There was this fellow named Josef Stalin (not his real name, it was Iosif Vissonariovich Dzhugashvili [pardon my crappy transliteration], which is a Georgian name), lived in the old Soviet Union. Fairly important fellow over there, IIRC.
He had these notions about Jews, rather akin to Hitler's, but without the "Master Race" crap. I don't think we'll *ever* know how many of them he killed (not personally, mind) but I've heard estimates as high as 54 million. Word has it that he killed them in large part because they *weren't* atheists - that their religion was a threat to the atheist ideals of the Soviet Union. History calls this massive organized murder "The Pogroms", and they were a very major part of Stalin's domestic policy, along with collectivization and the endless series of Five-Year Plans.
Being of a religious or an atheist bent doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify anyone from committing crimes against humanity.
As a disillusioned veteran of usenet's alt.flame, I personally consider that statement to be the absolute lowest form of disgusting behavior. Publishing someone's personal information just to gain some obscure upper hand in an argument is reprehensible and chlidish. Period.
I swore to myself I wouldn't feed the troll, but I just *have* to reply to this.
2. Stealing to make a "moral stand"
You know, back about 50 years ago, there were some folks down South who decided that willfully breaking the law was infinitely preferable to living under its constraints.
On any number of occasions, in front of any number of witnesses, these people would cheerfully, quietly, and peacefully violate the law of the land. They were sued, arrested, fined, and outright assaulted for it. But they kept on doing it. And by so doing, they succeeded in getting those laws changed from the top down - making their viewpoint and desires the *new* law of the land.
I don't suppose you've heard about it, have you? The civil rights struggle in the Deep South? Dr. Martin Luther King? You *did* learn about these things in your junior-year American History class, didn't you?
Discussion Question: Compare and contrast the civil rights struggle of the 1950's and the consumer rights struggle of the "naughties". Be brief, but specific. Cite examples.
It's ironic, you know. The MP/RIAA make gazillions of dollars (I could probably retire on just one week of their profits), but pay nothing to the actual artists (not much, anyway - it's a nothingth of a percent of their total profits in any case) and then have the sheer and utter gall to scream about losing money.
the riaa might sue a couple people. the rest of the people would see this and back down
This is possible, but I think you're a bit pessimistic about how things would go. I think that people tend to be a bit more resilient than that. As this problem gains more and more press, and becomes more and more important as a social issue, people will (I think) become just that much more obstinate and willing to "fight the power" (as it were).
alternatively the riaa might threaten the isp's who will cut the cords of their users.
That's also possible, but as Nap* usage grows, ISPs who ditch users at the behest of the RIAA will begin to feel a wee pinch in the pocketbook. I don't know a single ISP that would be willing to simultaneously sneck a million users - hell, for Earthlink, that's 1,000,000 * $21.95 per month, for 12 months per year... oh hell. It's real money.
the us legal system can take alot.
It can, but there really is a limit. And judges, in general, tend to be a fairly intelligent lot (though there are exceptions). I'm certain that if and when these sorts of cases start to become commonplace, people in the legal system and in government will start casting the Hairy Eyeball at what's going on.
Civil disobedience, in the form of p2p, may be the only recourse the average person has left when it comes to affecting the system from the bottom up. And it has worked before, under a lot more volatile and oppressive circumstances than this.
> Civil disobedience also normally entails being willing to turn yourself in and submit to punishment.
Sure, why not? I would truly, truly, truly love to see the RIAA attempt to sue every individual Napster user who has ever posted or downloaded a piece of copyrighted music.
In one respect, that may just be the best thing that could happen to the "Napster community" - the U.S. court system suddenly swamped with several million court cases all originating from the same corporation. I'm wondering just how much the U.S. legal system can take before it says, "Enough."
We accept the notion that *everyone* is biased; there is no such thing as true impartiality. Even those who claim they are without bias are biased somehow, usually in favor of their own lack of bias.
Everybody has an opinion, which means they have a bias.
Yeah, you're right. It's a good idea, particularly in this era of hyperzealous litigiousness.
(Did I just make that word up? Oh well.)
It should be obvious, though, that the tactic won't really work too well, particularly with Amazon. A company that trademarks "one-click shopping" *has* no community spirit.
Here's a quick quiz for you: where in the movie, promotional materials, or anywhere else does Disney state where and when this movie supposedly takes place? The answer, while you scratch your head, is "nowhere." The movie is pleasantly ambiguous about all that. Are they Mayans? Incas? Aztecs? And if they're in South America, why are there European-style cottages in Pacha's village? Why is Yzma's dress straight out of 1920's American flapper culture?
And so on and so forth. Perhaps in all our Slashdotty desire to be gritty and accurate and hypersensitive, we've completely forgotten that this is ENTERTAINMENT, not meant to be taken seriously - hell, I doubt if it's even POSSIBLE to take it seriously. It's a goddamned cartoon. Lighten up.
Oh, and how exactly are the Transformers "positive subject matter?" They fight and kill each other because they just simply don't like the other faction. That's a positive thing in your world?
Fucking sad. Go watch Schindler's List or something, and please leave the cartoons for those of us still young enough at heart to actually enjoy them.
> Not only is the guy who played Krunk (not "Crank")
FYI, imdb.com lists the name as "Kronk". And he's easily one of the funniest Disney characters, if not THE funniest Disney character, since Williams as the Genie.
While I agree with you that this is going to look bad in just about any light, a few things need to be kept firmly in view.
We do *not* at this point know if the crackers in fact took source code. We know, according to Ballmer, that they did indeed *view* the code. But did they actually get hold of a copy? Without knowing this answer, we can't accurately predict if and how that source code will be distributed to the net.
Yes, it's true, Microsoft will in all likelihood attempt to spin this as being all the fault of those nasty, evil, commie Open Source people. But is it? The best defense against FUD is the truth, and finding out just who did this, and why, will go a long, long way towards blunting the flood of bullshit that's even now beginning to emit from the general direction of the Pacific Northwest.
What will Microsoft be able to claim as protection in the event the source *does* get out to the internet? Trade secret status? One of the most important things to come out of all that DeCSS litigation was, if I remember correctly, the statement from the judge that once a trade secret is publicized, no matter how, it's not a secret anymore. What, if anything, can MS use? Copyright violations? Won't hold water if any GNU or other public code is discovered in *their* code. Sure, they might try to invoke the DMCA or something like that, but honestly, what will they be able to prove or accomplish? Once the secret's out of the bag, it's *out* - whether or not that's a good thing.
Yeah, it's for almost damn sure that there's going to be a very, very ugly war of ideologies, rhetoric, and politics resulting from this little stunt. But the key for anyone who opposes Microsoft and its slipshod methodologies which produce, in my not-so-humble opinion, second-rate software, is to keep the debate focused upon the facts and the truth. This exploit was the result of a well-known security issue, one that's been around for months, and one which Microsoft *should* have been able to guard against. This exploit was more than likely the result of a rotten-to-the-core policy decision that allows Outlook to execute arbitrary code with nigh-unfettered access to the operating system internals.
Yes, this hack was probably a very, VERY unwise decision by the culprits. Yes, there will be a truly astounding storm of shit over the matter. But, if Microsoft's opponents play their cards correctly and with a bit of savvy, there can be a world of good which comes out of it, too.
But first, maybe we should all sit back and try to figure out exactly what happened, how it happened, who caused it to happen, and most importantly, why it happened.
If nothing else, that approach will choke off some of these tiresome, pointless accusations and counteraccusations.
I don't know what's more annoying. The knee-jerk Linux supremacists or the knee-jerk Microsoft apologists who are sick of seeing MS attacked on Slashdot.
A little sensitive to criticism, are we?
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the technical points raised by this article are salient. Remember Hotmail? It *still* runs UNIX, if I'm not mistaken, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make it run on NT. Fact was, NT just couldn't handle the load. I see no reason to believe that this might not be the case here as well.
Oh, one other point. You wrote: If only the main/. page had a threshold filter like the comments page did... =)
It does. You can filter out any type of story you don't want to read. Don't blame me if you haven't figured out how to use it yet. And don't complain about/.'s editorial bias. D'you think msn.com would give you anything better? Or perhaps Mindcraft?
I somehow doubt the bungie.net regulars see this as a null point. Or do you think they're likely to regard service interruptions, lag, and downtime as a good thing?
... is the fact that you see this as not being newsworthy, or that you felt the need to make such a pointless extrapolation into the realm of Chinese food.Let me try to explain this, in terms that are easy for you to understand.
The points being made in the IMG article are that (a) Microsoft might just make alterations to a system that works quite well for online play. Among these potential changes are a move from a free-play to a pay-for-play model, or that they may turn it off altogether, and b that they may do to Bungie.net what they did to Hotmail, e.g. attempt to set the service (which had run well, if not perfectly) on Linux and make it use NT/2000 as some sort of PR maneuver, completely
disregarding the technical issues, such as downgraded performance and lower stability.
As near as I can tell, these concerns are legitimate - I wouldn't be happy either, were there a possibility that one of my favorite pastimes could be mucked up or even destroyed by a company with a chip on its shoulder, looking to score points for its flagship product at any cost.
Isn't that "destroyed" enough? A billion-dollar (don't even ask me to calculate rubles) submarine sunk in a couple hundred meters of some of the coldest water on earth, with a loss of all hands?
I mean, what would it take to make you happy? Seeing the thing in scattered chunks all over the seafloor, perhaps?
You're correct when you say that HTML doesn't teach "programming" per se. But it does teach something else of equal value to programmers: structured thinking. HTML shows them how to order the elements of their program - i.e. the comes before the , the comes after the and you have to be sure to close that line with a . Yes, it's pattycake. But it's also instantly gratifying - all the child has to do to see the result of his work is hit the "Reload" button on a browser. And it provides a good springboard into Javascript, which has the benefit of teaching how to augment that very basic HTML "program". If he's really learned his HTML, then he'll know the significance of the tag, and will be able to comprehend the meaning and function of the "onLoad" event. HTML and Javascript are very much like Legos, really. HTML is the basic square blocks that make a structure, Javascript is all the neat glassy pieces and special bits and little lego people that add life to a creation.
And once a child has got the hang of creating a webpage and adding interactivity - by hand, mind you, with a text editor instead of with a GUI editor - he or she will be *very* well positioned for making the transition to a high-level language, whether that would be Perl, C, C++, PASCAL, or what have you. If you ask me, the most important thing a programmer must be able to do is order and arrange his thoughts, to comprehend the flow of data through a program. HTML is a wonderful tool for teaching those skills.
Are you a communist in an idealogical or nationalist standpoint?
Ideological. It's not really possible to be a "nationalistic communist", because Communism is and must be global in nature if it is to exist at all. Communism confined to national boundaries is, by definition, Socialism. You can email me if you'd like a bit more info.
You're right that what we've experienced historically is a failure. Socialism was never intended as a long-term solution; it was meant as a temporary "safe point" where a particular national entity that had undergone a successful revolution could wait for the rest of the world to catch up. But what we've experienced is as far from the ideal of Communism as possible - you can't judge the system on what you've seen, because what you've seen is emphatically not the system you're trying to judge - the rhetoric of various "Communist" leaders notwithstanding.
Hopefully, that provides you with a few answers. You can always mail me if you want to know more, I'm more than happy to explain.
I really think that's a red herring. Do you really think that there's not some basic commonality or popular plurality of interest among the "geek" community? You've said that women and African-Americans are every inch as diverse politically as geeks are, and yet there always seem to be two or three key viewpoints about any topic that, because of their united voice, get the consideration, get the editorial and popular press and news airtime. The question of whether or not we "need" a collective voice is almost completely irrelevant. The fact that we don't all speak as one only underscores this point. There's many, many things we know and understand about the world and its new technological paradigm that *must* be aired and *must* be popularized.
And since unions fit in perfectly with most of your (developers) communist and socialist views on how the world (and not specifically software) should be, forming one should fit into the picture quite nicely!
I've mentioned this before in these forums, but I feel this comment makes it worth mentioning again.
I don't believe that you've really thought out what you're saying here, AC. The principles of communal action and shared voice are much, much older than Communism or Socialism. See, I *am* a Communist, and I can assure you that I do indeed have my own ideas on how the world should be run. But changing the world is not the immediate goal here. The goal is to change the ways in which we, the geeks, are seen, heard, and understood in the world. This isn't about a global revolution. It's about being heard.
I should ask here: are you a Linux developer? Ever written an open-source application? If you can answer yes to either of those questions, then you've participated in a process that's very similar to Communism in many ways. You weren't being paid for your efforts; so something else motivated you: the good of the community and the pride you get from having done something important for that community. This is what it's all about: shared labor creating universal gain. Like it or not, it's an idea at the very core of Communism.
My question to you, AC, would be this: what's there to be afraid of in a little communal action? What's wrong with having a common purpose and a united voice? Are you going to let your McCarthyist fears prevent you from adding your distinct voice and opinions to a group that just might be able to change the world?
But if you're happy being ignored by the system that's supposed to protect you, then maybe that's okay in your view. But a thousand voices shout louder than one. And one voice is simply not going to change the world.
Funny, isn't it? All these politicians like to claim they understand the Internet, they've all got their little fluff websites, complete with bad HTML. But what they haven't got is people standing up and saying "Oh, yeah? Prove it."
On the other side of the coin, you've got Microsoft taking a heavy, heavy interest in politics right now. While it's easy to dismiss their actions - lobbying for a cut in the DOJ's budget, holding big-ticket fundraisers, openly supporting political candidates who disfavor antitrust laws - as being purely motivated by immediate self-interest, you know and I know that they've got an eye out for the long view here.
So where does that leave your average geek? We've got clueless politicos to the left of us, Microsoft to the right, now here we are (stuck in the middle...). The problem here is that both of those ends have to meet at some point. Politicians can be counted on to always do what's best for their wallets and chances for reelection. Microsoft can be counted on to do what's best for its plans for world domination. There is a definite common ground here, and the end result will be the freezing-out of geeks from the political landscape.
And the hell of it is, there may not be a solution. After all, our gift is communication, and the enabling of it. We can talk all we want, but we can't shout down the siren call of the almighty dollar. I mean, sure, we can put up websites all we like, but without money, who can we count on to pay attention to us? Who's going to listen to what we want and what we need?
Maybe the answer is nothing more complex than some good old-fashioned civil disobedience. Here's a few ideas:
Shut down websites: I'm not talking about hacking/DoS'ing sites; I'm talking about turning off those servers that we control. Dry up the information flow for a while. If the web suddenly becomes nothing much more than a morass of lookalike e-commerce and pr0n sites, I think that people just *might* start noticing.
Walk off the job: Don't quit. That's suicide. But take your vacation time. Call in sick. Without the people to run it, the information machinery of the world grinds to a halt - it becomes static.
Threaten to Unionize: Employers, in general, dislike unions because it takes the power out of their hands. Politicians, on the other hand, may not like unions either, but they're more than willing to work with them, because they represent a large, powerful, and tangible bloc of people, power, and money. Individuals crying out in the wilderness for rights don't get listened to. We all learned that in the 1950's. But large, organized, effective groups *do* get listened to.
Maybe not all of these ideas are workable, but that's not really the point here. The point is that as we are, doing what we're doing, we have no voice - we are taken for granted and we are forgotten when it comes time for those senators to vote. Something must be done to the very way we interact with the political landscape if we expect to ever be able to influence the way the business of running a country - any country - gets done.
According to Ars Technica's recent review of OSX DP2, OSX has at least some of the machinery to run on x86 chips. This makes sense. As the author (John Siracusa) wrote, "The OpenStep APIs are cross-platform. Mach is cross-platform.... x86 builds of... Mac OS X inside Apple have been all but confirmed."
But Siracusa doubts that there will ever be a release of OS X for x86, and I'm inclined to agree - this would seriously undercut Apple's hardware sales, if nothing else. Apple, I'd think, would want to leverage the cool factor of OS X against the cool factor of its hardware for a pretty hefty marketing beast.
Chris Tembreull Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
There is opportunity in fruity-ness.
on
MacOS X DP3
·
· Score: 1
>If I can disregard the whole "Tangerine Computer" thing for a moment
I should make a point here that might just sound a chord with the Linux crowd.
We all know that Linux is great for servers. And we all know that Linux is great for development. This is all just fine, but what Linux really lacks, and what a lot of people have been clamoring for, is desktop penetration. It seems to me that making Linux more palatable to desktop computer users is pretty much the entire goal behind GNOME, KDE, et. al.
And over here on the other hand, we have Apple. Despite the legendary fading of their desktop dominance at the hands of the Redmond crowd, they have successfully tapped into the consumer market with their hardware. Sure, it's tangerine. Or lime, even. The point is that consumers like it. Hell, I'd go so far as to say they love it. Apple's making a mint by moving tangerine hardware.
Now here's the thing. Apple has the consumer market. Linux wants to play in that space. Am I the only one who sees vast opportunity in Apple's choice of BSD as the underlying foundation for their new, super-duper OS? What sort of wonders could a bit of extra evangelization and a few months of focused work do in this regard? Putting Linux apps on the desktop is part of it. But the other part is appealing to all those folks who have windows, want OS X, but don't want to buy a Mac, perhaps *because* it's tangerine.
You with me so far? This is Linux's big opportunity. By positioning ourselves as the next best thing to OS X, at least as far as the Wintel space goes, Linux is positioned to make a BIG move onto the desktop. It's going to require some integration, and some smartening up on the interface side. But it's very, VERY possible. And it would be A Good Thing for all concerned.
Sure, their hardware's fruity. But they have what we want. Let's see if we can't leverage this whole OS X business, hmm?
Slashdot Mirror
There was this fellow named Josef Stalin (not his real name, it was Iosif Vissonariovich Dzhugashvili [pardon my crappy transliteration], which is a Georgian name), lived in the old Soviet Union. Fairly important fellow over there, IIRC. He had these notions about Jews, rather akin to Hitler's, but without the "Master Race" crap. I don't think we'll *ever* know how many of them he killed (not personally, mind) but I've heard estimates as high as 54 million. Word has it that he killed them in large part because they *weren't* atheists - that their religion was a threat to the atheist ideals of the Soviet Union. History calls this massive organized murder "The Pogroms", and they were a very major part of Stalin's domestic policy, along with collectivization and the endless series of Five-Year Plans.
Being of a religious or an atheist bent doesn't automatically qualify or disqualify anyone from committing crimes against humanity.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
According to the Constitution of the United States, Dianetics, by one L. Ron Hubbard might just fit that bill.
OK, I know it doesn't come right out and *say* that, but I've heard a few things about the prices of those OT levels...
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
I guess Harlan's getting pissy in his dotage.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
I swore to myself I wouldn't feed the troll, but I just *have* to reply to this.
2. Stealing to make a "moral stand"
You know, back about 50 years ago, there were some folks down South who decided that willfully breaking the law was infinitely preferable to living under its constraints.
On any number of occasions, in front of any number of witnesses, these people would cheerfully, quietly, and peacefully violate the law of the land. They were sued, arrested, fined, and outright assaulted for it. But they kept on doing it. And by so doing, they succeeded in getting those laws changed from the top down - making their viewpoint and desires the *new* law of the land.
I don't suppose you've heard about it, have you? The civil rights struggle in the Deep South? Dr. Martin Luther King? You *did* learn about these things in your junior-year American History class, didn't you?
Discussion Question: Compare and contrast the civil rights struggle of the 1950's and the consumer rights struggle of the "naughties". Be brief, but specific. Cite examples.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
It's ironic, you know. The MP/RIAA make gazillions of dollars (I could probably retire on just one week of their profits), but pay nothing to the actual artists (not much, anyway - it's a nothingth of a percent of their total profits in any case) and then have the sheer and utter gall to scream about losing money.
The mind fucking boggles.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
This is possible, but I think you're a bit pessimistic about how things would go. I think that people tend to be a bit more resilient than that. As this problem gains more and more press, and becomes more and more important as a social issue, people will (I think) become just that much more obstinate and willing to "fight the power" (as it were).
alternatively the riaa might threaten the isp's who will cut the cords of their users.
That's also possible, but as Nap* usage grows, ISPs who ditch users at the behest of the RIAA will begin to feel a wee pinch in the pocketbook. I don't know a single ISP that would be willing to simultaneously sneck a million users - hell, for Earthlink, that's 1,000,000 * $21.95 per month, for 12 months per year... oh hell. It's real money.
the us legal system can take alot.
It can, but there really is a limit. And judges, in general, tend to be a fairly intelligent lot (though there are exceptions). I'm certain that if and when these sorts of cases start to become commonplace, people in the legal system and in government will start casting the Hairy Eyeball at what's going on.
Civil disobedience, in the form of p2p, may be the only recourse the average person has left when it comes to affecting the system from the bottom up. And it has worked before, under a lot more volatile and oppressive circumstances than this.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Sure, why not? I would truly, truly, truly love to see the RIAA attempt to sue every individual Napster user who has ever posted or downloaded a piece of copyrighted music.
In one respect, that may just be the best thing that could happen to the "Napster community" - the U.S. court system suddenly swamped with several million court cases all originating from the same corporation. I'm wondering just how much the U.S. legal system can take before it says, "Enough."
Just my two centimeters, or something.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Everybody has an opinion, which means they have a bias.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Of *course* the DOJ is biased. So is Microsoft - they'd probably grasp at ANYTHING which would possibly lead to that verdict being overturned.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
(Did I just make that word up? Oh well.)
It should be obvious, though, that the tactic won't really work too well, particularly with Amazon. A company that trademarks "one-click shopping" *has* no community spirit.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Exactly. Lighten up.
Here's a quick quiz for you: where in the movie, promotional materials, or anywhere else does Disney state where and when this movie supposedly takes place? The answer, while you scratch your head, is "nowhere." The movie is pleasantly ambiguous about all that. Are they Mayans? Incas? Aztecs? And if they're in South America, why are there European-style cottages in Pacha's village? Why is Yzma's dress straight out of 1920's American flapper culture?
And so on and so forth. Perhaps in all our Slashdotty desire to be gritty and accurate and hypersensitive, we've completely forgotten that this is ENTERTAINMENT, not meant to be taken seriously - hell, I doubt if it's even POSSIBLE to take it seriously. It's a goddamned cartoon. Lighten up.
Oh, and how exactly are the Transformers "positive subject matter?" They fight and kill each other because they just simply don't like the other faction. That's a positive thing in your world?
Fucking sad. Go watch Schindler's List or something, and please leave the cartoons for those of us still young enough at heart to actually enjoy them.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
FYI, imdb.com lists the name as "Kronk". And he's easily one of the funniest Disney characters, if not THE funniest Disney character, since Williams as the Genie.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
So why don't you do us all a favor and mellow out? It's a lot better for your blood pressure than tilting at windmills.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
While I agree with you that this is going to look bad in just about any light, a few things need to be kept firmly in view.
- We do *not* at this point know if the crackers in fact took source code. We know, according to Ballmer, that they did indeed *view* the code. But did they actually get hold of a copy? Without knowing this answer, we can't accurately predict if and how that source code will be distributed to the net.
- Yes, it's true, Microsoft will in all likelihood attempt to spin this as being all the fault of those nasty, evil, commie Open Source people. But is it? The best defense against FUD is the truth, and finding out just who did this, and why, will go a long, long way towards blunting the flood of bullshit that's even now beginning to emit from the general direction of the Pacific Northwest.
- What will Microsoft be able to claim as protection in the event the source *does* get out to the internet? Trade secret status? One of the most important things to come out of all that DeCSS litigation was, if I remember correctly, the statement from the judge that once a trade secret is publicized, no matter how, it's not a secret anymore. What, if anything, can MS use? Copyright violations? Won't hold water if any GNU or other public code is discovered in *their* code. Sure, they might try to invoke the DMCA or something like that, but honestly, what will they be able to prove or accomplish? Once the secret's out of the bag, it's *out* - whether or not that's a good thing.
Yeah, it's for almost damn sure that there's going to be a very, very ugly war of ideologies, rhetoric, and politics resulting from this little stunt. But the key for anyone who opposes Microsoft and its slipshod methodologies which produce, in my not-so-humble opinion, second-rate software, is to keep the debate focused upon the facts and the truth. This exploit was the result of a well-known security issue, one that's been around for months, and one which Microsoft *should* have been able to guard against. This exploit was more than likely the result of a rotten-to-the-core policy decision that allows Outlook to execute arbitrary code with nigh-unfettered access to the operating system internals.Yes, this hack was probably a very, VERY unwise decision by the culprits. Yes, there will be a truly astounding storm of shit over the matter. But, if Microsoft's opponents play their cards correctly and with a bit of savvy, there can be a world of good which comes out of it, too.
But first, maybe we should all sit back and try to figure out exactly what happened, how it happened, who caused it to happen, and most importantly, why it happened.
If nothing else, that approach will choke off some of these tiresome, pointless accusations and counteraccusations.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
A little sensitive to criticism, are we?
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the technical points raised by this article are salient. Remember Hotmail? It *still* runs UNIX, if I'm not mistaken, despite Microsoft's best efforts to make it run on NT. Fact was, NT just couldn't handle the load. I see no reason to believe that this might not be the case here as well.
Oh, one other point. You wrote: /. page had a threshold filter like the comments page did... =)
If only the main
It does. You can filter out any type of story you don't want to read. Don't blame me if you haven't figured out how to use it yet. And don't complain about /.'s editorial bias. D'you think msn.com would give you anything better? Or perhaps Mindcraft?
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
I somehow doubt the bungie.net regulars see this as a null point. Or do you think they're likely to regard service interruptions, lag, and downtime as a good thing?
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
The points being made in the IMG article are that (a) Microsoft might just make alterations to a system that works quite well for online play. Among these potential changes are a move from a free-play to a pay-for-play model, or that they may turn it off altogether, and b that they may do to Bungie.net what they did to Hotmail, e.g. attempt to set the service (which had run well, if not perfectly) on Linux and make it use NT/2000 as some sort of PR maneuver, completely disregarding the technical issues, such as downgraded performance and lower stability.
As near as I can tell, these concerns are legitimate - I wouldn't be happy either, were there a possibility that one of my favorite pastimes could be mucked up or even destroyed by a company with a chip on its shoulder, looking to score points for its flagship product at any cost.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
I mean, what would it take to make you happy? Seeing the thing in scattered chunks all over the seafloor, perhaps?
Sheesh.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
And once a child has got the hang of creating a webpage and adding interactivity - by hand, mind you, with a text editor instead of with a GUI editor - he or she will be *very* well positioned for making the transition to a high-level language, whether that would be Perl, C, C++, PASCAL, or what have you. If you ask me, the most important thing a programmer must be able to do is order and arrange his thoughts, to comprehend the flow of data through a program. HTML is a wonderful tool for teaching those skills.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Ideological. It's not really possible to be a "nationalistic communist", because Communism is and must be global in nature if it is to exist at all. Communism confined to national boundaries is, by definition, Socialism. You can email me if you'd like a bit more info.
You're right that what we've experienced historically is a failure. Socialism was never intended as a long-term solution; it was meant as a temporary "safe point" where a particular national entity that had undergone a successful revolution could wait for the rest of the world to catch up. But what we've experienced is as far from the ideal of Communism as possible - you can't judge the system on what you've seen, because what you've seen is emphatically not the system you're trying to judge - the rhetoric of various "Communist" leaders notwithstanding.
Hopefully, that provides you with a few answers. You can always mail me if you want to know more, I'm more than happy to explain.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
I really think that's a red herring. Do you really think that there's not some basic commonality or popular plurality of interest among the "geek" community? You've said that women and African-Americans are every inch as diverse politically as geeks are, and yet there always seem to be two or three key viewpoints about any topic that, because of their united voice, get the consideration, get the editorial and popular press and news airtime. The question of whether or not we "need" a collective voice is almost completely irrelevant. The fact that we don't all speak as one only underscores this point. There's many, many things we know and understand about the world and its new technological paradigm that *must* be aired and *must* be popularized.
Or else, we all lose.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
I've mentioned this before in these forums, but I feel this comment makes it worth mentioning again.
I don't believe that you've really thought out what you're saying here, AC. The principles of communal action and shared voice are much, much older than Communism or Socialism. See, I *am* a Communist, and I can assure you that I do indeed have my own ideas on how the world should be run. But changing the world is not the immediate goal here. The goal is to change the ways in which we, the geeks, are seen, heard, and understood in the world. This isn't about a global revolution. It's about being heard.
I should ask here: are you a Linux developer? Ever written an open-source application? If you can answer yes to either of those questions, then you've participated in a process that's very similar to Communism in many ways. You weren't being paid for your efforts; so something else motivated you: the good of the community and the pride you get from having done something important for that community. This is what it's all about: shared labor creating universal gain. Like it or not, it's an idea at the very core of Communism.
My question to you, AC, would be this: what's there to be afraid of in a little communal action? What's wrong with having a common purpose and a united voice? Are you going to let your McCarthyist fears prevent you from adding your distinct voice and opinions to a group that just might be able to change the world?
But if you're happy being ignored by the system that's supposed to protect you, then maybe that's okay in your view. But a thousand voices shout louder than one. And one voice is simply not going to change the world.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
On the other side of the coin, you've got Microsoft taking a heavy, heavy interest in politics right now. While it's easy to dismiss their actions - lobbying for a cut in the DOJ's budget, holding big-ticket fundraisers, openly supporting political candidates who disfavor antitrust laws - as being purely motivated by immediate self-interest, you know and I know that they've got an eye out for the long view here.
So where does that leave your average geek? We've got clueless politicos to the left of us, Microsoft to the right, now here we are (stuck in the middle...). The problem here is that both of those ends have to meet at some point. Politicians can be counted on to always do what's best for their wallets and chances for reelection. Microsoft can be counted on to do what's best for its plans for world domination. There is a definite common ground here, and the end result will be the freezing-out of geeks from the political landscape.
And the hell of it is, there may not be a solution. After all, our gift is communication, and the enabling of it. We can talk all we want, but we can't shout down the siren call of the almighty dollar. I mean, sure, we can put up websites all we like, but without money, who can we count on to pay attention to us? Who's going to listen to what we want and what we need?
Maybe the answer is nothing more complex than some good old-fashioned civil disobedience. Here's a few ideas:
Shut down websites: I'm not talking about hacking/DoS'ing sites; I'm talking about turning off those servers that we control. Dry up the information flow for a while. If the web suddenly becomes nothing much more than a morass of lookalike e-commerce and pr0n sites, I think that people just *might* start noticing.
Walk off the job: Don't quit. That's suicide. But take your vacation time. Call in sick. Without the people to run it, the information machinery of the world grinds to a halt - it becomes static.
Threaten to Unionize: Employers, in general, dislike unions because it takes the power out of their hands. Politicians, on the other hand, may not like unions either, but they're more than willing to work with them, because they represent a large, powerful, and tangible bloc of people, power, and money. Individuals crying out in the wilderness for rights don't get listened to. We all learned that in the 1950's. But large, organized, effective groups *do* get listened to.
Maybe not all of these ideas are workable, but that's not really the point here. The point is that as we are, doing what we're doing, we have no voice - we are taken for granted and we are forgotten when it comes time for those senators to vote. Something must be done to the very way we interact with the political landscape if we expect to ever be able to influence the way the business of running a country - any country - gets done.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
But Siracusa doubts that there will ever be a release of OS X for x86, and I'm inclined to agree - this would seriously undercut Apple's hardware sales, if nothing else. Apple, I'd think, would want to leverage the cool factor of OS X against the cool factor of its hardware for a pretty hefty marketing beast.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.
I should make a point here that might just sound a chord with the Linux crowd.
We all know that Linux is great for servers. And we all know that Linux is great for development. This is all just fine, but what Linux really lacks, and what a lot of people have been clamoring for, is desktop penetration. It seems to me that making Linux more palatable to desktop computer users is pretty much the entire goal behind GNOME, KDE, et. al.
And over here on the other hand, we have Apple. Despite the legendary fading of their desktop dominance at the hands of the Redmond crowd, they have successfully tapped into the consumer market with their hardware. Sure, it's tangerine. Or lime, even. The point is that consumers like it. Hell, I'd go so far as to say they love it. Apple's making a mint by moving tangerine hardware.
Now here's the thing. Apple has the consumer market. Linux wants to play in that space. Am I the only one who sees vast opportunity in Apple's choice of BSD as the underlying foundation for their new, super-duper OS? What sort of wonders could a bit of extra evangelization and a few months of focused work do in this regard? Putting Linux apps on the desktop is part of it. But the other part is appealing to all those folks who have windows, want OS X, but don't want to buy a Mac, perhaps *because* it's tangerine.
You with me so far? This is Linux's big opportunity. By positioning ourselves as the next best thing to OS X, at least as far as the Wintel space goes, Linux is positioned to make a BIG move onto the desktop. It's going to require some integration, and some smartening up on the interface side. But it's very, VERY possible. And it would be A Good Thing for all concerned.
Sure, their hardware's fruity. But they have what we want. Let's see if we can't leverage this whole OS X business, hmm?
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
My opinions are my own, and nobody else's.