I have a friend who's a strong Amiga user. He's been trying to talk me into getting an Amiga. But seemingly 10 year old technology doesn't interest me very much. When the Amiga was big with announcements a while back I started to get excited. Sure I heard what everyone said about Amiga not sticking to a product, but it seemed like Amiga really was serious. Now once again they announce that they are changing their focus.
They do need a product. They just need to find a good one to base their future one, and stick too it. That's the only thing they need to do now.
A: It's not controlled by one company, and fragmentation can occur. Why do they keep coming out with this one ? Surely GM, of all people, would understand the advantages and even necessity of not being tied to a single vendor ?
Exactly. That's the first thing I noticed too. GM gets their parts from a number of different manufacturers, they should realize they strength of being able to swap parts without being dependent on a single manufacturer. Whether it's spark plugs, or it's an OS. Look at the problems they are going to have now because they used VB.
And although the Linux platform is arguably fragmented, that only affects desktop applications where a company sells a product that could go on dozens of different configurations. Used in a server environment, fragmantation is not a problem. What they need to do is to evaluate a few distributions and determine which one meets their needs best. Say for instance they decide it's Red Hat. Now all they do is make sure that their app continues to run on Red Hat. It doesn't matter if all the other distributions decide to do something completely different because that won't affect how it runs on Red Hat. All they need to be concerned about is what Red Hat does with their distribution. And even if Red Hat changes it a bit so that GM has to make some modifications to keep their app running, I'm sure it won't nearly be the upgrade path that Microsoft has forced on us with DOS -> Windows 3.x -> Windows 95 -> Windows NT -> Windows 2000 -> 64 bit Windows.
Another thing that I hate is the claim that the Server OS platform was fragmented. It was less fragmented the Windows is, IMHO. If I wanted to develop an app for Solaris, it ran fine on Solaris, no matter what AIX was like. However, is my customers wanted to run the app on another platform, which do you think was easier to port my app too? NT or AIX? Which do you think I would consider doing first?
I wrote an essay on the fragmentation in OS's. It might fit well in here.
One more thing: you said "Well, I just can't wait for the use of domain names to be deprecated." Do you know something I don't about an alternative system that will take care of these problems, or are you just expressing the same hope that I share, that some such alternative will come along eventually?
I guess mostly I hope that such an alternative will eventually show up. I don't know any good alternatives, and the moment, probably because I haven't looked. Although some kind of "directory service" would seem to be a good idea. Instead of using DNS, there should be a new protocol that returns a list of close web sites. For instance, I should be able to type in "clue" in my web browser and have a list returned that included
Blue's Clues
Clue Computing Clue's Card and Etc Clue's for You Hasbro - Clue Game.
Voila!! Problem solved. You'd just click on the site you want, and it'd pop up. I sorta am able to do this now with whois lookup's, but very ineffectively. It could almost be a search engine, but instead of being based on web pages, it'd just be based on the name registered. -Brent --
I should be able to buy and sell all the domain names I damn well please on a first cone serve basis. If I PAY for 5000 domain names. They're fucking MINE, and I can resell them for any amount I want. Or maybe I will just sit on them. No one has to buy them. And if I am to assume ALL THE RISK (of not being able to sell them), then I should receive ALL THE PROFIT when I do make that one big killing.
Nonsense. Utter and dismal nonsense.
Domains aren't "owned". They are registered and "leased". I think that the idea of "owning" a domain was the biggest mistake ever made. You register a domain and use it. When you are done with it, if you don't use it "forever", then it's unregistered and the next person to register for it starts paying for it. That's how the Domain naming system should work.
You shouldn't be assuming any risk, because the domain names aren't intended to be a salable goods. It's no better then scalping tickets. If you think that you own domain names, what else do you own? Phone numbers? Do you buy chuncks of phone numbers so that you can sell them to the highest bidder? 1-888-cooldude; 1-800-your4us; 1-615-iamnice? How about post-office boxes. PO Box 666 might be valuable. Do you stand in line and offer to step up of line to the highest bidder so they can get closer to the front of the line? What in the world makes domain names any different.
I think that whoever would "buy" the rights to a domain name from a third party is a fool. I will only get a domain name by registering it directly from a registrar, or legally getting rights to it through the court systm.
2) I don't agree. "A" can have as many domains as he wants....
I think I get what was meant here. If I go out and register 200 domain names and don't use them, or do use them, but one should really be owned by someone else, then if I don't have a legitemate right for it, I must either give it up, or lose all my domains. Okay, something like that
The only problem I see with revoking domain names is the fact that people percieve having PAID for it. Even though they have just paid a fee for 'registration services' and not actually bought the domain..... this could get ugly. If my domain was taken away, I would certainly feel that NSI had performed their duties as registrar fraudulently by letting me register in the first place.
I agree. I think too many people believe that they are *buying* the domain and somehow have *ownership* of it. Nonsense. They own the domain no more then they would "own" their post office box. So if you paid a year for the domain and had it for a year, your squared away. If you had it for only 3 months, and then found out it "belonged" to someone else, then I'd hope you'd get a prorated refund.
I think that domain names need to be controlled though. TLD's need to be restricted as to who can get a domain in that TLD. As was mentioned before, net should be restricted to networks, org to organizations and com to business. domains should be automatically allocated to whoever best "owns" them. buick.com for instance should belong to only one company legally. They pay their $35 a year and that's it.
What's harder is to determine is personal and "promotional" type domains. Who gets christmas.org? Which Smith gets smith.org? Who gets NewYearsRocks.org? what does the rfc say? Where do these domains belong anyways? Hopefully a few more TLD's will provide more ability to classify domain names better..shop can only be one thing..home is simple to guess what we'd find there. And most importantly, we need a restricted.adult domain.
I'm not sure what to think about "reselling" domains either. I feel cybersquatting is wrong, obviously for buick.com of course, but I don't think it's legitimate for yesyesyes.org either. I can see why domain names have "value" But I think domains names, after one is finished with them should be given up to let the next "renter" use, much like you'd give up a Post Office box when you were done with it. I don't advertise my PO Box 1234 when I'm done with it, and I think that's the way domain names should be handled too.
Of course, again we're back to the problem of people complaining when the domain names are taken from them because when they registered the name that assumed that it "belonged" to them. Now it's being taken away and they're losing their "investment" which they wanted to sell for big bucks.
Well, I just can't wait tfor the use of domain names to be deprecated. That'll hopefully take care of all the problems.
Hmmm... a whole thread about someone's magic ass. The "news for nerds" reading is off the scale, but I can't hardly detect any "stuff that matters".
Well, I'm sure glad we all know what your feelings are:-) In case you hadn't been paying attention this is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" not "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters to Moooo Cow". Of course this doesn't interest you. There a lot of stuff that doesn't matter to me either. But since it doesn't matter, I just ignore it. Perhaps you could try the same solution.
I agree. There's very little benefit to this compiler for most of us, I think, unless the optimizations it has are rolled into EGCS. Could a distribution be compiled with it? (Scary thought) The compiler isn't going to help anybody develop any Free software, and it's not going to help me, so why should I cheer?
Then don't. There, does that make you feel better?
I guess the important thing is to realize that all software doesn't need to always benefit everyone in the whole world. Compaq port this to benefit a certain clientele. That group of people, will, no doubt be benefited, and feel genuinely benefited. Everyone else will not be benefited, by something that wasn't intended to benefit them.
Use gcc. And Smile! Because gcc benefits you. But it doesn't benefit everyone.
They never said it was Open Source. I don't mind honest non-Open-Source nearly as much as I mind says-it's-open-source-but-isn't-really.
Excellent point to remember! By releasing a Linux compiler for the Alpha platform they are "pushing" Linux. That's what's important. Linux is promoted by software, not Open Source.
Open source is important. But not to get people using Linux as a viable platform, at least not always. Open source has it's place. But Compaq has chosen to make a proprietory compiler. This is good for Compaq and good for Linux. Open Source will find it's place other other software.
There are 2 things I like. One is Open Source. The other is software for "alternative" platforms. They both benefit us, and both should be accepted
I was under the impression that Compaq owned an entire Unix version. Is this not the case? For some reason I though Compaq made Alphas. If not where do Alpha's come from?
True enough. Don't forget that Compaq really has 3 markets. The x86 desktop market, the x86 server market, and the Alpha Server/Workstation Market.
In the case of Alpha, which this story reports on, Compaq owns Tru64 Unix, which runs on Alpha. It is their commercial Unix aimed at the high-end. At the low end they are starting to seriously support Linux. Primarily in this case by releasing their compiler for Alpha Linux.
Anyways, Compaq has started doing some serious support of Linux, other noteworthy stories include localizing Linux for Asian markets. Also, they've started slowing killing off NT on Alpha.
Wasn't Gimp once started as a kind of Photoshop replacement? And now, two film-oriented companies hire two developers, and, all of a sudden, the whole project is geared towards "features for film work" that "Photoshop really isn't suitable for"? Is it that simple to take over a major open source project?
I wouldn't call that "taking over" a project by a long shot. I know others have commented on this already, but I thought I'd add a bit more. This is, IMHO, the very reason why Open Source is desired. If a graphical company wants a feature that doesn't exist in a commercial product, what are they to do? The best they could hope for was to pay the company enough the be willing to add the feature for them. Or, they can write a similar product that does what they want. However, with open source, they can add the feature they want as a lot less cost then the alternatives. Other companies who want different features can add those. All companies have the freedom to add what they need that others haven't needed yet, and everyone benefits.
This is why more and more companies will be supporting open-source projects to meet their software needs. The fact that in this case 2 studios hired to 2 lead developers is of little consequence. Good for them, I say. It's not going to stop any features from being developed that someone needs. If another company has need for a different feature, they'll hire someone too, and develop that feature.
Now I know that Linux Torvalds decided not to work for a Linux company. I praise him for that, and I think it was the best decision. But I don't think it's the decision that *everyone* has to make. Each person has to decide themselves what the best decision is.
So what are public keys? I've never heard that term before on Slashdot.
Public keys are part of PGP and GPG encryption. In fact, GPG encryption was covered in this story just yesterday.
The public key is what you give to others so that they can encrypt something that only you can read. It also allows others to verify stuff that you've signed.
There is also a private key, which, as you might have guessed remains private. This allows you to decrypt and sign stuff. It is also passphrase protected.
Now that/. has a spot to put your public key, I may just have to get GPG and start using encruption again.
The point I'm trying to make here is that as technology continues it's drive into the mainstream, users will become more savvy and will demand more from their computing environments.
I disagree. Of course PC's aren't going away completely. Sun Rays *don't* do everything a real PC does. It wasn't designed too.
There'll be many people who need a real PC. Engineer's, Artists, others. But there'll be plenty of positions where a thin client suits the need exactly.
Answer these questions. How will the users demand more from their computing environments. And how is the mainframe/terminal paradigm by and far unflexible from a user's perspective? The following examples I think are excellent uses for the Sun Ray. People in these positions will find a simple device less intimidating and easier to work with then a "real" PC.
A secretary who just reads email and does word processing
An executive who just uses a PC to read e-mail and Pointcast Data entry people who use one application to inpput data
That was just a few out of the many users who will find a thin client be the most flexible, and empowering. There are many more area where the Sun Ray will provide the best answer.
Why do you assume that people will be compiling Mozilla? The great majority will download the precompiled binaries. And that's where the problem arises. Say, I download the binaries from Debian. I'll probably download the kitchen-sink version because I like to check out new stuff -- maybe Mozilla's IRC rocks, maybe it sucks rocks. Let's say I played around with it and decided that news support sucks, but IRC rocks. So what now?
I didn't assume that peope will be compiling Mozilla. I was replying to a post in which the question was how to compile without unwanted features.
I can't say off-hand though what AOL/Netscape will be doing to release a completely customisable client. I agree though, it would be nice to have some sort of application "builder" where I can check what I want and just load/download those modules.
2 other observations though, while I'm at it. One, these are 3rd party projects. That's the power of Open Source. If I want to add something I'm donig to Mozilla, then I can because I have the source. I can benefit from what Mozilla provides. If you don't need that feature, then you don't use it. I can't do that with IE and neither can you
The second is that Mozilla is primarily for those that have no idea how to use "geeky" things. They are computer experts, and don't want to be. All they want to be able to do is to use one application that does everything they need to do. They don't want to have to find some IRC client if they want to use IRC. So Mozilla *will* provide that. Now hopefully Mozilla will be flexible, but even if not, I would guess that it'd be easier for a geek to remove what he doesn't want then for a computer-illiterate to add what he doesn't have.
Which would be less than than $600, although you have to pay it up front. But give me a break, you really want to be using this thing after 5 years?
Remember, it not $600 for a computer to replace the one you use now. Not only do you need the client hardware, you also need to server on the backend. So the client hardware really doesn't do anything but to display the desktop. In 5 years it'll do nothing but display the desktop. So it'll work just fine. The *only* reason I could see to "upgrade" it would be to have a bigger monitor. But even that's not needed. I think that 5 years is how long the hardware will last before giving out though. Okay, it'll probably last a little longer, but you'll still be replacing it with just the same device.
All the upgrades will happen on the server. So over 5 years time instead of replacing hardware, and software at each desk, you will only need to upgrade the server, both hardware and software, as needed. But the client device will continue to do the same thing, year after year after year.
The fact that this is just about as cheap as a real PC is just a side benefit. Really, the cost of the PC is only a fraction of the Total Cost of Ownership. You have to add in the costs of support, of keeping PC's up to date, of lost productivity time due to crashes and reboots. The Sun Ray eliminates most of these costs resulting in a TCO of Server$/users + $600 per user, instead TCO per user = Server$/users + $800 + total support cost/user + total upgrade and replacement cost/user.
I wish I had a study handy to link too on the TCO of PC's. Studies have been done, and TCO is high. The Sun Ray will reduce costs dramatically.
I wonder whether performance will be good enough for graphics applications (quake?). Probably not unless they manage to squeeze 30+ fps through a 100 Mbit connection.
I doubt many corporations will be buying these devices to play Quake. Or to do any real 3d graphical rendering. In fact, I'm pretty certain that Sun isn't targetting the graphical market with these devices. I also doubt if corporations are going to look at a solution for their accounting department and say, "No, these devices are no good, I heard you can't play Quake on them."
No, the world is changing. Again. I'm not going to buy a box that can to 3d rendering to use as a development box. You wouldn't buy the same computer as I to surf the web. Now a corporation can buy a bunch of thin-pc's to outfit it's employees with. Sure, not all employees will be able to use thin PC's, but that doesn't prevent those that can from doing so.
I can think of a dozen uses for these things. But I won't bore you with details, because I'm sure you can think of uses too. I'll just mention one. A call center. A call center often has multiple shifts with people in different shifts sharing the same PC. Most of their time is spent in one application. Imagine who convinient it would be instead of logging out, and logging in, to just sit down and pop in your smart card, and have your session just come up as you left it before.
You mean I'll actually have to go into source and #undef stuff, then recompile? That's not good at all. My definiton of 'optional' does not include this way of disabling features.
(sigh) To compile in the IRC module, you'll use --enable-extension=irc. Make is your friend. Or, the instructions describe how to just compile the IRC module. At any rate, it will have nothing to do with #defines.
The application is slow to respond on my 550MHz machine with 256 Megs of RAM. Even a bloated program will respond fast on that sort of machine, so they must be doing something wrong.
Mozilla is doing nothing wrong. Keep in mind that commercial products you only see the final, optimised, cleaned up, perfected app. If you get to see a "beta", it has been "polished". The mozilla code is the development code. It's full of debugging information. It's not been optimised. It's "in progress".
So yes, as anyone who develops code knows, code doesn't just "happen". I don't start a project that is automatically feature-full, and production ready. It's a long process to get there.
That seems to be the drawback of a highly-visible open source project. People who don't understand software development download the latest milestone, find out it's not finished, and then proclaim that the project is a "failure".
It's not. Even Internet Explorer had a time when the browser was at the point Mozilla is now. Don't forget that. Even though you you can only see the "beta" or final product, don't think that it started out that way. It was a long project, just like Mozilla is.
The project is progressing, and as all projects do, soon reach that finish line. At that point it'll be time to see if it's "fast" enough. For now, it's not. For those wanting to help, find out what's being worked on right now, and what bugs are being looked for. Find bugs and missing features that already in the road map. It does no good to complain that feature "xyz" is not there, when the roadmap already shows that feature "xzy" is planned to be implemented in Milestone 12.
You may have misunderstood poor Microsoft. They may have actually said "Get your MCSE. There's lots of money to be made." Which was true.
Eh, maybe you're right. I feel sorry for all my "friends" who I haven't been able to convince *not* to get their MCSE, and instead spend their time and money learning what counts. They will soon find out about all the "money" to be made.
Sure $1 billion dollars is a lot of money. But spread out among 50,000 people it isn't a lot anymore
And he says Linux is notoriously complex and hard to use, making it a poor choice for any but the most sophisticated users.
(emphasis mine) permit me a cruel chuckle.
Hehe, Permit me to join you.
Sometimes, Microsoft marvels me with the words they use. Only a choice for the most sophisticated users, eh? So all those Windows Admins are clueless? That figures.
But that's what Microsoft long says. They've before claimed that one of the reasons you should use Windows is because it costs a lot more to hire a Unix admin then it does a Windows Admin. Now they claim that Window Admins aren't "sophisticated" and can't "handle" Unix.
I used to be a gung-ho Windows Advocate. Yeah Baby!! Windows was going to take over the world!! But Microsoft didn't do a very good job in serving me. They were just concerned about their own profits. I was just a pawn in their hands. Patted on the head when it helped "them", and stomped to the side when they no longer "needed" me.
They told me that by getting my MCSE I'd makes "lots" of money. But then I found out that by getting my MCSE I'd be getting paid less then if I'd learn another OS. I was going to be the smartest Windows Admin. But now they say that Windows is focused to the less "sophisticated" Admins, and I find that there isn't a lot of opportunity to learn the internals of Windows.
No, sorry Microsoft. If you want *real* admins, then you need to think of those admins. You need an OS that requires more to be certified then just knowing how to install, configure those few options, and reboot. You need to see that they are paid in the same range as other admins. And you need to attract the most "sophiscated" admins.
I wish I could feel your pain, Microsoft. But for some reason it eludes me.
This article was strangely biased. The whole article was an "interview" about a competing product with a Microsoft product manager. Oh, that's a great way to get an opinion about a subject.
So the Boston Globe expects us to rely on Microsoft to determine how well we are doing? That's like asking the Democratic candidate for President if the Republican candidate could win the election.
They most likely are, since it has been years since I've even touched an x86 box that wasn't running an intel CPU (with the exception of this silly old cyrix BSD box I'm playing with currently).
I use AMD chips for everything. I would never use an Intel chip in any box, even production boxes. The AMD chip gives my the best preformance for price, and the Intel chips don't get close to that same ratio.
The only time I recommend an Intel chip is if someone wants to overclock, and then it's a Celeron. But perhaps in time AMD will have good overclockable chips too, and be "supportive" of the practice.
Anyways, I used a few Cyrix chips, but AMD is the best. Try it a few times, each time you will be more and more convinced.
You missed the point. The problem is crooks who buy those $2 Cheapbytes disks, and then resell them for $20 on auction sites as "Red Hat Linux" disks. People think it's the official distro, with support and everything else. And they get scammed.
Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out the auction in question, or this one. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.
However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?
When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?
Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.
To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL, Cheapbytes, and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.
One of the downsides of Windows opensourcing is that there really isn't the equivalent of a freshmeat out there for OS products.
Although this isn't exactly "Freshmeat" there is a respository for Open Source Windows software. Okay, It's quite small now, but hopefully it'll get better. http://commit.winehq.com/~lynch/OSSW.html
Since this appears to be a stupid CGI bug/human error keep in mind that chances are a UNIX admin wrote the CGI script since hotmail does UNIX.
I would disagree. My guess is that they gave the job to write the program to some MCSE certified drone. However, of course the guy quickly found that the MCSE doesn't cover CGI, and the guy had no clue. Incompetence reigns within the MCSE "community." Perhaps next time Microsoft will hire a real CGI programmer. Of course, as they point out in their whitepapers, they'd have to pay a Unix CGI programmer more.
Do you realize if they tried this with the volume of calls in any LARGE region it would never fly. Most of the 911 interchanges in CA run on TANDEM(COMPAQ) S70's or Himalaya hardware...the same high end stuff that ATM's and the federal reserve lines run on....Although I've seen some critical stuff on VAX 7xxx machines also with Tertiery disk shadowing and multi cabinet redundent machines...
Something tells me that they aren't running NT then either. Hmm, I wonder what? Anyways, this article was telling about the benefits of replacing NT with Linux. It wasn't a "Linux is the top of the world and will replace everything else" article. There will also be a market for a number of different solutions, this will never change. Microsoft has long boasted about the "quality" of it's OS. This story effectively refutes that, and in a big way. This article isn't saying Linux is better then anything, but that there is a solution that is better then NT.
Of course, Microsoft's rebuttal will be that the System Admins of the 911 system were grossly incompetent, but then again, even the Microsoft engineers were unable to keep windows2000test.com running. So that's hardly a consoling thought.
Slashdot Mirror
They do need a product. They just need to find a good one to base their future one, and stick too it. That's the only thing they need to do now.
-Brent--
Exactly. That's the first thing I noticed too. GM gets their parts from a number of different manufacturers, they should realize they strength of being able to swap parts without being dependent on a single manufacturer. Whether it's spark plugs, or it's an OS. Look at the problems they are going to have now because they used VB.
And although the Linux platform is arguably fragmented, that only affects desktop applications where a company sells a product that could go on dozens of different configurations. Used in a server environment, fragmantation is not a problem. What they need to do is to evaluate a few distributions and determine which one meets their needs best. Say for instance they decide it's Red Hat. Now all they do is make sure that their app continues to run on Red Hat. It doesn't matter if all the other distributions decide to do something completely different because that won't affect how it runs on Red Hat. All they need to be concerned about is what Red Hat does with their distribution. And even if Red Hat changes it a bit so that GM has to make some modifications to keep their app running, I'm sure it won't nearly be the upgrade path that Microsoft has forced on us with DOS -> Windows 3.x -> Windows 95 -> Windows NT -> Windows 2000 -> 64 bit Windows.
Another thing that I hate is the claim that the Server OS platform was fragmented. It was less fragmented the Windows is, IMHO. If I wanted to develop an app for Solaris, it ran fine on Solaris, no matter what AIX was like. However, is my customers wanted to run the app on another platform, which do you think was easier to port my app too? NT or AIX? Which do you think I would consider doing first?
I wrote an essay on the fragmentation in OS's. It might fit well in here.
-Brent--
I guess mostly I hope that such an alternative will eventually show up. I don't know any good alternatives, and the moment, probably because I haven't looked. Although some kind of "directory service" would seem to be a good idea. Instead of using DNS, there should be a new protocol that returns a list of close web sites. For instance, I should be able to type in "clue" in my web browser and have a list returned that included
- Blue's Clues
Voila!! Problem solved. You'd just click on the site you want, and it'd pop up. I sorta am able to do this now with whois lookup's, but very ineffectively. It could almost be a search engine, but instead of being based on web pages, it'd just be based on the name registered. -BrentClue Computing
Clue's Card and Etc
Clue's for You
Hasbro - Clue Game.
--
Nonsense. Utter and dismal nonsense.
Domains aren't "owned". They are registered and "leased". I think that the idea of "owning" a domain was the biggest mistake ever made. You register a domain and use it. When you are done with it, if you don't use it "forever", then it's unregistered and the next person to register for it starts paying for it. That's how the Domain naming system should work.
You shouldn't be assuming any risk, because the domain names aren't intended to be a salable goods. It's no better then scalping tickets. If you think that you own domain names, what else do you own? Phone numbers? Do you buy chuncks of phone numbers so that you can sell them to the highest bidder? 1-888-cooldude; 1-800-your4us; 1-615-iamnice? How about post-office boxes. PO Box 666 might be valuable. Do you stand in line and offer to step up of line to the highest bidder so they can get closer to the front of the line? What in the world makes domain names any different.
I think that whoever would "buy" the rights to a domain name from a third party is a fool. I will only get a domain name by registering it directly from a registrar, or legally getting rights to it through the court systm.
-Brent--
I think I get what was meant here. If I go out and register 200 domain names and don't use them, or do use them, but one should really be owned by someone else, then if I don't have a legitemate right for it, I must either give it up, or lose all my domains. Okay, something like that
The only problem I see with revoking domain names is the fact that people percieve having PAID for it. Even though they have just paid a fee for 'registration services' and not actually bought the domain..... this could get ugly. If my domain was taken away, I would certainly feel that NSI had performed their duties as registrar fraudulently by letting me register in the first place.I agree. I think too many people believe that they are *buying* the domain and somehow have *ownership* of it. Nonsense. They own the domain no more then they would "own" their post office box. So if you paid a year for the domain and had it for a year, your squared away. If you had it for only 3 months, and then found out it "belonged" to someone else, then I'd hope you'd get a prorated refund.
I think that domain names need to be controlled though. TLD's need to be restricted as to who can get a domain in that TLD. As was mentioned before, net should be restricted to networks, org to organizations and com to business. domains should be automatically allocated to whoever best "owns" them. buick.com for instance should belong to only one company legally. They pay their $35 a year and that's it.
What's harder is to determine is personal and "promotional" type domains. Who gets christmas.org? Which Smith gets smith.org? Who gets NewYearsRocks.org? what does the rfc say? Where do these domains belong anyways? Hopefully a few more TLD's will provide more ability to classify domain names better. .shop can only be one thing. .home is simple to guess what we'd find there. And most importantly, we need a restricted .adult domain.
I'm not sure what to think about "reselling" domains either. I feel cybersquatting is wrong, obviously for buick.com of course, but I don't think it's legitimate for yesyesyes.org either. I can see why domain names have "value" But I think domains names, after one is finished with them should be given up to let the next "renter" use, much like you'd give up a Post Office box when you were done with it. I don't advertise my PO Box 1234 when I'm done with it, and I think that's the way domain names should be handled too.
Of course, again we're back to the problem of people complaining when the domain names are taken from them because when they registered the name that assumed that it "belonged" to them. Now it's being taken away and they're losing their "investment" which they wanted to sell for big bucks.
Well, I just can't wait tfor the use of domain names to be deprecated. That'll hopefully take care of all the problems.
-Brent--
Well, I'm sure glad we all know what your feelings are :-) In case you hadn't been paying attention this is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" not "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters to Moooo Cow". Of course this doesn't interest you. There a lot of stuff that doesn't matter to me either. But since it doesn't matter, I just ignore it. Perhaps you could try the same solution.
-Brent--
Then don't. There, does that make you feel better?
I guess the important thing is to realize that all software doesn't need to always benefit everyone in the whole world. Compaq port this to benefit a certain clientele. That group of people, will, no doubt be benefited, and feel genuinely benefited. Everyone else will not be benefited, by something that wasn't intended to benefit them.
Use gcc. And Smile! Because gcc benefits you. But it doesn't benefit everyone.
-Brent--
I don't mind honest non-Open-Source nearly as much as I mind says-it's-open-source-but-isn't-really.
Excellent point to remember! By releasing a Linux compiler for the Alpha platform they are "pushing" Linux. That's what's important. Linux is promoted by software, not Open Source.
Open source is important. But not to get people using Linux as a viable platform, at least not always. Open source has it's place. But Compaq has chosen to make a proprietory compiler. This is good for Compaq and good for Linux. Open Source will find it's place other other software.
There are 2 things I like. One is Open Source. The other is software for "alternative" platforms. They both benefit us, and both should be accepted
-Brent--
True enough. Don't forget that Compaq really has 3 markets. The x86 desktop market, the x86 server market, and the Alpha Server/Workstation Market.
In the case of Alpha, which this story reports on, Compaq owns Tru64 Unix, which runs on Alpha. It is their commercial Unix aimed at the high-end. At the low end they are starting to seriously support Linux. Primarily in this case by releasing their compiler for Alpha Linux.
Anyways, Compaq has started doing some serious support of Linux, other noteworthy stories include localizing Linux for Asian markets. Also, they've started slowing killing off NT on Alpha.
=Brent--
I wouldn't call that "taking over" a project by a long shot. I know others have commented on this already, but I thought I'd add a bit more. This is, IMHO, the very reason why Open Source is desired. If a graphical company wants a feature that doesn't exist in a commercial product, what are they to do? The best they could hope for was to pay the company enough the be willing to add the feature for them. Or, they can write a similar product that does what they want. However, with open source, they can add the feature they want as a lot less cost then the alternatives. Other companies who want different features can add those. All companies have the freedom to add what they need that others haven't needed yet, and everyone benefits.
This is why more and more companies will be supporting open-source projects to meet their software needs. The fact that in this case 2 studios hired to 2 lead developers is of little consequence. Good for them, I say. It's not going to stop any features from being developed that someone needs. If another company has need for a different feature, they'll hire someone too, and develop that feature.
Now I know that Linux Torvalds decided not to work for a Linux company. I praise him for that, and I think it was the best decision. But I don't think it's the decision that *everyone* has to make. Each person has to decide themselves what the best decision is.
-Brent--
Public keys are part of PGP and GPG encryption. In fact, GPG encryption was covered in this story just yesterday.
The public key is what you give to others so that they can encrypt something that only you can read. It also allows others to verify stuff that you've signed.
There is also a private key, which, as you might have guessed remains private. This allows you to decrypt and sign stuff. It is also passphrase protected.
Now that /. has a spot to put your public key, I may just have to get GPG and start using encruption again.
-Brent--
I disagree. Of course PC's aren't going away completely. Sun Rays *don't* do everything a real PC does. It wasn't designed too.
There'll be many people who need a real PC. Engineer's, Artists, others. But there'll be plenty of positions where a thin client suits the need exactly.
Answer these questions. How will the users demand more from their computing environments. And how is the mainframe/terminal paradigm by and far unflexible from a user's perspective? The following examples I think are excellent uses for the Sun Ray. People in these positions will find a simple device less intimidating and easier to work with then a "real" PC.
An executive who just uses a PC to read e-mail and Pointcast
Data entry people who use one application to inpput data
That was just a few out of the many users who will find a thin client be the most flexible, and empowering. There are many more area where the Sun Ray will provide the best answer.
-Brent--
I didn't assume that peope will be compiling Mozilla. I was replying to a post in which the question was how to compile without unwanted features.
I can't say off-hand though what AOL/Netscape will be doing to release a completely customisable client. I agree though, it would be nice to have some sort of application "builder" where I can check what I want and just load/download those modules.
2 other observations though, while I'm at it. One, these are 3rd party projects. That's the power of Open Source. If I want to add something I'm donig to Mozilla, then I can because I have the source. I can benefit from what Mozilla provides. If you don't need that feature, then you don't use it. I can't do that with IE and neither can you
The second is that Mozilla is primarily for those that have no idea how to use "geeky" things. They are computer experts, and don't want to be. All they want to be able to do is to use one application that does everything they need to do. They don't want to have to find some IRC client if they want to use IRC. So Mozilla *will* provide that. Now hopefully Mozilla will be flexible, but even if not, I would guess that it'd be easier for a geek to remove what he doesn't want then for a computer-illiterate to add what he doesn't have.
-Brent--
Remember, it not $600 for a computer to replace the one you use now. Not only do you need the client hardware, you also need to server on the backend. So the client hardware really doesn't do anything but to display the desktop. In 5 years it'll do nothing but display the desktop. So it'll work just fine. The *only* reason I could see to "upgrade" it would be to have a bigger monitor. But even that's not needed. I think that 5 years is how long the hardware will last before giving out though. Okay, it'll probably last a little longer, but you'll still be replacing it with just the same device.
All the upgrades will happen on the server. So over 5 years time instead of replacing hardware, and software at each desk, you will only need to upgrade the server, both hardware and software, as needed. But the client device will continue to do the same thing, year after year after year.
The fact that this is just about as cheap as a real PC is just a side benefit. Really, the cost of the PC is only a fraction of the Total Cost of Ownership. You have to add in the costs of support, of keeping PC's up to date, of lost productivity time due to crashes and reboots. The Sun Ray eliminates most of these costs resulting in a TCO of Server$/users + $600 per user, instead TCO per user = Server$/users + $800 + total support cost/user + total upgrade and replacement cost/user.
I wish I had a study handy to link too on the TCO of PC's. Studies have been done, and TCO is high. The Sun Ray will reduce costs dramatically.
-Brent--
I doubt many corporations will be buying these devices to play Quake. Or to do any real 3d graphical rendering. In fact, I'm pretty certain that Sun isn't targetting the graphical market with these devices. I also doubt if corporations are going to look at a solution for their accounting department and say, "No, these devices are no good, I heard you can't play Quake on them."
No, the world is changing. Again. I'm not going to buy a box that can to 3d rendering to use as a development box. You wouldn't buy the same computer as I to surf the web. Now a corporation can buy a bunch of thin-pc's to outfit it's employees with. Sure, not all employees will be able to use thin PC's, but that doesn't prevent those that can from doing so.
I can think of a dozen uses for these things. But I won't bore you with details, because I'm sure you can think of uses too. I'll just mention one. A call center. A call center often has multiple shifts with people in different shifts sharing the same PC. Most of their time is spent in one application. Imagine who convinient it would be instead of logging out, and logging in, to just sit down and pop in your smart card, and have your session just come up as you left it before.
-Brent--
(sigh) To compile in the IRC module, you'll use --enable-extension=irc. Make is your friend. Or, the instructions describe how to just compile the IRC module. At any rate, it will have nothing to do with #defines.
-Brent--
Mozilla is doing nothing wrong. Keep in mind that commercial products you only see the final, optimised, cleaned up, perfected app. If you get to see a "beta", it has been "polished". The mozilla code is the development code. It's full of debugging information. It's not been optimised. It's "in progress".
So yes, as anyone who develops code knows, code doesn't just "happen". I don't start a project that is automatically feature-full, and production ready. It's a long process to get there.
That seems to be the drawback of a highly-visible open source project. People who don't understand software development download the latest milestone, find out it's not finished, and then proclaim that the project is a "failure".
It's not. Even Internet Explorer had a time when the browser was at the point Mozilla is now. Don't forget that. Even though you you can only see the "beta" or final product, don't think that it started out that way. It was a long project, just like Mozilla is.
The project is progressing, and as all projects do, soon reach that finish line. At that point it'll be time to see if it's "fast" enough. For now, it's not. For those wanting to help, find out what's being worked on right now, and what bugs are being looked for. Find bugs and missing features that already in the road map. It does no good to complain that feature "xyz" is not there, when the roadmap already shows that feature "xzy" is planned to be implemented in Milestone 12.
-Brent--
Eh, maybe you're right. I feel sorry for all my "friends" who I haven't been able to convince *not* to get their MCSE, and instead spend their time and money learning what counts. They will soon find out about all the "money" to be made.
Sure $1 billion dollars is a lot of money. But spread out among 50,000 people it isn't a lot anymore
-Brent--
- And he says Linux is notoriously complex and hard to use, making it a poor choice for any but the most sophisticated users.
(emphasis mine)permit me a cruel chuckle.
Hehe, Permit me to join you.
Sometimes, Microsoft marvels me with the words they use. Only a choice for the most sophisticated users, eh? So all those Windows Admins are clueless? That figures.
But that's what Microsoft long says. They've before claimed that one of the reasons you should use Windows is because it costs a lot more to hire a Unix admin then it does a Windows Admin. Now they claim that Window Admins aren't "sophisticated" and can't "handle" Unix.
I used to be a gung-ho Windows Advocate. Yeah Baby!! Windows was going to take over the world!! But Microsoft didn't do a very good job in serving me. They were just concerned about their own profits. I was just a pawn in their hands. Patted on the head when it helped "them", and stomped to the side when they no longer "needed" me.
They told me that by getting my MCSE I'd makes "lots" of money. But then I found out that by getting my MCSE I'd be getting paid less then if I'd learn another OS. I was going to be the smartest Windows Admin. But now they say that Windows is focused to the less "sophisticated" Admins, and I find that there isn't a lot of opportunity to learn the internals of Windows.
No, sorry Microsoft. If you want *real* admins, then you need to think of those admins. You need an OS that requires more to be certified then just knowing how to install, configure those few options, and reboot. You need to see that they are paid in the same range as other admins. And you need to attract the most "sophiscated" admins.
I wish I could feel your pain, Microsoft. But for some reason it eludes me.
-Brent--
This article was strangely biased. The whole article was an "interview" about a competing product with a Microsoft product manager. Oh, that's a great way to get an opinion about a subject.
So the Boston Globe expects us to rely on Microsoft to determine how well we are doing? That's like asking the Democratic candidate for President if the Republican candidate could win the election.
Some people die kicking...
-Brent--
I use AMD chips for everything. I would never use an Intel chip in any box, even production boxes. The AMD chip gives my the best preformance for price, and the Intel chips don't get close to that same ratio.
The only time I recommend an Intel chip is if someone wants to overclock, and then it's a Celeron. But perhaps in time AMD will have good overclockable chips too, and be "supportive" of the practice.
Anyways, I used a few Cyrix chips, but AMD is the best. Try it a few times, each time you will be more and more convinced.
-Brent--
Actually, it's sold for closer to $4. Check out the auction in question, or this one. Now, I get my copies of RedHat from LSL so I have no problems with reselling Red Hat. If I need a copy of Red Hat, I know where to get it, and it's pretty clear what I'm getting.
However, is it clear to the bidder's on these actions as to what they are getting? The title of one says "$129" value. Is what I get from LSL a $129 value? No. How about the Boxed set from Best Buy? Yes. The title of the other says "Not Copys". What does that infer?
When you open the auction, what do you see? Ah, a picture of the boxed set. But then when you read the fine print you see "I do not sell the 'Official Boxed Set' in this ad." and "Artwork to represent familiar content." Isn't this bait and switch?
Suppose Red Hat sold their product like that? Would that be legal? Notwithstanding the use of Red Hat's trademark, how about just some ethical business practices.
To sum it up, I can imagine that a lot of people who bid on these are not Linux "experts". They've probably seen Red Hat at their local Best Buy and are interested in seeing what it's all about. Now they find that they can get it for an 1/8 of the price on eBay. For one, it's marketed as being "just like the boxed set at Best Buy". Except for the phony "disclaimer" which basically is no different then a a car salesman selling you a car with a V8 and then after you've purchased it and found out it only has a 4cyl saying "Oh, you didn't read the fine print, that only comes in a "special order" model. And second, I can't imagine a newbie understanding that there are 2 different ways to get "Red Hat". That auction certainly doesn't make an effort to distinguish to unknowledgedge users the difference. The difference between LSL, Cheapbytes, and the others, and these auctions, are, as Bob said, the companies see to it that there is a distinguishable difference.
-BrentAlthough this isn't exactly "Freshmeat" there is a respository for Open Source Windows software. Okay, It's quite small now, but hopefully it'll get better. http://commit.winehq.com/~lynch/OSSW.html
-BrentI would disagree. My guess is that they gave the job to write the program to some MCSE certified drone. However, of course the guy quickly found that the MCSE doesn't cover CGI, and the guy had no clue. Incompetence reigns within the MCSE "community." Perhaps next time Microsoft will hire a real CGI programmer. Of course, as they point out in their whitepapers, they'd have to pay a Unix CGI programmer more.
-BrentSomething tells me that they aren't running NT then either. Hmm, I wonder what? Anyways, this article was telling about the benefits of replacing NT with Linux. It wasn't a "Linux is the top of the world and will replace everything else" article. There will also be a market for a number of different solutions, this will never change. Microsoft has long boasted about the "quality" of it's OS. This story effectively refutes that, and in a big way. This article isn't saying Linux is better then anything, but that there is a solution that is better then NT.
Of course, Microsoft's rebuttal will be that the System Admins of the 911 system were grossly incompetent, but then again, even the Microsoft engineers were unable to keep windows2000test.com running. So that's hardly a consoling thought.
-Brent