Young males eat that shit up. Give them a chance to post comments to hopefully accumulate good reviews and karma Wow, excellent and interesting post. +1 karma for you.
Audio captchas are relatively weak at the moment. I wrote a small script which 'breaks' (recognizes 75%/33% on microsoft's/google's voice captchas). See http://vorm.net/captchas.
I suspect that all captchas that are harder to break will also be much more difficult to solve for humans. At least for the field I now relatively well, audio.
For visual captchas I guess the same applies, the better yahoo and microsoft's visual captchas are sometimes unsolvable by (non-alien;-)) humans.
Drepper tells the people working on the LSB test suite are not doing a great job. He doesn't say it is important to have some sort of compatibility between linuxes (he suggests however that Open Posix can be better than LSB).
Vaughan-Nichols underlines the importance of (binary) compatibility between linuxes and thinks this is important for business.
So in fact they are approaching the LSB on a totally different level, and not necesarily disagreeing.
One thing has to be worked out in the future: do we need binary comp. or is recompiling for different platforms ok?
Open source people tend to think that source level comp. is enough, business people think that (for some strange reason??, which _I think is misunderstanding) that binary comp. is a must.
Parent comment applies only to windows machines, where every program needs his/her own update program (?, what for design is that?).
Most linuxes/bsd's etc. come with centralised automatic updates for all programs, which are inheritely easier. I expect to see a flashing warning next morning, telling me a security update had been downloaded for firefox and if I want to install the patch.
I regard automatic program updates on application level as clutter on my machine, so please do not advocate these methods!
Ahum, do you actually think that firefox users double click links _all_ the time? Perhaps when they fill in a form or for some strange windows like website, but it will be much less than 1% of the clicks, thus not really influencing the statistics.
In fact both methods of installing are equally easy. But, as a nerd and programmer, I appreaciate the beaty and cleanless of the package installers, above the directory kludge I disliked so much in the DOS-age.
PLUS buy extra harddisks and ram because of all the duped statically linked libraries...
(or
double click on "mypackage" in synaptic
instead of
double click on destination folder, double click on from folder click, arrange them on the screen so you can see both, click on mypackage, drag it to destination folder with right mouse and copy form the menu, close destination folder, close both folders by moving the mouse to the close crosses..).
Buy a samsung. They even deliver with linux drivers, but you don't need them, drivers are included with your favorite distro, so it is plug and no need to pray..
Yeah, but you still need the shared libraries.. So that is one thing where 'rm a dir' would not work.
Secondly data is also shared a lot (for example icons). If I update my theme, I want to update automatically all my programs the same theme. Etc.
I really fail to see the advantage of the 'bundled' approach. It is just creates a dependency hell of symlinks..
I do see why the semi-bundled appraoch on windows is a mess, but please do not take this to linux.
My idea: a package manager. Double clicking on myprogram.deb/rpm installs it, Double clicking a list of installed applications (for example in synaptic) de-installs it and takes track of the dependencies. What could be easier?
This is not 100% "the debian-installer". The debian installer installs a base system without X and is actually very nice!! (proper questions, defaults that make sense etc.).
However the config scripts for X (which you describe, and yes I do understand people do not understand the difference; this note is for the developers) suck bigtime. Some autodetection should be in place!! and the simple/medium/advanced suck.
This is really a disgrace for the 'installer', because it will be grocked in reviews etc.
Guess we debian users will still be 'the elite computer users' in the coming five years... Not everyone cares about this, it worked for the previous ten;-). The noob-questions are answered by gentoo and fedora users and once the noobs have developping powers, they come to debian automatically.... (Hey, I am just joking, but in fact it is not in every developers mind to just "let debian konqueror the world", they just want a proper system for theirselves).
That is not so easy... The traffic has to go to the right address (indicated by the ip-address). But http://freenet.sf.net is an attempt (in thus that it works, but that gives a whole new set of problems (searching etc.)).
The author examined the most popular use of bittorent (via suprnova). What the original goal of bittorrent was, is of less interest. It is used as a method for distributing copyrighted content illegally and the behaviour of this system is analyzed.
In my opinion this is the more interesting topic in a research paper.
Compare with a scientific study of jeans-material. You can say, hey, the jeans-material come from tents originally (Levis and stuff), but that doesn't mean you can't write a paper about jeans, as they are used today (as pants).
If Janie (i.e. ATI) is smoking the marijuana (opens the source to its drivers), it doesn't mean it's okay for Bobby (nVidia) to do the same; it just means Janie (ATI) is foolish. To reply to myself: I just thought of a better example to show this stuff DOES happen. Just look at the support list of the ALSA project (http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc). They have a history of strongly discouraging binary drivers and it pays of. Yes, some manufacturers are unwilling to open, but a lot fall for the argument, everybody gives us information, we have already creative drivers etc.). Just look at the mailing-lists.
I'm afraid you chose the wrong example here, because nVidia is dealing with licensing agreements forced upon them by law. They tried to use someone else's IP, and they got caught, and were forced to license that IP No, this example works. They cannot open the drivers they currently have, because there is IP from others in it. That is true. But if they have business incentive (more cards sold etc.) to open their drivers, they can rewrite the protected IP part with a different algorithm.
In the Nvidia case this is all not very realistic. They have invested too much in the way they work now, so it will never be usefull enough for them to open their drivers.
It is possible (I think this will happen, only not in near future) that a new competitor comes from open source world (or other) doing exactly this (provide open drivers). If the market is ready for this, that can become a hit and common business practice. But for this to happen, we have to encourage open drivers now. (Someone remembers the Voodoo cards, and their problem with their too closed and problematic Glide API and their resistance against DirectX? Where are they now?).
Yep, I agree with you. However about 'the evidence' you want. I just know business, they (actually we), just weigh in the advantages against the disadvantages (usually involves calculation of money).
There is nothing to suggest that by blocking binary-only development, more source will become available. This is a pipe-dream of the F/OSS utopia. No, it is just common sense. The push on, say Nvidia, to open their source is larger if binary drivers are not possible. Two things are important in this situation, marketshare and large customers. Large customers can perhaps (now under NDA) already get the source, lose of market share (if net loss of opening drivers is smaller than loss of profit by a smaller share in market they will just open of course).
However I tend to agree with you that when all binary drivers are forbidden and the manufacturers are offered a choice, leave the linux market or open their code, much much more will choose the first. That is because the business situation is like this at the moment. But some will not. (for example the NIC company specialized in linux clustering etc.).
If Janie (i.e. ATI) is smoking the marijuana (opens the source to its drivers), it doesn't mean it's okay for Bobby (nVidia) to do the same; it just means Janie (ATI) is foolish. Companies are sometimes behaving more emotional than factual. For example if some major top 500 companies buy Linux licenses from SCO, a lot will follow. Their bosses will say, 'hey if BMW buys a license we have to do that also, because they have good lawyers'. Without even checking theirselves. This happens a lot (too much).
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it tooks some years to notice, but I probably misspelled my nick. Anyone knows how to change it?
Young males eat that shit up. Give them a chance to post comments to hopefully accumulate good reviews and karma
Wow, excellent and interesting post. +1 karma for you.
Audio captchas are relatively weak at the moment. I wrote a small script which 'breaks' (recognizes 75%/33% on microsoft's/google's voice captchas). See http://vorm.net/captchas.
;-)) humans.
I suspect that all captchas that are harder to break will also be much more difficult to solve for humans. At least for the field I now relatively well, audio.
For visual captchas I guess the same applies, the better yahoo and microsoft's visual captchas are sometimes unsolvable by (non-alien
Any respectable /. user should have most of this suite installed already (excluding a few things)
;-).
dpkg-query -S norton
dpkg: *norton* not found.
Guess I am not respectable
Although GLUI is an option for solving the problem it is not an answer to the question.
Just link something like libhttpd. You can find enough information in the documentation to get you started. Just use httpdPrintd(server, "Mijn var is %s, foo) to show your variables and myvar = httpdGetVariableByName(server) to get posted (changed) values back.
Drepper tells the people working on the LSB test suite are not doing a great job. He doesn't say it is important to have some sort of compatibility between linuxes (he suggests however that Open Posix can be better than LSB).
Vaughan-Nichols underlines the importance of (binary) compatibility between linuxes and thinks this is important for business.
So in fact they are approaching the LSB on a totally different level, and not necesarily disagreeing.
One thing has to be worked out in the future: do we need binary comp. or is recompiling for different platforms ok?
Open source people tend to think that source level comp. is enough, business people think that (for some strange reason??, which _I think is misunderstanding) that binary comp. is a must.
Parent comment applies only to windows machines, where every program needs his/her own update program (?, what for design is that?).
Most linuxes/bsd's etc. come with centralised automatic updates for all programs, which are inheritely easier. I expect to see a flashing warning next morning, telling me a security update had been downloaded for firefox and if I want to install the patch.
I regard automatic program updates on application level as clutter on my machine, so please do not advocate these methods!
even an outlook user can....
Ahum, do you actually think that firefox users double click links _all_ the time? Perhaps when they fill in a form or for some strange windows like website, but it will be much less than 1% of the clicks, thus not really influencing the statistics.
Yes, you can. Downloading is no more legal than uploading. The RIAA are currently focusing their lawsuits on uploaders because it's more efficient.
In the Netherlands downloading music and movies is perfectly legal. In lot of other European countries too by the way.
(Downloading wrongly licensed software is not legal however).
Nice interview, my nick is suitable..
I was kidding of course ;-).
In fact both methods of installing are equally easy. But, as a nerd and programmer, I appreaciate the beaty and cleanless of the package installers, above the directory kludge I disliked so much in the DOS-age.
I'd rather type
/mnt; cp /mnt/mypackage /packages/mypackage"
"apt-get install mypackage"
then
"mount -t ftp server:/download/mypackage
PLUS buy extra harddisks and ram because of all the duped statically linked libraries...
(or
double click on "mypackage" in synaptic
instead of
double click on destination folder, double click on from folder click, arrange them on the screen so you can see both, click on mypackage, drag it to destination folder with right mouse and copy form the menu, close destination folder, close both folders by moving the mouse to the close crosses..).
geez, strange mac heads..
Yep, and for even greater evil, they are going to replace the daemons with..... services. Aargh.
" Gentoo's not the kind of thing you run on production servers, Solaris is."
Mmm, quick someone tell google and amazon to get rid of linux and install solaris instead.
Buy a samsung. They even deliver with linux drivers, but you don't need them, drivers are included with your favorite distro, so it is plug and no need to pray..
(no affl. etc., just my experience).
Yeah, but you still need the shared libraries.. So that is one thing where 'rm a dir' would not work.
Secondly data is also shared a lot (for example icons). If I update my theme, I want to update automatically all my programs the same theme. Etc.
I really fail to see the advantage of the 'bundled' approach. It is just creates a dependency hell of symlinks..
I do see why the semi-bundled appraoch on windows is a mess, but please do not take this to linux.
My idea: a package manager. Double clicking on myprogram.deb/rpm installs it, Double clicking a list of installed applications (for example in synaptic) de-installs it and takes track of the dependencies. What could be easier?
Great, but... I already have /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib.
People whining about a central approach should learn a package manager (rpm/deb/whatever), which works fine.
This is not 100% "the debian-installer". The debian installer installs a base system without X and is actually very nice!! (proper questions, defaults that make sense etc.).
;-). The noob-questions are answered by gentoo and fedora users and once the noobs have developping powers, they come to debian automatically.... (Hey, I am just joking, but in fact it is not in every developers mind to just "let debian konqueror the world", they just want a proper system for theirselves).
However the config scripts for X (which you describe, and yes I do understand people do not understand the difference; this note is for the developers) suck bigtime. Some autodetection should be in place!! and the simple/medium/advanced suck.
This is really a disgrace for the 'installer', because it will be grocked in reviews etc.
Guess we debian users will still be 'the elite computer users' in the coming five years... Not everyone cares about this, it worked for the previous ten
That is not so easy... The traffic has to go to the right address (indicated by the ip-address). But http://freenet.sf.net is an attempt (in thus that it works, but that gives a whole new set of problems (searching etc.)).
The author examined the most popular use of bittorent (via suprnova). What the original goal of bittorrent was, is of less interest. It is used as a method for distributing copyrighted content illegally and the behaviour of this system is analyzed.
In my opinion this is the more interesting topic in a research paper.
Compare with a scientific study of jeans-material. You can say, hey, the jeans-material come from tents originally (Levis and stuff), but that doesn't mean you can't write a paper about jeans, as they are used today (as pants).
What would happen with the price of the Apple Macintosh computer if everyone followed your advice and there is only one closed standard left?
If Janie (i.e. ATI) is smoking the marijuana (opens the source to its drivers), it doesn't mean it's okay for Bobby (nVidia) to do the same; it just means Janie (ATI) is foolish.
To reply to myself: I just thought of a better example to show this stuff DOES happen. Just look at the support list of the ALSA project (http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc). They have a history of strongly discouraging binary drivers and it pays of. Yes, some manufacturers are unwilling to open, but a lot fall for the argument, everybody gives us information, we have already creative drivers etc.). Just look at the mailing-lists.
I'm afraid you chose the wrong example here, because nVidia is dealing with licensing agreements forced upon them by law. They tried to use someone else's IP, and they got caught, and were forced to license that IP
No, this example works. They cannot open the drivers they currently have, because there is IP from others in it. That is true. But if they have business incentive (more cards sold etc.) to open their drivers, they can rewrite the protected IP part with a different algorithm.
In the Nvidia case this is all not very realistic. They have invested too much in the way they work now, so it will never be usefull enough for them to open their drivers.
It is possible (I think this will happen, only not in near future) that a new competitor comes from open source world (or other) doing exactly this (provide open drivers). If the market is ready for this, that can become a hit and common business practice. But for this to happen, we have to encourage open drivers now.
(Someone remembers the Voodoo cards, and their problem with their too closed and problematic Glide API and their resistance against DirectX?
Where are they now?).
Yep, I agree with you. However about 'the evidence' you want. I just know business, they (actually we), just weigh in the advantages against the disadvantages (usually involves calculation of money).
There is nothing to suggest that by blocking binary-only development, more source will become available. This is a pipe-dream of the F/OSS utopia.
No, it is just common sense. The push on, say Nvidia, to open their source is larger if binary drivers are not possible. Two things are important in this situation, marketshare and large customers. Large customers can perhaps (now under NDA) already get the source, lose of market share (if net loss of opening drivers is smaller than loss of profit by a smaller share in market they will just open of course).
However I tend to agree with you that when all binary drivers are forbidden and the manufacturers are offered a choice, leave the linux market or open their code, much much more will choose the first. That is because the business situation is like this at the moment. But some will not. (for example the NIC company specialized in linux clustering etc.).
If Janie (i.e. ATI) is smoking the marijuana (opens the source to its drivers), it doesn't mean it's okay for Bobby (nVidia) to do the same; it just means Janie (ATI) is foolish.
Companies are sometimes behaving more emotional than factual. For example if some major top 500 companies buy Linux licenses from SCO, a lot will follow. Their bosses will say, 'hey if BMW buys a license we have to do that also, because they have good lawyers'. Without even checking theirselves. This happens a lot (too much).