I live in Austin, and if you want any decent knowledge of GW before you go and say he's a good leader, you need to know a bit more about him.
First, he's a (former?) co-owner of a baseball team (TX Rangers) and basically governor by name recognition. While he talks big, try to find his name attached to any legislation (other than those which he happened to put a signature on so they'd be law). Finally, you've got to realize that the legislature of TX is the real power of the branches in this state. The governor really is nothing more than a figurehead and has weak, limited power.
Okay, given that I am slightly biased, you may not buy it completely, but I am in the thick of it and have read more articles on GW than most citizens in the rest of the country not in TX.
Austin Chronicle is the local free newspaper and has done some stories that may help bolster your knowledge of politics in TX, and what to really expect of GW. The link will take you directly into their politics section. Browse, search, and really learn what he has and hasn't done. Then by all means, vote for him if you still think he's the right choice.
I don't though, and I'm going to vote for Bradley. I'd vote for McCain, but he can't win TX in the primaries (unfortunately), so I'm jumping to the Dems to get Bradley in the spot to beat Bush because Gore can't beat Bush.
Or wasn't there a study that said any two random sites are 19 clicks apart? Now we're down to four? In a matter of two months since I saw the story? I don't buy it, yet. Maybe in another year, but we're still farther apart than four clicks. The study was probably skewed by taking a small sampling in a confined area, say the U.S. only. Then I could believe that we're only four clicks away from most material. But there just isn't any possibility that I'm four clicks from any old site I choose right now, even in such a confined spot. Nineteen clicks is more believable.
Carmack is in control of the binaries. And if the man releases the Linux binary first and says all systems go to his retailer, they'll put it out. They make money off this deal too, so whether or not he releases all at once, or staggers (in a favorable method towards Linux) them, the retailer and id will enjoy a good holiday (whichever one comes next after the release).
Carmack could just release the linux version first and please us. Yes, it's unfair, but it really sends a jolt through the Windows user base. Plus, it has seemed as though he truly felt Linux was the best of the three OSes he used. Yes, I do remember his statements to the fact that he uses an NT network, but for ease of development, I must say that linux provides the best platform. So, if the world saw a Linux version say a week before a Windows version, then Carmack would be sending the shockwave himself, and we would all be happy. Now if I could only find out why my mouse doesn't work properly in LinQuake, that would be sweet. (Anyone know of workarounds that haven't been published on www.linuxquake.com or the HOWTO? My Intellimouse doesn't want to work right.)
To be totally honest, there's two things wrong with the complaint that there is no internet envisioned and that there is no internet attraction at Epcot.
a) Computers were still the size of the WOPR when Walt died. Hmmm. Walt's idea probably did envision a network, but not the kind we have today. Computers inside the building were probably to be networked to these "voice activated appliances" (sounds resemblingly like embedded devices that attach to networks). The idea of a personal computer was so far off back in the early 60s that an Internet simply would have meant being able to start your stove from work.
b) How exciting is the internet? Why have an attraction at Epcot then? Yes, to me and you it's exciting. To most people, the internet is scary and uncontrolled. It's not the end all be all. Recently, there was a news story about a town that finally got wired into the phone system. If a group of people can go 100 years without the phone, then surely you realize that there are millions of people that live a daily life sans internet.
Sorry to say it, but in the end, it's exciting to us cause we do the software and hardware.
...to stop production? Since the case has focused primarily on the OS and integration of products, is it really fair to stop their total production or only the Win2K staff? But considering that the new versions of apps that MS brings down the line will be optimized to the Win2K standard then, they too, will be semi-integrated since they can make use of proprietary calls that create a faster environment for working. So they too fall in to the category of integration. Can the DoJ really stop the total production line of MS and if it does, what does this do for the industry? The answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. I think this also points to the reason why a MaBell breakup would be the best choice. Because if MS wants to see the babies succeed then they have to open up the calls available to all companies because the DoJ will probably put in clauses to keep MS from reforming by partnerships between the sub-MS companies. That's as much as I can say from these two copper coins in my pocket.
I came across some statements by ESR at salon.com stating that if MS didn't deserve this so much, the FoF were rather harsh. The story went on to imply that ESR thinks that the market should decide and not the USgov. I want to know how viable it would be to have left things the way they are considering the level of most computer users. Do you think the market would tend towards Linux after it became more and more secure and viable as a commercial platform?
I am of the mindset that Linux gets little exposure to the general public and even when stories come out, they tend not to care. The only reason my parents know about it is because of me. I'm not even going to begin to try to explain it to my grandmother.
So what I'm getting at is "Was it absolutely necessary for this trial? Was Linux given a fair notice? And [as implied by ESR] would the market fix itself?"
1st off, cool Wolf 2000! be nice to be shouting NPFO at the monitor.
But on to the crux of the article...
I have a simple comment about the gaming industry vs any other media industry around. Notice that if you try to rent an R rated movie before you're of age, they usually have blocks available for parents so that Timmy who's 7 can't rent it for his slumber party.
I've noticed a lot of games around these days that have the M rating (probably requires the same amount of graphic content as the R rating in movies) but I haven't seen people harping that there isn't enforcement of the rating. I can imagine Timmy going into Best Buy and being carded for half-life, but really has anybody seen it happen?
Also I've seen arguments that "Oh, it's just a game." And I'm certain that those same people turn around and say that "X movie is too violent!" (put your favorite gore fest in for X)
I don't think you can blame the developers of the software since the rating system has been around. It's kind of like going after Paramount (or whoever) if some kid did a copycat of Scream (or whatever). First of all, Paramount's got beaucoup money in legal teams, and secondly, no judge would say "Well, even though it's rated R and Timmy was 7, I'm going to find you, Paramount, to be responsible." Further no jury would either simply because every movie is known to be rated.
Thus the problem to correct here is perception. Media shouts of "Graphic video games!!!" are common, but they never mention these games' ratings. I think that if gaming companies want to save their soon to be tarnished image ('cause once a lawsuit goes against 'em, it's all downhill), I think that a consortium to start actively promoting the awareness of the rating system will quiet the media (to an extent), and parents (because now it's back to being their responsibility in a quasi-legal^* sense)
* Quasi-legal - legal because of popular opinion rather than an informed bias. In these respects, parents are quasi-legally not responsible because the majority of people still think of video games to mean pong and the old Atari classics. Not enough people know that the major video card companies have nearly reached a perfect 2-d representation of 3-d real life and thus are shocked to see how graphic glQuake or Quake II can really be.
Hmm. What a great way to reach to Open Source/Free Software/what have you community!
Openly trounce the free version. I know it works for Microsoft. I can't stand using a equivalent product that's free cause I can't truly rely on it.
I know Xig is just trying to compete, but honestly do they think that tactics defined by the evil empire will work with their target market? Until I see numbers, charts, and feel the effect that they describe here, why not use an equally good product that also happens to be free?
Bad form, Xig. Give me an ad when you're ready to play in this league.
> Consider this. If both past and future time exist and the objects that existed in that time also exist in > those times then every moving particle in the universe is essentially a string of matter extending across time. > Meaning that there would be an infinite amount of matter spread across the so-called space-time > continuum. Now that's an ugly situation.
You have forgotten a key element in the whole equation of matter. In short, the law of conservation of energy and matter would cut out that argument.
I have been toying with the concept of no time for quite some years. I have not, however, gone about it in a mathematical sense. I approached this subject through a model.
First, we can all agree that time follows the same trichotomy axiom that the number line uses.
if x is an integer, then x must be
1. less than zero. 2. zero 3. greater than zero.
if x is a point in time, then x must be
1. less than present time (commonly referred to as the past). 2. present time. 3. more than present time (commonly referred to as the future).
But this requires time to be infinite, which contradicts the idea of an initial time. This means that time is arbitrarily large.
What follows is the key. Since we cannot know if x+1 exists, then part 3 of the axiom fails. Further, we can only experience the present, meaning we may not have truly observed the past. This causes enough doubt of part 1 to lead to failure. Thus we either have no time, since time must fall into the axiom, or time was not properly defined by the axiom and we only have the present time.
That's been my theory about the whole thing. I may be wrong, but I did get a kick out of reading the article this morning that says I may be right as well.
My bad, the copied text didn't get in there cause I'm stupid and put it in a tag (although I said Plain Old Text. here it is:
Welcome to OpenLinux.org. OpenLinux.org was created for Linux developers interested in the open source projects related to the OpenLinux distribution. On this site you will find source code, whitepapers and mailing lists for the various projects. In short, everything you need for participating in the development or simply getting a detailed idea about a projects internals.
Although the projects hosted up to date were all initiated by Caldera Systems, we would also be happy to host other open source projects. Please email projects@openlinux.org if you would like your project hosted on OpenLinux.org.
>>> FROM www.openlinux.org MAIN PAGE >> END www.openlinux.org QUOTE
That should tell you. In other words, it's a forum, like slashdot only for development by different Open Source groups. That's kind of like me saying, I wonder what sort of affiliation Andover.Net has to the RPMs on DaveCentral?
Point is, there is no relation other than that's the location that all the Blue Point folks go to discuss their project.
Just a comment, but haven't there been multiple stories about "flat speakers" and in effect wouldn't this just fall into this category? I recall that the other stories had something to do with the bumps on the screens causing too much distortion if put into use. Oh well, just a thought.
Alright, we all know about the security problems that have plagued hotmail since MS bought it out and put it on NT, right?
Well, the way I see it, they should have just waited to apply "one large, single fix" to their problems rather than patching it here and there.
They probably could have actually avoided some of the problems they had when their software patches caused more problems. Every software engineer knows a patch causes as many problems as it solves.
I guess that enterprise solutions don't have an MIS dept, and that their work isn't that critical.
Of course, then again ZDNet could have just dropped the ball (as usual) and tried to cover their asses by saying that people don't want to apply 21 separate patches. Any mission critical box generally has a sysadmin whose carcass would be flung out into the street if they didn't want to apply 21 separate patches to fix security.
This reply is not effectually a response to the article, but more to solicit a response who works in the embedded systems field.
I am writing a document for a class (thankfully, my last english class) which requires me to contact an "expert" in the field I am discussing.
I find embedded systems to be fascinating and would like to contact anybody who has done development in the field.
Moderators I implore you not to knock my score, and potential "experts" I would ask that you either reply to this message or to email mf40467 in the domain of swt.edu so I can begin to ask questions pertaining to my paper's topic.
Of course, is it legal? I don't know, probably not. Good test for GPL.
Should they care about our reaction? Maybe, maybe not.
Here's why...
Corel's distro will probably be one of those that most/.ers never use seriously. We'll end up using Debian if we want the Corel Distro's style. The idea is that their distro is a move on the desktop. But not just anyone's desktop, my mom's desktop, and your mom's desktop, and about any other non-geek out there. But that is just the idea. Beta testing will get it ready for this stage of domination.
The question is, should we care what the do with a beta test license? Up until now, I've said it doesn't matter. But that's the problem. I don't care whether current code is GPLed or not. I can assume that I will get those packages from my Debian Sources CDs. But I do care if someone modifies a package and that isn't available to me, especially if it's that proverbial video card driver I need for X, or if it's a better SCSI driver I can modularize.
Corel can ignore the license, but it won't make them any friends in the community. Why? Not because we're all GPL/GNU/whatever zealots (although some of you are...). No, it's because they broke the chain.
My suggestion is if we start spamming them with any mail, don't use flame messages. Just send them the full text of Cathedral and Bazaar.
Not to rain on parades here, but freedom of information is nearly an ideal of communism. Albeit a roundabout way, no one really "owns" information if it is in the general public. Communism (True communism I should say) does not allow anyone to own property, thus the root word commune, or communal.
Take this a step further and if we (at least our govt.) says people can own ideas (IP Law...) then in a communistic sense, no one can claim ownership of ideas, thus if ideas are in the general public, they are free.
The problem with Americans (in general, cause I am an American and I have learned what communism is about) is that they look at the great socialist experiment that took place in the former Soviet Union (United Soviet Socialist Republic, anyone see that???) and mislabel it since generally Lenin was a Communist reformer. Unfortunately, Stalin wasn't, and we all see where that led Trotsky (a red fellow of Lenin's).
Now, furthermore, I have never found a communist dictator in history.
To share my own opinion about the article, personally I have to agree with the previously stated post that this community works more in the nepotistic sense (check that previous post for full details). We take in those who can, pardon the expression, hack it and generally exclude those who choose not to. How many articles have we read where the focus is usability, not cool gizmos, being the key to domination? How many "But can my mom use it...?" articles?
The sheer truth is that even though we may pride ourselves (and why Barbrook picks up the term???) as a gift community, we actually work to comprise strict division lines like "Oh, you use Windows..." and look down upon them. My fellow CS majors think I'm crazy (since our school is primarily on an NT network) cause I don't have a single box that does windows. They even dual boot. So obviously, there is some line that is drawn between us, even though I don't recall being an OS bigot and putting it there.
So, in all honesty, it's a big in-joke. We get it, people like Barbrook try to get it (and sometimes Katz can fall in that category), and then there's the people who don't even try. They don't care.
Plain and simple, it's not communist because the community is not truly inclusive of the whole population, not even the whole population of computer users.
Yeah, that's right, I'm going to install FreeBSD. Primarily to actually see what it's like, there should be some statement about zealousness here regarding the don't know you like it till you've tried it adage. So why not find out for yourself?
But after reading the article, I must say that I am bothered simply because I guess I'm kind of a GNU fan. I like the license what can I say.
I knew FreeBSD was mostly BSD license, but the desire to remove (replace) good tools produced by the FSF seems ridiculous. If it ain't broke and it's free, why fix it?
I realize they too give away their OS, which is why I'm trying it, but I think this article may just have turned me off to their internal affairs structure.
Oh well, if the little demon thing doesn't work out, looks like I'll go back to linux and finally pick up debian.
Btw, Linux will still be running on two of my machines, so I will have the familiar stomping grounds to play around with.
It runs a lot smoother than the current one, especially with my dial in at work. I probably won't notice that much at home.
At what point is the line drawn between dynamic data, and static layout? (I know probably should read the FAQ, or something, but I imagine that someone here probably can throw a quick answer to me.)
Will/. ever be completely dynamic or is that just a ridiculous idea? And finally, I'm me-tooing the note about blockstackers. If anything times out during my loading of/., it's adfu.
Can't wait to see the new server up for public consumption.
Re:Sounds halfway like the ZDNN article the other
on
The Life of Linus
·
· Score: 1
LCD (from math class) = Lowest Common Denominator
PHB (from Dilbert) is left as an exercise for the class.
Sounds halfway like the ZDNN article the other day
on
The Life of Linus
·
· Score: 2
Okay, I admit I only read the first page. That was as much as I could stomach really. Where do these guys get their intro fluff? I suppose from previous articles of similar journalists.
I really enjoyed the statement that it was pointless to send Linus an email cause he gets 200+ daily and doesn't respond. Nice fallacy actually, and I'm certain that if a poll hasn't been done it should. I usually use email to communicate more frequently than I use the phone. Just so much easier. Takes less time than a phone conversation would.
I digress, and just ask any journalists who use/. as a gauge of what their readers think, please don't use your colleagues articles for fluff info. Go to the official web page of whomever you're canonizing for the day and get the real story. Use email and the phone, both work within our subset of society. And consider target audiences fairly, yes many of these "tech sites" are run for the LCD of techies and PHBs (amazingly enough, the LCD = PHB for that). But, I'm going to jump out into the middle of the fire here and say that I'd be impressed if my PHB knew the real story behind Linuz or any of the Open Source news that he reads.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a subscriber to Road Runner cable modem access. It's owned by Time Warner.
That now makes me a lousy AOLuser. Guess I have to start using all the smileys and faux leet speak.
Or I could go investigate DSL... hmmm...
That's just too much to wake up to.
First, he's a (former?) co-owner of a baseball team (TX Rangers) and basically governor by name recognition. While he talks big, try to find his name attached to any legislation (other than those which he happened to put a signature on so they'd be law). Finally, you've got to realize that the legislature of TX is the real power of the branches in this state. The governor really is nothing more than a figurehead and has weak, limited power.
Okay, given that I am slightly biased, you may not buy it completely, but I am in the thick of it and have read more articles on GW than most citizens in the rest of the country not in TX.
Austin Chronicle is the local free newspaper and has done some stories that may help bolster your knowledge of politics in TX, and what to really expect of GW. The link will take you directly into their politics section. Browse, search, and really learn what he has and hasn't done. Then by all means, vote for him if you still think he's the right choice.
I don't though, and I'm going to vote for Bradley. I'd vote for McCain, but he can't win TX in the primaries (unfortunately), so I'm jumping to the Dems to get Bradley in the spot to beat Bush because Gore can't beat Bush.
Or wasn't there a study that said any two random sites are 19 clicks apart? Now we're down to four? In a matter of two months since I saw the story? I don't buy it, yet. Maybe in another year, but we're still farther apart than four clicks. The study was probably skewed by taking a small sampling in a confined area, say the U.S. only. Then I could believe that we're only four clicks away from most material. But there just isn't any possibility that I'm four clicks from any old site I choose right now, even in such a confined spot. Nineteen clicks is more believable.
Carmack is in control of the binaries. And if the man releases the Linux binary first and says all systems go to his retailer, they'll put it out. They make money off this deal too, so whether or not he releases all at once, or staggers (in a favorable method towards Linux) them, the retailer and id will enjoy a good holiday (whichever one comes next after the release).
Carmack could just release the linux version first and please us. Yes, it's unfair, but it really sends a jolt through the Windows user base. Plus, it has seemed as though he truly felt Linux was the best of the three OSes he used. Yes, I do remember his statements to the fact that he uses an NT network, but for ease of development, I must say that linux provides the best platform. So, if the world saw a Linux version say a week before a Windows version, then Carmack would be sending the shockwave himself, and we would all be happy. Now if I could only find out why my mouse doesn't work properly in LinQuake, that would be sweet. (Anyone know of workarounds that haven't been published on www.linuxquake.com or the HOWTO? My Intellimouse doesn't want to work right.)
To be totally honest, there's two things wrong with the complaint that there is no internet envisioned and that there is no internet attraction at Epcot.
a) Computers were still the size of the WOPR when Walt died. Hmmm. Walt's idea probably did envision a network, but not the kind we have today. Computers inside the building were probably to be networked to these "voice activated appliances" (sounds resemblingly like embedded devices that attach to networks). The idea of a personal computer was so far off back in the early 60s that an Internet simply would have meant being able to start your stove from work.
b) How exciting is the internet? Why have an attraction at Epcot then? Yes, to me and you it's exciting. To most people, the internet is scary and uncontrolled. It's not the end all be all. Recently, there was a news story about a town that finally got wired into the phone system. If a group of people can go 100 years without the phone, then surely you realize that there are millions of people that live a daily life sans internet.
Sorry to say it, but in the end, it's exciting to us cause we do the software and hardware.
Plain and simple.
...to stop production? Since the case has focused primarily on the OS and integration of products, is it really fair to stop their total production or only the Win2K staff? But considering that the new versions of apps that MS brings down the line will be optimized to the Win2K standard then, they too, will be semi-integrated since they can make use of proprietary calls that create a faster environment for working. So they too fall in to the category of integration. Can the DoJ really stop the total production line of MS and if it does, what does this do for the industry? The answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. I think this also points to the reason why a MaBell breakup would be the best choice. Because if MS wants to see the babies succeed then they have to open up the calls available to all companies because the DoJ will probably put in clauses to keep MS from reforming by partnerships between the sub-MS companies. That's as much as I can say from these two copper coins in my pocket.
I came across some statements by ESR at salon.com stating that if MS didn't deserve this so much, the FoF were rather harsh. The story went on to imply that ESR thinks that the market should decide and not the USgov. I want to know how viable it would be to have left things the way they are considering the level of most computer users. Do you think the market would tend towards Linux after it became more and more secure and viable as a commercial platform?
I am of the mindset that Linux gets little exposure to the general public and even when stories come out, they tend not to care. The only reason my parents know about it is because of me. I'm not even going to begin to try to explain it to my grandmother.
So what I'm getting at is "Was it absolutely necessary for this trial? Was Linux given a fair notice? And [as implied by ESR] would the market fix itself?"
1st off, cool Wolf 2000! be nice to be shouting NPFO at the monitor.
But on to the crux of the article...
I have a simple comment about the gaming industry vs any other media industry around. Notice that if you try to rent an R rated movie before you're of age, they usually have blocks available for parents so that Timmy who's 7 can't rent it for his slumber party.
I've noticed a lot of games around these days that have the M rating (probably requires the same amount of graphic content as the R rating in movies) but I haven't seen people harping that there isn't enforcement of the rating. I can imagine Timmy going into Best Buy and being carded for half-life, but really has anybody seen it happen?
Also I've seen arguments that "Oh, it's just a game." And I'm certain that those same people turn around and say that "X movie is too violent!" (put your favorite gore fest in for X)
I don't think you can blame the developers of the software since the rating system has been around. It's kind of like going after Paramount (or whoever) if some kid did a copycat of Scream (or whatever). First of all, Paramount's got beaucoup money in legal teams, and secondly, no judge would say "Well, even though it's rated R and Timmy was 7, I'm going to find you, Paramount, to be responsible." Further no jury would either simply because every movie is known to be rated.
Thus the problem to correct here is perception. Media shouts of "Graphic video games!!!" are common, but they never mention these games' ratings. I think that if gaming companies want to save their soon to be tarnished image ('cause once a lawsuit goes against 'em, it's all downhill), I think that a consortium to start actively promoting the awareness of the rating system will quiet the media (to an extent), and parents (because now it's back to being their responsibility in a quasi-legal^* sense)
* Quasi-legal - legal because of popular opinion rather than an informed bias. In these respects, parents are quasi-legally not responsible because the majority of people still think of video games to mean pong and the old Atari classics. Not enough people know that the major video card companies have nearly reached a perfect 2-d representation of 3-d real life and thus are shocked to see how graphic glQuake or Quake II can really be.
Hmm. What a great way to reach to Open Source/Free Software/what have you community!
Openly trounce the free version. I know it works for Microsoft. I can't stand using a equivalent product that's free cause I can't truly rely on it.
I know Xig is just trying to compete, but honestly do they think that tactics defined by the evil empire will work with their target market? Until I see numbers, charts, and feel the effect that they describe here, why not use an equally good product that also happens to be free?
Bad form, Xig. Give me an ad when you're ready to play in this league.
Ah, not so young grasshopper.
Hate to tell you this, but
> Consider this. If both past and future time exist and the objects that existed in that time also exist in
> those times then every moving particle in the universe is essentially a string of matter extending across time.
> Meaning that there would be an infinite amount of matter spread across the so-called space-time
> continuum. Now that's an ugly situation.
You have forgotten a key element in the whole equation of matter. In short, the law of conservation of energy and matter would cut out that argument.
I have been toying with the concept of no time for quite some years. I have not, however, gone about it in a mathematical sense. I approached this subject through a model.
First, we can all agree that time follows the same trichotomy axiom that the number line uses.
if x is an integer, then x must be
1. less than zero.
2. zero
3. greater than zero.
if x is a point in time, then x must be
1. less than present time (commonly referred to as the past).
2. present time.
3. more than present time (commonly referred to as the future).
But this requires time to be infinite, which contradicts the idea of an initial time. This means that time is arbitrarily large.
What follows is the key. Since we cannot know if x+1 exists, then part 3 of the axiom fails. Further, we can only experience the present, meaning we may not have truly observed the past. This causes enough doubt of part 1 to lead to failure. Thus we either have no time, since time must fall into the axiom, or time was not properly defined by the axiom and we only have the present time.
That's been my theory about the whole thing. I may be wrong, but I did get a kick out of reading the article this morning that says I may be right as well.
My bad, the copied text didn't get in there cause I'm stupid and put it in a tag (although I said Plain Old Text. here it is:
Welcome to OpenLinux.org.
OpenLinux.org was created for Linux developers interested in the open source projects related to the OpenLinux distribution. On this site you will find source code, whitepapers and mailing lists for the various projects. In short, everything you need for participating in the development or simply getting a detailed idea about a projects internals.
Although the projects hosted up to date were all initiated by Caldera Systems, we would also be happy to host other open source projects. Please email projects@openlinux.org if you would like your project hosted on OpenLinux.org.
END www.openlinux.org QUOTE
>>> FROM www.openlinux.org MAIN PAGE >> END www.openlinux.org QUOTE
That should tell you. In other words, it's a forum, like slashdot only for development by different Open Source groups. That's kind of like me saying, I wonder what sort of affiliation Andover.Net has to the RPMs on DaveCentral?
Point is, there is no relation other than that's the location that all the Blue Point folks go to discuss their project.
Just a comment, but haven't there been multiple stories about "flat speakers" and in effect wouldn't this just fall into this category? I recall that the other stories had something to do with the bumps on the screens causing too much distortion if put into use. Oh well, just a thought.
Alright, we all know about the security problems that have plagued hotmail since MS bought it out and put it on NT, right?
Well, the way I see it, they should have just waited to apply "one large, single fix" to their problems rather than patching it here and there.
They probably could have actually avoided some of the problems they had when their software patches caused more problems. Every software engineer knows a patch causes as many problems as it solves.
I guess that enterprise solutions don't have an MIS dept, and that their work isn't that critical.
Of course, then again ZDNet could have just dropped the ball (as usual) and tried to cover their asses by saying that people don't want to apply 21 separate patches. Any mission critical box generally has a sysadmin whose carcass would be flung out into the street if they didn't want to apply 21 separate patches to fix security.
I read the homepage, and I was LMAO. It's too damn funny to be real. Although, truth is stranger than fiction, right?
Oh well, i only hope userfriendly is as funny or else I'll have Jesux on my mind all day and will probably be LMAO in class at inappropriate times.
This reply is not effectually a response to the article, but more to solicit a response who works in the embedded systems field.
I am writing a document for a class (thankfully, my last english class) which requires me to contact an "expert" in the field I am discussing.
I find embedded systems to be fascinating and would like to contact anybody who has done development in the field.
Moderators I implore you not to knock my score, and potential "experts" I would ask that you either reply to this message or to email mf40467
in the domain of swt.edu so I can begin to ask questions pertaining to my paper's topic.
Thanks.
Mike
Frankly, Corel could do whatever they feel like.
/.ers never use seriously. We'll end up using Debian if we want the Corel Distro's style. The idea is that their distro is a move on the desktop. But not just anyone's desktop, my mom's desktop, and your mom's desktop, and about any other non-geek out there. But that is just the idea. Beta testing will get it ready for this stage of domination.
Of course, is it legal? I don't know, probably not. Good test for GPL.
Should they care about our reaction? Maybe, maybe not.
Here's why...
Corel's distro will probably be one of those that most
The question is, should we care what the do with a beta test license? Up until now, I've said it doesn't matter. But that's the problem. I don't care whether current code is GPLed or not. I can assume that I will get those packages from my Debian Sources CDs. But I do care if someone modifies a package and that isn't available to me, especially if it's that proverbial video card driver I need for X, or if it's a better SCSI driver I can modularize.
Corel can ignore the license, but it won't make them any friends in the community. Why? Not because we're all GPL/GNU/whatever zealots (although some of you are...). No, it's because they broke the chain.
My suggestion is if we start spamming them with any mail, don't use flame messages. Just send them the full text of Cathedral and Bazaar.
Maybe I'm wrong but is trademark law international? In which case would not Linus hold the trademark everywhere?
Someone have an answer to that?
Not to rain on parades here, but freedom of information is nearly an ideal of communism. Albeit a roundabout way, no one really "owns" information if it is in the general public. Communism (True communism I should say) does not allow anyone to own property, thus the root word commune, or communal.
Take this a step further and if we (at least our govt.) says people can own ideas (IP Law...) then in a communistic sense, no one can claim ownership of ideas, thus if ideas are in the general public, they are free.
The problem with Americans (in general, cause I am an American and I have learned what communism is about) is that they look at the great socialist experiment that took place in the former Soviet Union (United Soviet Socialist Republic, anyone see that???) and mislabel it since generally Lenin was a Communist reformer. Unfortunately, Stalin wasn't, and we all see where that led Trotsky (a red fellow of Lenin's).
Now, furthermore, I have never found a communist dictator in history.
To share my own opinion about the article, personally I have to agree with the previously stated post that this community works more in the nepotistic sense (check that previous post for full details). We take in those who can, pardon the expression, hack it and generally exclude those who choose not to. How many articles have we read where the focus is usability, not cool gizmos, being the key to domination? How many "But can my mom use it...?" articles?
The sheer truth is that even though we may pride ourselves (and why Barbrook picks up the term???) as a gift community, we actually work to comprise strict division lines like "Oh, you use Windows..." and look down upon them. My fellow CS majors think I'm crazy (since our school is primarily on an NT network) cause I don't have a single box that does windows. They even dual boot. So obviously, there is some line that is drawn between us, even though I don't recall being an OS bigot and putting it there.
So, in all honesty, it's a big in-joke. We get it, people like Barbrook try to get it (and sometimes Katz can fall in that category), and then there's the people who don't even try. They don't care.
Plain and simple, it's not communist because the community is not truly inclusive of the whole population, not even the whole population of computer users.
Yeah, that's right, I'm going to install FreeBSD. Primarily to actually see what it's like, there should be some statement about zealousness here regarding the don't know you like it till you've tried it adage. So why not find out for yourself?
But after reading the article, I must say that I am bothered simply because I guess I'm kind of a GNU fan. I like the license what can I say.
I knew FreeBSD was mostly BSD license, but the desire to remove (replace) good tools produced by the FSF seems ridiculous. If it ain't broke and it's free, why fix it?
I realize they too give away their OS, which is why I'm trying it, but I think this article may just have turned me off to their internal affairs structure.
Oh well, if the little demon thing doesn't work out, looks like I'll go back to linux and finally pick up debian.
Btw, Linux will still be running on two of my machines, so I will have the familiar stomping grounds to play around with.
It runs a lot smoother than the current one, especially with my dial in at work. I probably won't notice that much at home.
/. ever be completely dynamic or is that just a ridiculous idea? And finally, I'm me-tooing the note about blockstackers. If anything times out during my loading of /., it's adfu.
At what point is the line drawn between dynamic data, and static layout? (I know probably should read the FAQ, or something, but I imagine that someone here probably can throw a quick answer to me.)
Will
Can't wait to see the new server up for public consumption.
LCD (from math class) = Lowest Common Denominator
PHB (from Dilbert) is left as an exercise for the class.
Okay, I admit I only read the first page. That was as much as I could stomach really. Where do these guys get their intro fluff? I suppose from previous articles of similar journalists.
/. as a gauge of what their readers think, please don't use your colleagues articles for fluff info. Go to the official web page of whomever you're canonizing for the day and get the real story. Use email and the phone, both work within our subset of society. And consider target audiences fairly, yes many of these "tech sites" are run for the LCD of techies and PHBs (amazingly enough, the LCD = PHB for that). But, I'm going to jump out into the middle of the fire here and say that I'd be impressed if my PHB knew the real story behind Linuz or any of the Open Source news that he reads.
I really enjoyed the statement that it was pointless to send Linus an email cause he gets 200+ daily and doesn't respond. Nice fallacy actually, and I'm certain that if a poll hasn't been done it should. I usually use email to communicate more frequently than I use the phone. Just so much easier. Takes less time than a phone conversation would.
I digress, and just ask any journalists who use