.
I do realize that at some point, when I feel fairly comfortable with what I've got, I'll release it as a unstable development release, and let others help pound out any bugs. I'd do that BEFORE I'd market my code, sell it to millions, and squeeze slash out of existance. Heh, just kidding, but you get the idea. When you have a piece of software that can potentially be installed in millions of machines, you kinda have a moral obligation to make sure nothing goes wrong. But morality and big-business is another topic altogether.
I can't really understand why some people are so quick to discredit someone without bothering to understand what they were trying to say. Are you scared some conflicting opinion may actually have merit? Or perhaps telling other people they are stupid makes you feel smart by proxy. Hmmm? People who nitpick tend to miss the big picture. If you'd look at the context of the statement in question, its not hard to see that all he is trying to get across is that a normal (non-tech) company doesn't get sued if someone does something illegal with thier products or services. General Motors doesn't exactly get sued when someone gets drunk, drives, and kills someone either.
That was the gist of the paragraph you so heartily ranted about. I'm sure the statistics you stated are probably verifiable, but I'm lazy and I don't care that much. I'll take your word for it until I find something more reliable. Thats what alot of folks who follow the big picture do. And thats how you end up with common-knowledge statistics (factual or otherwise) like how 10 kids get killed everyday with handguns.
Capice? You can take your foot out of your mouth now;-)
Anyway, my point is really that people take a lot of heresay as at least partial fact, if not the truth. Its too much hassle to research every rumored fact and bust the people who spread supposed "big lie propaganda". Some people have more worthwhile things to do. People like Supreme Court judges.
Some laws regarding technology could be proven unconsitutional, if the judges understood the case at a level that doesn't require them to be a computer nerd. I certainly hope you're not a lawyer looking to win a big pro-freedom case, because you'll be too busy shooting yourself in the foot. Yes these laws are bad in our minds, but face the facts, this is hardly a free country anymore. I quoth a Disney movie: "Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules!". Its more true in the good ol' USA than maybe any other "civilized" country. The government is just as easily bought as anyone else. Hell, we're all human. Ask the average american the very first thing they think of when they hear the word "politician", and you'll likely get some sort of negative response.
I find it funny in a bittersweet way that we're not attacking the root of the problem. We wouldn't exactly have to fight current law to get our freedoms back if we could prevent the legislature from being swayed by big business in the first place. But, then again, something like that could get a person killed. Would you die for your freedom? Just remember that arguing semantics doesn't get the shit-work done.
Heh, it makes me wonder if M$ has ever felt the slashdot effect? Certainly it would be funny if microsoft.com got a TCP/IP raping courtesy of The Penguin
This is pretty exciting news! It just goes to show that evolution takes time. Take a look at the computer industry in the last 50 years. The industry was yanked in many directions over the years, and Microsoft's yank was pretty big. MS's current influence is so huge, that one little fuckup in thier code can cause government agencies to get suspicious. Giants this big tend to be thier own undoing. When companies get this influential, they crumble under thier own weight. This effect is comparable to the rise and fall of say, Rome. The funny thing is that I think I see William Gates with a fiddle.
Even though the parent post was made in jest, there is kind of a point there. Strangely enough, most people learn how to use windows by playing games. My Ex-girlfriend loved Linux, if for no other reasons other than not getting a BSOD everyday, and of course, ksishen. She bought me a new RH distro. All's well that ends well, eh?
I totally agree! I don't see anything wrong with Ximian charging $10/mo for its service. Since people have been using thier service, it obviously has value. Personally, I wouldn't subscribe until I get a broadband connection again. Its a real pain trying to get updates over a 56K connection.
I hesitate to run windows update (call me a traitor, but yes I have XP heh) for pretty much the same reason. I grab the latest security patches (hah) if they are fairly small, but I'll be damned if I am going through a 20 MB download to patch some wierd security hole that affects IIS (real men use Apache, even on Win32). I also have a hard time downloading a newer kernel for the same reason. I suspect that Ximian will be somewhat limited in its ability to generate income from its service, simply because alot of us don't have/can't get broadband. I guess I would urge anyone who has a use for Ximian to subscribe. I've been considering subscribing anyway, as a way to give back to the community, and actually use the service when I do get broadband back.
You know, I have no idea why some people have the idea that perl promotes unreadability (and thus unmaintainability). Maybe I'm biased, since Perl was my gateway to the art of programming, but I find perl wonderfully easy to work with.
Sure, if I were writing enterprise-server type programs, I wouldn't choose perl, but only because its an interpreted language. Its not very fast compared to some other langauges, but then, a crappy C programmer's code is *NOT* better than a decent perl programmer's code.
I don't know what Larry Wall had in mind when he first thought about creating perl (haha, and so would many wonder, I admit.. heh), but I use perl for various reasons:
I'm smart, but I'm no mensa. When I can't figure something out, good documentation helps. Perl has great docs.
The syntax makes sense to me. Again, it just seems simple and sane to me.
Because of the first two points, its a relatively painless process from the idea to the finished working program.
Most of my programs are hacks for things I am too lazy to take the time to do (organizing MP3's, updating my guitar tab archive, etc etc), and as such, they probably won't be seen by anyone besides me. I don't care if anyone else understands my code (though I think I keep it pretty clear).
Now, my opinions are admittedly biased. Like I said, Perl was my first language. Obviously for you older geeks, its not. It raises the interesting question of if/how your first language influences your thought process. Its funny that I can visualize hashes (and ones containing hash refs no less), and actually use that visualization to remember stuff. Shopping lists usually tend to be arrays if I'm at one store, and a complex hash when I'm at the mall.
I also think in a logic similar to:
if($capitalism_level_of_us > $global_breaking_point) {
$fate_of_the_world = &GlobalConflict($capitalism_level_of_us);
} else {
$continued_prosperity = &CalmBeforeTheStorm();
}
I don't remember being to so easily visualize my thought process before I learned to program. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has considered this.
Re:For once, I'm sympathising with MS
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: 1
On the contrary. I believe that the Al-Qaida are the probably anthrax culprits. Haven't you understood what this war is about? How did the twin towers fall? Some assholes hijacked a few domestic planes. They basically turned our own infrastructure against us. How ironic that the US would suffer a blow from itself. Obviously the American infedels are really the satan-spawn Al-Qaida believes us to be. Understand the mentality at all? Its highly plausible that supplies of Anthrax in the US were stolen, to be used against us. Again, poetic justice for the terrorists who wish to see our great nation destroy itself (so to speak).
Although I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, and its definitely in the realm of possibility that the Anthrax scare is/was perpetrated by US citizens. Possibly even government officials. A scare like that sure makes the war close to home, no? Without further threat at home, eventually the populous would question our motions abroad (people tend to have an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality about things, as a general rule).
Anyhow, getting back on topic, I find it highly unlikely that any organization could have infiltrated a multi-billion dollar company like MS and used the company to cripple the world. It sounds like a good backstory though.. heh. I'm sure Silly Billy Gates is smart enough to realize that his company cannot suffer a blow like that, and proper measures are in place. Legitimate (heh) bugs and security holes would seem to be a lot harder to find than an intentional backdoor or whatever. Unless whole projects were completed by terrorists, its highly unlikely that something intentional would go unseen, but I concede its still possible. Still, I think its much more likely that this bit of news gives MS a scapegoat for any bad things that surface in XP or.Net. Maybe MS is next in like after the Airlines for government aid? *l*
I'm sure your post about how to use lilo to boot an alternate kernel is well intentioned, but please, don't feed the newbies.
I remember doing this exact same thing about 4 years ago with RedHat. The manual was pretty clear on how to do it. The fun thing about Linux was that there was so much you could do, and you could do some really neat stuff (like getting your ISA PNP devices to work! Yay, Soundblaster AWE 64 lives in Linux! Muahahahaa.. Er, sorry. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Linux was worthwhile if you bothered to do your homework. The people that are always waiting for a quick fix don't want to learn anything.
I mean, really, okay I guess this means that there are more people just *trying* Linux, which is cool. Its what most of us have been trying to tell our friends and family for years. Some of em are even to the point where they wanna fiddle with the kernel, maybe even compile thier own. Great! And lets face it, alot of us consider ourselves to be some level of Linux guru, so when your friends and family have some Linux-related task, its your job to take care of it, right?
Sorry if this is getting offtopic, but there are a lot of "trendy" folk starting to invade slashdot. They see these posts about the latest kernel, and they figure they gotta have it, even though they don't know why. ("It will be faster! Newer is always better!"). Ugh. Its really kinda like shooting yourself in the foot. While I like to follow the kernel development for mostly just interest's sake, I'm not so foolhardy to install a development-series kernel (though 2.4.x was moving in the right direction, the earlier releases were ugly monstrosities of a 2.2 kernel gone terribly wrong). But I digress..
On a bright note, I have an idea for the linux-distro people... The prefab kernels redhat, mandrake, suse, et al slap on thier CD's are junk! Lets just compile everything in, so it works for everybody! A good idea, but not so hot in practice. You can get a pretty good performance boost by rolling your own kernel, so why not include that as part of the installation process? Give the installer a choice between installing the stock kernel (faster install), or compiling a fresh kernel (slower install, but worth it, I think). The installer programs from RedHat and Mandrake (the only ones I've used recently) are pretty good at detecting hardware, so why not put that capability to good use by auto-configuring the kernel and compiling a custom one for that specific machine? Maybe its just me, but I have seemed to notice that the stock distro kernels are more prone to failure than a custom one. Why is it that a brand-new installation of Mandrake can crash and take down the whole machine?! WTF? Us Linux fans like to think linux is fairly powerful, stable, and customizable. Maybe we should really prove that to ourselves?
Great idea, but I can see one big problem to overcome with a setup like this.
How would you identify MP3's on your computer as matching the mixing instructions? ID3? Hah. I have somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 MP3s, and hardly any of them have correctly completed ID3 info (missing fields, incorrect information, etc). What about ID3v1 vs. ID3v2? Etc etc etc. It sounds good in theory, I'm not knocking your idea, but I can't see a very easy way to make it practical. Most likely you'd just end up with a bunch of MP3 duplicates, wasting bandwidth and hard drive space.
Also, some people (like me) are picky about the bitrate of thier mp3's. I can't stand anything less than 192 kbps. Some folk might have higher tolerances. The only way you'd be able to serve content and appease the people would be to have very high quality MP3's on your server (320 kbps?), and cut down the bitrate for those who are willing to sacrifice quality for speed. I haven't used shoutcast or its bretheren much, so I don't know if this issue has already been worked out or not. It just seems to me that compressing (so to speak) the bitrate for speedy downloading would sure be processor intensive for the server.
Slashdot Mirror
Should companies' be liable for security holes? I really don't think so. Everytime you install software you get the EULA that says how 'by using this software, you agree not to blame us if the program formats your hard drive' thing. We all know the risks we take by using a computer to make our jobs easier. As an amateur programmer, I sure wouldn't (and couldn't financially) be able to be liable for some obscure security failure, whether I charged for the software or not. However, I do think that companies should be swift to follow up on security problems that are currently known, and deliver fixes in a convienient and easy manner. Perhaps there should be a universal security upgrade protocol, by which a company can upgrade installed software. That way, any software distributed with support for that protocol would carry a 'Seal of Approval'. Consumers would learn quickly to not buy software without this certification.
Obviously, that upgrade protocol itself would hav to be securely implemented, and I don't know how you'd regulate something like that. But at least programmers wouldn't have to always wonder if they might be liable if their software did some Bad Thing. If programmers (or program companies) were held strictly liable for security issues (including possibly class-action suits for damages), you'd see a lot less diversity in software, since only a few companies would be able to take that risk. Is that something we want?
OK, I can actually understand with your argument. However, the RIAA is far from being a good neighbor itself. The DMCA severely limits citizen's freedoms to do even absolutely legitimate things. The RIAA certainly had something to do with the DMCA, and whose money did they use to do it? Their customers'.
Also, there is a big difference between sticking it to the RIAA and sticking it to the artists. If I download some music from Green Day, and decide to attend thier next concert (or buy thier merchandise), Green Day is gonna come out rosier than thier record label. The artist ends up with more money, and the record label gets fucked.
So why do that to the record label? Its really simple. It is near-impossible for an artist to be heard from coast-to-coast without recording with a major label. Back in the day, this used to be because record labels helped advertise artists and handle the distribution of music. These days, an indie recording studio can do damned near the same thing, but you won't end up on MTV. By screwing over the record labels, the playing field between major and indie labels gets a much-needed levelling.
In my opinion, I'd like to see music move away from the whole MTV teen-pop stardom thing and allow more talented artists to be heard on the airwaves. Also, I don't like how the RIAA has so much control over its industry and even worse, the government. Its just not right. For me, it's more a conflict of socio-political ideaologies with the RIAA than a matter of money. I don't have a problem slapping down 15 bucks for my favorite artist's new album. I do, however, have a problem with 14 of those bucks going to the label, and a paltry dollar for the artist.
If the RIAA had any foresight, they'd move away from the MTV generation, and actually put out quality music. Is it really necessary to spend millions of dollars promoting an artist? Couldn't less money be put to equal or better use? The major labels have a really good excuse for why CDs cost 20 bucks apiece. The record company spends millions on its artist, hoping they will cash in on thier investment. Only a small percentage of artists actually make the label money, so they have to adjust accordingly. OK, that makes sense and all, but what about this: If the vast majority of your signed artists are actually talented, and have an actual fan following that persists (like Phish and much unlike this week's boy band), the odds dictate you will make money on your investments the majority of the time. Thus, the labels _could_ ajust prices accordingly (way lower). Of course, the labels could probably lower prices substantially and still stay well above the red.
So, with all that said, I think the labels need to keep in mind that they are feeling the effect of thier customer's displeasure. We've found a much better way to filter through the crap and only support the artists we want to. Is that so bad? Do you like buying a CD only to find out that it only has one good song and the rest are pure crap? I don't. There wouldn't be so much file-sharing if there wasn't an itch to scratch. Its not anybody's fault that the RIAA is finding out that capitalism has a downside. Sure, you can make as much money as you are determined to make, but only if you can convince people to give it to you willingly. Maybe they need to try harder to convince people to willingly pay for their product. That shouldn't include pushing legislation, which has already happened. Its kind of sad that in this day and age, the dollar carries more weight than a ballot.
I heard about it a couple of days ago. Its kind of ironic that I saw a banner ad from Aerie about this (on a site that may or may not have been slashdot). Hehehe. Funny.
Anyway, I'm not terribly familiar with the limitations of wireless. Can anyone provide a link to some good info about its capabilities, pros/cons, etc? In these parts, there is really no other hope for broadband, and I'm wondering if wireless could eventually flourish in rural areas.
First off, I've used SuSE 7.3 (got the CD's right here, actually), and RedHat 7.2. I can say that they are pretty, but that alone does not a desktop distro make.
First off, neither one installed without a hitch. I can't figure out why. I don't have a wierd hardware configuration, and my components are not faulty (it all works fine in WinXP). Yet both RedHat and SuSE choked on the install every single time I tried. Eventually I was able to get SuSE to install, but I'm still very much less than impressed. The disto is completely broken, and it appears to be destroying its filesystem. Ever since the 2.4.x kernel, I've had nothing but trouble with Linux, though the 2.2.x distros (RH 5.xx - 6.xx) worked wonderfully, even if they were ugly.
WinXP, on the other hand, installed quite gracefully, and its about as stable as one can expect of the Windows platform. I haven't seen a BSOD once, though heavy media use tends to pull down the machine (still).
As far as Linux has come, I'm growing more disappointed with it. I never had a systemwide Linux crash until the 2.4 series. Whats the deal? I shouldn't have to retrograde for better performance/stability!
I, for one, am getting pretty irritated with Linux these days. Maybe its my hardware, maybe its not, all I know is that (gasp!) windows is more usable and stable as far as I can tell. A shame, but thats life.
My question is: How does OSX measure up in this regard? Is it terribly prone to systemwide crashes and other inconvieniences? I'm considering getting a TiBook, and wonder if its much of an improvement over the offerings of MS and Linus.
Like Cringely or not, I must admit that at least he gives valid reasons for the point he's arguing.
I don't think it would really hurt Apple's hardware sales to release an x86 version of OSX.
I also think it would be good if consumers had a valid alternative to MS. Sorry, I'm a Linux fan too, but its still a work in progress and IS NOT ready for prime time. At least this way we have a decent alternative that is already established and proven.
On the other hand, Apple would be taking a risk to do such a thing. Just because its not likely (IMHO) to damage Apple's hardware sales, it could. Plus, in the larger scheme of things, Apple would also be shooting themselves in the foot unless they want the world to belong to Intel (and AMD). Wouldn't Apple rather that the G-series processors dominated instead of Athlon/P4?
Also, I must confess that I've grown weary of the PC (x86 archetechure), and actually perfer Apple's hardware these days. I've grown rather disenchanted with PC hardware. As far as we've come, I can't figure out why my damned computer crashes more than it did in 1994! I've played with a G3/OS at school for awhile, and I don't ever remember it so much as hiccupping. Can't say that for any PC hardware I've used, ever.
So while yes, maybe it would be cool to have OSX in PC, its a moot point for me at least, cuz my next computer's going to be a Titanium laptop.
Seems to me by the looks of that paragraph, that if you agree to the EULA, you permit MS to check your WinXP version info, and upgrade any old components. Thats all. If those updated components contain any sort of 'spyware', that is, collecting personal information, then I am pretty sure MS will get in trouble for invading thier customers' privacy without the customers' explict consent to do so. The EULA does not give MS the right to do this.
;-)
Okay, so it can be argued maybe you don't want your components upgraded (say because MS is breaking a standard), but hell, why not? If you're running XP, you've already ditched your old OS for a new one, so whats the difference? I'd rather hope that once in a while MS will sneak a _good_ update in, so that some bug that crashes my computer finally goes away. I have no problem with MS sending my computer updates, as long as thats ALL they're doing.
It would be unwise for MS to try to do anything much else, because if they were, and it was illegal, the court would have to sapoena (sp?) MS source code to bring a case against them. MS does not want that, believe me.
Besides, what does MS need your personal info for? MS doesn't depend on advertising cash, as it still has a strong foothold in the PC/Server OS markets. While even if MS did get caught doing something they weren't supposed to, the US must have a domiation in the computer industry (good for the economy), we can't let microsoft crumble till they'res a formidible player to take its place, so they just get a slap on the hand. They won't get in trouble, but they will be forbidden to do it again. Microsoft doesn't really want to lose the government's favor (when you start messing with the population's privacy rights), but they will do as they please until they are told not to.
Which begs the question, then, would we really be better off without MS? I could understand and agree with both sides of that.
And if MS fell, who would take its place? Linux? Uhm, what Linux company? *BSD? Who's going to run the company to distribute it? If we are to stay near the top of the tech industry, we need a company large enough to handle global marketing. You can have all kinds of little companies sparring with each other, but hey, RedHat Linux has an install base of what? A hundred thousand? Half a million? MS has an install base of what? A lot more, and thats for a reason. Marketing is a big part of the game. Not just marketing doublespeech, but I mean as in advertising, distribution, support, classes, etc.
Sorry, this got wayyy offtopic, but who'd be a suitable replacement (as a company) for microsoft? I'd love to see that poll.
Okay, lets intelligently look at why they're claiming that the gaming industry is doing so well (in terms of dollars):
Three new consoles came out within the last 6 quarters. They obviously make up a good percentage of the money made (gross, not net, if we're to assume the units were sold at a loss). And with new consoles come new games, ergo another percentage.
Also, you have to take into account that consoles, games, perhipherals, etc cost WAY more than they used to. That in itself is why its a 'good year' for gaming, because companies made a lot of money. But how about the numbers of units sold, not the total sales figure? It could be that there really isn't as large an interest in gaming this year than normal (whatever that is), but since the stuff costs so much, the gaming companies made more this year than ever.
If I was a marketing exec for one of these gaming companies, I'd be paying more attention to the number of units sold than anything else. Profits are not an accurate gauge of how well you are doing in pushing your product, believe it or not. Thats how you ensure your survival, by increasing unit sales, not unit price. Blah.
I sure wouldn't invest in a company that is bragging about this year's profits, but rather would go with a company that is able to show where its at, and where it expects to be, and how so. $9B in sales is no good if you're only $2B clear and you haven't paid anyone yet.
Like the electorial college uses.. heh. Or claiming that a processor with a higher clock speed means it can process faster. Blah.
So am I to understand that WinXX has had less reported vulnerabilities over the last 5 years? I believe that. MS believes in security thru obscurity, and god only knows how many hidden security flaws there are in say, Win9x that have never even been discovered.
However, that doesn't mean they won't be. Anyone who's got a clue (the meager minority, I'm afraid) seem to understand that reporting and fixing bugs is kinda how open-source works. I'd be MUCH more concerned if Linux (distros)_didn't_ have more reported security problems, for an unreported security flaw is the one that goes unfixed. Microsoft can probably tell you all about it.
that these new copy-protected CD's will play on? Companies like Sony, perhaps? I'm starting to think the roaring success of the Playstation hasn't corrupted them. So the recording industry (of which Sony has a hand) demands a copy-protected CD format, because they are claiming they are losing money (to MP3's, CD copying, etc). What, its not compatible with regular CD-ROM/Audio drives? Well then somebody will just have to make new drives for us. Who will do that? (Sony quietly raises hand at this point)
I swear the Recording Industry is as slimy as they get. Not only do they give the consumer an assraping solely for the company's benefit, the comsumer also has to pay the company for thier trouble. I can't think of too many companies like that, save for Microsoft. Perhaps there are more. Maybe all big business is like that?
The whole Lindows concept sounds like a Good Thing(TM) to me. I really hate having to dual boot all the time. Really, this is what I have wanted since I was first introduced to Linux. The only reason the netadmin at my old high school wouldn't use linux is because it wouldn't run a few rather exotic (and expensive) programs that were strictly Win32.
.NET API. This is supposedly the next greatest thing for MS. And, if I understand the .NET strategy, MS can break compatibility by releasing "update patches". How does the Lindows CEO plan to get around this?
There is a lot of Windows software that I have, because I actually enjoy using the software. Who cares that it runs on a Microsoft. I do, but only because I'd rather have the same exact software running on top of Linux.
However, Lindows won't be able to leech off Microsoft's market share very much if it doesn't support the
The worst case scenario is that MS will build a security layer for thier API's, so that the API's can only be accessed after MS authentication. Just imagine doing
#include stdio.h ($license_id, $checksum)
and you can only compile the source if the authentication returns true.
I'll bite.
Obviously ZDNet is not spinning this issue, because by doing so would only call greater attention to the fact. Believe me, ZDNet is not the be-all end all when it comes to business news. Not by a long shot. By pointing the finger at MS, it automatically calls greater attention to itself. Unless it is a marketing ploy by ZDNet to gain more regular users, I highly doubt that anyone but Microsoft is at fault as far as this topic goes.
Besides, ZDNet has the logs that prove MS did rig the polls. Of course, they could be made up, but I bet there is a 3rd party somewhere down the line between microsoft and ZDNet that can authenticate what the logs say.
This girl from work took me and paid for everything! Thats all pretty cool, seein how she's hot, and I got to see FOTR.
I read The Hobbit when I was in 4th or 5th grade, so thats why I wanted to see the movie in the first place. I haven't actually read Lord Of The Rings, and I can tell you the movie, while visually stunning and interesting enough, didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at all. I grasped the main concept (Frodo ends up with The One Ring, and set out to some badass mountain to destroy it before this dick Sauron gets ahold of it again). It wasn't immediately obvious that Saruman had alterior motives in his alliance with Sauron. It seemed Saruman was nothing more than Sauron's crony, while I suspect his involvement in the book is more complex. I read a post that said that Saruman Sauron and Gandalf are all of the same race, which would have been nice to know during the movie. It would also have been helpful to more fully flesh out the significance of Elves.
I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I had previously read the book, and now I'm going to have to in order to clear up what I didn't understand. I think they could have cut down some of the fight scenes for better plot development, but whatever. I'll read the book, see the movie, and probably live the rest of my life thinking FOTR was a fucking great movie.
Dude, that is by far the coolest fucking thing I have ever heard of! Good idea. The slashdot community, pop. ~500,000. The only thing is, you are going to have these supernodes where certain people have a ton of friends and foes... such as RMS for example. An added bonus I guess, you can determine someone's slashdot popularity by the size of thier respective nodes. I am just an atom in the same graph that CowboyNeal is 10 solar masses. Freaky! ;-)
I'd hardly say Windows is getting better at an exponential rate. I was pretty disappointed by XP. It was supposed to be so great, but really its what the finished version of Win2K was supposed to be.
Microsoft has and does release products that are not up to par, and we get to wait for the Service Packs to play catch up. And, since users are getting wise to the whole Service Pack thing, MS released thier unfinished work as Win2K, and finished its development as XP. At least thats what I feel has happened.
Also, consider that Microsoft has had an OS for 20 some years. Linux (the OS) is just to the point where its stable and has support for current hardware. From an OS standpoint, I feel that both Linux and XP have about the same merits. Linux has done well in 10 years to catch up to present MS fare (in terms of hardware compatibility and such, I mean).
Microsoft has had much more time to develop their desktop system (Office Suites and such), while the Linux crowd is quickly catching up with offerings from KDE and Gnome. I don't think you understand how productive the Linux camp is. One popular development philosophy related to open source software is to release early, and release often. Cuts down on major bugs, and the necessity of a 20MB service pack every few months. Linux as a distribution is made up by a lot of GPL software, which pretty well disclaims that the software might not work for shit, and thats how it goes. I find that a lot of the GPL software is very functional. Some Linux vendors do provide various levels of support, which is something they are not required to do at all. Some amount of the money from support contracts finds its way back into development.
Personally, I think the service from Microsoft sucks balls. They charge you to fix thier own mistakes, when I can download all the Linux upgrades and documentation that I could possibly want, for FREE. I find Microsoft's service worthless (for the price), while any Linux support tends to be a better buy for the price. Ditto as far as software goes.
Sure, a multi-million dollar company might not have qualms with giving Microsoft lump sums of money, but as an individual, I DO. Why in god's name would I want to give MS $200-500 worth of my hard-earned money, when I can get the same thing from SuSE at Best Buy for $30, or off the net for free? When Microsoft can give me a good answer to that question, I'll think about abandoning Linux. I don't suppose that will happen in my lifetime.
While I generally agree with your idea that open source programmers will eventually move on to other things, I think you underestimate Linux's impact. There are also more and more CS students who dabble in open source projects. Most of the newer CS grads I know are aware of what Linux is, what it does, and appreciate the mindset of its continual evolution. These kids are getting in the guts of Linux too. I think that as long as Linux exists at all in open source form, there will be those who will use it and further develop it.
Of course that doesn't mean that Linux will be the desktop of choice, but its not now either.
...at least in this kind of development situation. I would think that if you open sourced your protocol and a sample client, you'd have the major bugs worked out fairly early in development. That tends to cut down on the number of users affected by any bugs that may crop up. You can't really fault the programmers for letting this security hole happen. Everyone makes boneheaded mistakes, including the project manager for not implementing a better development method.
Over the last year or so, I've been coding a slash-like weblog. I started the project because the new version of slash wasn't stable yet, and because I found slash a huge pain to install... a nightmare! Anyhow, so I've been working on this for awhile now, and I'm just now getting around to implementing real database use (as opposed to text files for everything). While the code seems to have taken everything I've thrown at it, I wouldn't just throw the scripts up for download and send the DB abstraction module off to CPAN, declaring it stable.
I do realize that at some point, when I feel fairly comfortable with what I've got, I'll release it as a unstable development release, and let others help pound out any bugs. I'd do that BEFORE I'd market my code, sell it to millions, and squeeze slash out of existance. Heh, just kidding, but you get the idea. When you have a piece of software that can potentially be installed in millions of machines, you kinda have a moral obligation to make sure nothing goes wrong. But morality and big-business is another topic altogether.
I can't really understand why some people are so quick to discredit someone without bothering to understand what they were trying to say. Are you scared some conflicting opinion may actually have merit? Or perhaps telling other people they are stupid makes you feel smart by proxy. Hmmm? People who nitpick tend to miss the big picture. If you'd look at the context of the statement in question, its not hard to see that all he is trying to get across is that a normal (non-tech) company doesn't get sued if someone does something illegal with thier products or services. General Motors doesn't exactly get sued when someone gets drunk, drives, and kills someone either.
;-)
That was the gist of the paragraph you so heartily ranted about. I'm sure the statistics you stated are probably verifiable, but I'm lazy and I don't care that much. I'll take your word for it until I find something more reliable. Thats what alot of folks who follow the big picture do. And thats how you end up with common-knowledge statistics (factual or otherwise) like how 10 kids get killed everyday with handguns.
Capice? You can take your foot out of your mouth now
Anyway, my point is really that people take a lot of heresay as at least partial fact, if not the truth. Its too much hassle to research every rumored fact and bust the people who spread supposed "big lie propaganda". Some people have more worthwhile things to do. People like Supreme Court judges.
Some laws regarding technology could be proven unconsitutional, if the judges understood the case at a level that doesn't require them to be a computer nerd. I certainly hope you're not a lawyer looking to win a big pro-freedom case, because you'll be too busy shooting yourself in the foot. Yes these laws are bad in our minds, but face the facts, this is hardly a free country anymore. I quoth a Disney movie: "Haven't you ever heard of the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules!". Its more true in the good ol' USA than maybe any other "civilized" country. The government is just as easily bought as anyone else. Hell, we're all human. Ask the average american the very first thing they think of when they hear the word "politician", and you'll likely get some sort of negative response.
I find it funny in a bittersweet way that we're not attacking the root of the problem. We wouldn't exactly have to fight current law to get our freedoms back if we could prevent the legislature from being swayed by big business in the first place. But, then again, something like that could get a person killed. Would you die for your freedom? Just remember that arguing semantics doesn't get the shit-work done.
Heh, it makes me wonder if M$ has ever felt the slashdot effect? Certainly it would be funny if microsoft.com got a TCP/IP raping courtesy of The Penguin
This is pretty exciting news! It just goes to show that evolution takes time. Take a look at the computer industry in the last 50 years. The industry was yanked in many directions over the years, and Microsoft's yank was pretty big. MS's current influence is so huge, that one little fuckup in thier code can cause government agencies to get suspicious. Giants this big tend to be thier own undoing. When companies get this influential, they crumble under thier own weight. This effect is comparable to the rise and fall of say, Rome. The funny thing is that I think I see William Gates with a fiddle.
Even though the parent post was made in jest, there is kind of a point there. Strangely enough, most people learn how to use windows by playing games. My Ex-girlfriend loved Linux, if for no other reasons other than not getting a BSOD everyday, and of course, ksishen. She bought me a new RH distro. All's well that ends well, eh?
I totally agree! I don't see anything wrong with Ximian charging $10/mo for its service. Since people have been using thier service, it obviously has value. Personally, I wouldn't subscribe until I get a broadband connection again. Its a real pain trying to get updates over a 56K connection.
I hesitate to run windows update (call me a traitor, but yes I have XP heh) for pretty much the same reason. I grab the latest security patches (hah) if they are fairly small, but I'll be damned if I am going through a 20 MB download to patch some wierd security hole that affects IIS (real men use Apache, even on Win32). I also have a hard time downloading a newer kernel for the same reason. I suspect that Ximian will be somewhat limited in its ability to generate income from its service, simply because alot of us don't have/can't get broadband. I guess I would urge anyone who has a use for Ximian to subscribe. I've been considering subscribing anyway, as a way to give back to the community, and actually use the service when I do get broadband back.
Sure, if I were writing enterprise-server type programs, I wouldn't choose perl, but only because its an interpreted language. Its not very fast compared to some other langauges, but then, a crappy C programmer's code is *NOT* better than a decent perl programmer's code.
I don't know what Larry Wall had in mind when he first thought about creating perl (haha, and so would many wonder, I admit.. heh), but I use perl for various reasons:
Now, my opinions are admittedly biased. Like I said, Perl was my first language. Obviously for you older geeks, its not. It raises the interesting question of if/how your first language influences your thought process. Its funny that I can visualize hashes (and ones containing hash refs no less), and actually use that visualization to remember stuff. Shopping lists usually tend to be arrays if I'm at one store, and a complex hash when I'm at the mall. I also think in a logic similar to:
if($capitalism_level_of_us > $global_breaking_point) { $fate_of_the_world = &GlobalConflict($capitalism_level_of_us); } else { $continued_prosperity = &CalmBeforeTheStorm(); }
I don't remember being to so easily visualize my thought process before I learned to program. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has considered this.
On the contrary. I believe that the Al-Qaida are the probably anthrax culprits. Haven't you understood what this war is about? How did the twin towers fall? Some assholes hijacked a few domestic planes. They basically turned our own infrastructure against us. How ironic that the US would suffer a blow from itself. Obviously the American infedels are really the satan-spawn Al-Qaida believes us to be. Understand the mentality at all? Its highly plausible that supplies of Anthrax in the US were stolen, to be used against us. Again, poetic justice for the terrorists who wish to see our great nation destroy itself (so to speak).
.Net. Maybe MS is next in like after the Airlines for government aid? *l*
Although I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, and its definitely in the realm of possibility that the Anthrax scare is/was perpetrated by US citizens. Possibly even government officials. A scare like that sure makes the war close to home, no? Without further threat at home, eventually the populous would question our motions abroad (people tend to have an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality about things, as a general rule).
Anyhow, getting back on topic, I find it highly unlikely that any organization could have infiltrated a multi-billion dollar company like MS and used the company to cripple the world. It sounds like a good backstory though.. heh. I'm sure Silly Billy Gates is smart enough to realize that his company cannot suffer a blow like that, and proper measures are in place. Legitimate (heh) bugs and security holes would seem to be a lot harder to find than an intentional backdoor or whatever. Unless whole projects were completed by terrorists, its highly unlikely that something intentional would go unseen, but I concede its still possible. Still, I think its much more likely that this bit of news gives MS a scapegoat for any bad things that surface in XP or
I'm sure your post about how to use lilo to boot an alternate kernel is well intentioned, but please, don't feed the newbies.
I remember doing this exact same thing about 4 years ago with RedHat. The manual was pretty clear on how to do it. The fun thing about Linux was that there was so much you could do, and you could do some really neat stuff (like getting your ISA PNP devices to work! Yay, Soundblaster AWE 64 lives in Linux! Muahahahaa.. Er, sorry. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Linux was worthwhile if you bothered to do your homework. The people that are always waiting for a quick fix don't want to learn anything.
I mean, really, okay I guess this means that there are more people just *trying* Linux, which is cool. Its what most of us have been trying to tell our friends and family for years. Some of em are even to the point where they wanna fiddle with the kernel, maybe even compile thier own. Great! And lets face it, alot of us consider ourselves to be some level of Linux guru, so when your friends and family have some Linux-related task, its your job to take care of it, right?
Sorry if this is getting offtopic, but there are a lot of "trendy" folk starting to invade slashdot. They see these posts about the latest kernel, and they figure they gotta have it, even though they don't know why. ("It will be faster! Newer is always better!"). Ugh. Its really kinda like shooting yourself in the foot. While I like to follow the kernel development for mostly just interest's sake, I'm not so foolhardy to install a development-series kernel (though 2.4.x was moving in the right direction, the earlier releases were ugly monstrosities of a 2.2 kernel gone terribly wrong). But I digress..
On a bright note, I have an idea for the linux-distro people... The prefab kernels redhat, mandrake, suse, et al slap on thier CD's are junk! Lets just compile everything in, so it works for everybody! A good idea, but not so hot in practice. You can get a pretty good performance boost by rolling your own kernel, so why not include that as part of the installation process? Give the installer a choice between installing the stock kernel (faster install), or compiling a fresh kernel (slower install, but worth it, I think). The installer programs from RedHat and Mandrake (the only ones I've used recently) are pretty good at detecting hardware, so why not put that capability to good use by auto-configuring the kernel and compiling a custom one for that specific machine? Maybe its just me, but I have seemed to notice that the stock distro kernels are more prone to failure than a custom one. Why is it that a brand-new installation of Mandrake can crash and take down the whole machine?! WTF? Us Linux fans like to think linux is fairly powerful, stable, and customizable. Maybe we should really prove that to ourselves?
Great idea, but I can see one big problem to overcome with a setup like this.
How would you identify MP3's on your computer as matching the mixing instructions? ID3? Hah. I have somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 MP3s, and hardly any of them have correctly completed ID3 info (missing fields, incorrect information, etc). What about ID3v1 vs. ID3v2? Etc etc etc. It sounds good in theory, I'm not knocking your idea, but I can't see a very easy way to make it practical. Most likely you'd just end up with a bunch of MP3 duplicates, wasting bandwidth and hard drive space.
Also, some people (like me) are picky about the bitrate of thier mp3's. I can't stand anything less than 192 kbps. Some folk might have higher tolerances. The only way you'd be able to serve content and appease the people would be to have very high quality MP3's on your server (320 kbps?), and cut down the bitrate for those who are willing to sacrifice quality for speed. I haven't used shoutcast or its bretheren much, so I don't know if this issue has already been worked out or not. It just seems to me that compressing (so to speak) the bitrate for speedy downloading would sure be processor intensive for the server.