I'm wondering what the long term plan is. Do Navajos want to get wired Internet eventually and (more generally) get connected to civilization? Do they want to continue to lead an isolated rural lifestyle and have the US government pay for Internet access? Or what?
Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month.
Those numbers were mainly due to changes in parked domains, nothing real.
Microsoft have taken a huge step into open source here and they deserve to be nurtured and supported by a willing community so that we can all make the most of it.
I fail to see the "huge step". Microsoft has been using BSD/Apache-licensed software for years.
And, no, Microsoft doesn't "deserve" anything; they still owe the public many billions of dollars that they have misappropriated.
Both the server and the browser should check that the content and the extension are consistent. Furthermore, the server should enforce consistency on both upload and download.
The doctor in charge of the research is working with sports authorities to develop a test to detect the drugs in athletes.
I really don't give a damn about the athletes; why shouldn't they take performance enhancing drugs if they like? What difference does it make whether they wreck their bodies with football or with steroids? Anybody who thinks that sports at the competitive level is healthy is dreaming.
All this handwriting about doping is just about sports money, not the athletes anyway.
If only we had called you first! Fortunately, the members of the review board at JPL are much better judges of this than you are.
The "review board" at JPL approved a mission to analyze Martian soil and soil chemistry, based on the known fact that there is water ice.
But because the lander can't even dump a scoop of dirt into the bucket, they can't do any of their experiments and are trying to spin this as a big breakthrough.
Phoenix is a big failure compared to its mission objectives.
This is the wrong way of going about it. Outlawing cell phones may hurt SMS and email, but it won't outlaw IP telephony or boisterous conversations. Inconsiderate behavior can't be banned by banning a technology. If you don't want people to talk loudly in airplanes, then that's what you need to regulate.
I think air planes should have quiet sections, sections where no noisy phones, noisy babies, or conversations are permitted. If you make noise in the quiet section, it's no different than any other violation of air line rules.
Congress could mandate the existence of such quiet sections on large airplanes, just like they did for non-smoking sections.
The only entertainment worth anything coming out of the UK in recent years seems to be the BBC productions. Given that they are publicly financed through TV fees, why should the British not be allowed to share them freely?
Pure liquid water was never sampled by the Viking missions.
So? Who said it was? The new mission hasn't found "pure liquid water" either.
The frost you refer to I assume are the pictures from the Utopia taken by the #2 lander. That wasn't pure water.
Of course that was "pure water". What do you think it was?
The average air pressure in Mars is about 7mb, which is comparable to the top of Everest.
No, it's not. The pressure on top of Mt Everest is about 260mb. The boiling point of water on to of Mt Everest is 69C. On Mars, it's about 10C (meaning water doesn't just sublimate, it melts first).
The Viking landers observed frost in the 70's. Mars obiters found huge amounts of water underground. Ice is clearly exposed in many photographs. Knowledge of ice and water on Mars goes way, way beyond "suspected". If detecting ice is all this mission yields, it's a big waste of money. This mission was intended to give detailed information about what's in the ice and soil, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
The question for the last decade or two has been whether there is liquid water on Mars. Despite the low air pressure, even pure liquid water can exist in some places and times: aquifers, briny puddles and lakes, lakes enclosed in ice, etc.
The GPL is a perfectly fine license for it that inhibits no real-world use
Wrong.
I cannot distribute closed source applications based on Qt without getting a commercial license, since code needs to be linked with Qt for its primary intended use.
I can distribute closed source applications based on VirtualBox without getting a commercial license, since things don't need to be linked with VirtualBox for its primary intended use.
In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is.
Yes.
Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.
Why? What possible reason is there to be "diplomatic" towards Microsoft? The company has been rude and arrogant towards anybody they have dealt with. They have cheated Americans out of many billions of dollars through bundling, tying, and their illegal monopoly. Was Microsoft "diplomatic" about the companies and jobs they destroyed when they faked demos or made false product announcements?
People choose to work for Microsoft. Why not tell them what you feel about their company?
You know, while I often criticize companies, including Sun, for GPL+commercial dual license shenanigans, I don't see a problem here.
You can compile Virtualbox from source on Linux. The GPL is a perfectly fine license for it that inhibits no real-world use. That means that Virtualbox is a great virtualization environment for Linux. It would be that even if it didn't run on Windows at all.
I do see a problem with Java's dual licensing. I do see a problem with Qt's dual licensing. I just don't see a problem with Virtualbox's dual licensing.
You don't have to. Under Linux, you just type "apt-get install virtualbox".
but good fucking luck compiling it on a windows machine
Well, that's because compiling anything with a lot of dependencies on a Windows machine sucks. The problem is Windows
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
No, Mac users kvetch about X11 because it requires sending every little damned pixel across the connection rather than sending sensible drawing instructions like one does in Quartz
Are you just not listening? X11 and Quartz do the same thing: they both have connections and they both send vectorized instructions across them. The only difference is that X11 has been doing this for 20 years and does it a lot more efficiently, while Apple only came around half a dozen years ago.
Oh, and X11's godawful color modes.
Those are the same "godawful color modes" Apple used to support as well. If you don't like them ignore them. X11 is going to keep them because it is much more widely used than just the desktop, in scientific devices, factory automation, and lots of other settings.
Many other technologies you take for granted today were pioneered with X11: mixed desktop and 3D graphics, client/server 3D graphics, separation of window management from applications, theming, 3D look-and-feel, remote GUIs, pixel accurate graphics, backing store policies, server-side extensibility, window server media handling, mixed direct screen buffer and desktop interfaces, and tons more.
And technologically, X11 and the desktops built on it are lightyears ahead of both Windows and OS X, even if you don't realize it.
X11 is still where the innovation happens; Windows and Macintosh are merely commercial imitations.
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Oh, please, get a clue. We're talking about window systems here. X11 was one of the first asynchronous client-server window system. And it's the asynchronous client-server aspect that Mac and Windows users keep whining about. Yet, after more than a decade each, both companies came around and adopted an asynchronous client-server architecture for their window systems as well.
If you have some other complaint about X11, please share it with us.
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead
on
OSCON 2008 Roundup
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My main problem with Linux right now are the damn fonts... They look like complete crap without heavy aliasing. This should *NOT* be the case even with the extra font packs installed.
You probably didn't set up the right anti-aliasing in preferences; that can happen on Windows and OS X as well. The OS doesn't know what you need or want.
When you use X or power management features or bluetooth..etc its not long before something starts going haywire.. at least thats been my experience.
Did you buy supported hardware? If not, that's like complaining that when you install OS X on your PC, things don't work.
It's not a Linux problem when Linux doesn't work on unsupported hardware, and that simply will never get fixed.
Compared to RDP there is no contest in terms of network resources consumed by remote sessions. X11 is a pig.
That is by design: X11 and RDP are designed for totally different bandwidth/performance/functionality tradeoffs.
Furthermore, modern X11 applications are not written or tested for remote usage anymore. The equivalent of RDP in the Linux world is VNC, which works very well.
Give it a few more years and I'm sure Linux will continue to make great strides on the desktop... IMHO they really do just need to kill the damned X11 system alltogether.
You don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple had to abandon their idiotic attempts at window systems and Windows UI Server and Quartz now have the same architecture (asynchronous client-server systems) as X11. X11 is still the better system.
If you take a Mac from the Mac store and sit down and use it (i.e. don't install a bunch of garbage on it before you figure out how to use it), well, most people find it pretty intuitive.
And this is different from Linux how?
If you plop down an Ubuntu system on someone's desktop, in my experience, they find it "pretty intuitive" as well. Actually, many users prefer the Ubuntu desktop because it's easier to find and launch the apps that they need; nobody has has had any complaints about it.
or a linux machine (which could look like anything depending on the window manager installed and the programs opened).
That's a bullshit comparison. You need to compare desktop operating systems, not a kernel and a desktop OS.
Furthermore, OS X can also "look like anything" if people choose to theme it.
The real problem is X and the fact that it is an utter pile of gash.
That's a pretty ironic statement, given that both Apple and Microsoft had to abandon their previous window systems a few years back and adopt an X11-like architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering what the long term plan is. Do Navajos want to get wired Internet eventually and (more generally) get connected to civilization? Do they want to continue to lead an isolated rural lifestyle and have the US government pay for Internet access? Or what?
Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month.
Those numbers were mainly due to changes in parked domains, nothing real.
There's already a mod_mono for Apache, and it runs on Linux. Its primary effect is that people can migrate off of expensive Windows servers to Linux.
Microsoft have taken a huge step into open source here and they deserve to be nurtured and supported by a willing community so that we can all make the most of it.
I fail to see the "huge step". Microsoft has been using BSD/Apache-licensed software for years.
And, no, Microsoft doesn't "deserve" anything; they still owe the public many billions of dollars that they have misappropriated.
Both the server and the browser should check that the content and the extension are consistent. Furthermore, the server should enforce consistency on both upload and download.
The doctor in charge of the research is working with sports authorities to develop a test to detect the drugs in athletes.
I really don't give a damn about the athletes; why shouldn't they take performance enhancing drugs if they like? What difference does it make whether they wreck their bodies with football or with steroids? Anybody who thinks that sports at the competitive level is healthy is dreaming.
All this handwriting about doping is just about sports money, not the athletes anyway.
If only we had called you first! Fortunately, the members of the review board at JPL are much better judges of this than you are.
The "review board" at JPL approved a mission to analyze Martian soil and soil chemistry, based on the known fact that there is water ice.
But because the lander can't even dump a scoop of dirt into the bucket, they can't do any of their experiments and are trying to spin this as a big breakthrough.
Phoenix is a big failure compared to its mission objectives.
This is the wrong way of going about it. Outlawing cell phones may hurt SMS and email, but it won't outlaw IP telephony or boisterous conversations. Inconsiderate behavior can't be banned by banning a technology. If you don't want people to talk loudly in airplanes, then that's what you need to regulate.
I think air planes should have quiet sections, sections where no noisy phones, noisy babies, or conversations are permitted. If you make noise in the quiet section, it's no different than any other violation of air line rules.
Congress could mandate the existence of such quiet sections on large airplanes, just like they did for non-smoking sections.
The only entertainment worth anything coming out of the UK in recent years seems to be the BBC productions. Given that they are publicly financed through TV fees, why should the British not be allowed to share them freely?
Pure liquid water was never sampled by the Viking missions.
So? Who said it was? The new mission hasn't found "pure liquid water" either.
The frost you refer to I assume are the pictures from the Utopia taken by the #2 lander. That wasn't pure water.
Of course that was "pure water". What do you think it was?
The average air pressure in Mars is about 7mb, which is comparable to the top of Everest.
No, it's not. The pressure on top of Mt Everest is about 260mb. The boiling point of water on to of Mt Everest is 69C. On Mars, it's about 10C (meaning water doesn't just sublimate, it melts first).
Bullshit. The Viking lander saw water frost, as evident from the temperatures:
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/mars/frost.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1990/89JB03428.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_2
Yes, because, as we all know, all adults are diplomatic. That's why adults get along so fabulously.
And just look at what a mature adult Steve Ballmer is.
Give me a break. Microsoft has be badgering, cheating, and lying. Some kind of meek diplomacy isn't going to win against that.
So your problem is with the "share and share-alike" spirit of the GPL, not with the companies dual licensing.
I don't have a problem with the "share and share-alike" spirit of the GPL at all.
I have a problem with the fact that Qt is violating that spirit.
The Viking landers observed frost in the 70's. Mars obiters found huge amounts of water underground. Ice is clearly exposed in many photographs. Knowledge of ice and water on Mars goes way, way beyond "suspected". If detecting ice is all this mission yields, it's a big waste of money. This mission was intended to give detailed information about what's in the ice and soil, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
The question for the last decade or two has been whether there is liquid water on Mars. Despite the low air pressure, even pure liquid water can exist in some places and times: aquifers, briny puddles and lakes, lakes enclosed in ice, etc.
The GPL is a perfectly fine license for it that inhibits no real-world use
Wrong.
I cannot distribute closed source applications based on Qt without getting a commercial license, since code needs to be linked with Qt for its primary intended use.
I can distribute closed source applications based on VirtualBox without getting a commercial license, since things don't need to be linked with VirtualBox for its primary intended use.
The "right" license for Qt would be LGPL.
In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is.
Yes.
Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.
Why? What possible reason is there to be "diplomatic" towards Microsoft? The company has been rude and arrogant towards anybody they have dealt with. They have cheated Americans out of many billions of dollars through bundling, tying, and their illegal monopoly. Was Microsoft "diplomatic" about the companies and jobs they destroyed when they faked demos or made false product announcements?
People choose to work for Microsoft. Why not tell them what you feel about their company?
You know, while I often criticize companies, including Sun, for GPL+commercial dual license shenanigans, I don't see a problem here.
You can compile Virtualbox from source on Linux. The GPL is a perfectly fine license for it that inhibits no real-world use. That means that Virtualbox is a great virtualization environment for Linux. It would be that even if it didn't run on Windows at all.
I do see a problem with Java's dual licensing. I do see a problem with Qt's dual licensing. I just don't see a problem with Virtualbox's dual licensing.
Maybe you could compile it on a linux machine
You don't have to. Under Linux, you just type "apt-get install virtualbox".
but good fucking luck compiling it on a windows machine
Well, that's because compiling anything with a lot of dependencies on a Windows machine sucks. The problem is Windows
No, Mac users kvetch about X11 because it requires sending every little damned pixel across the connection rather than sending sensible drawing instructions like one does in Quartz
Are you just not listening? X11 and Quartz do the same thing: they both have connections and they both send vectorized instructions across them. The only difference is that X11 has been doing this for 20 years and does it a lot more efficiently, while Apple only came around half a dozen years ago.
Oh, and X11's godawful color modes.
Those are the same "godawful color modes" Apple used to support as well. If you don't like them ignore them. X11 is going to keep them because it is much more widely used than just the desktop, in scientific devices, factory automation, and lots of other settings.
That was pretty much X's only really good idea.
Many other technologies you take for granted today were pioneered with X11: mixed desktop and 3D graphics, client/server 3D graphics, separation of window management from applications, theming, 3D look-and-feel, remote GUIs, pixel accurate graphics, backing store policies, server-side extensibility, window server media handling, mixed direct screen buffer and desktop interfaces, and tons more.
And technologically, X11 and the desktops built on it are lightyears ahead of both Windows and OS X, even if you don't realize it.
X11 is still where the innovation happens; Windows and Macintosh are merely commercial imitations.
Oh, please, get a clue. We're talking about window systems here. X11 was one of the first asynchronous client-server window system. And it's the asynchronous client-server aspect that Mac and Windows users keep whining about. Yet, after more than a decade each, both companies came around and adopted an asynchronous client-server architecture for their window systems as well.
If you have some other complaint about X11, please share it with us.
My main problem with Linux right now are the damn fonts... They look like complete crap without heavy aliasing. This should *NOT* be the case even with the extra font packs installed.
You probably didn't set up the right anti-aliasing in preferences; that can happen on Windows and OS X as well. The OS doesn't know what you need or want.
When you use X or power management features or bluetooth..etc its not long before something starts going haywire.. at least thats been my experience.
Did you buy supported hardware? If not, that's like complaining that when you install OS X on your PC, things don't work.
It's not a Linux problem when Linux doesn't work on unsupported hardware, and that simply will never get fixed.
Compared to RDP there is no contest in terms of network resources consumed by remote sessions. X11 is a pig.
That is by design: X11 and RDP are designed for totally different bandwidth/performance/functionality tradeoffs.
Furthermore, modern X11 applications are not written or tested for remote usage anymore. The equivalent of RDP in the Linux world is VNC, which works very well.
Give it a few more years and I'm sure Linux will continue to make great strides on the desktop... IMHO they really do just need to kill the damned X11 system alltogether.
You don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple had to abandon their idiotic attempts at window systems and Windows UI Server and Quartz now have the same architecture (asynchronous client-server systems) as X11. X11 is still the better system.
Compared to Windows the Mac indeed "just works". But it still has many problems.
If you take a Mac from the Mac store and sit down and use it (i.e. don't install a bunch of garbage on it before you figure out how to use it), well, most people find it pretty intuitive.
And this is different from Linux how?
If you plop down an Ubuntu system on someone's desktop, in my experience, they find it "pretty intuitive" as well. Actually, many users prefer the Ubuntu desktop because it's easier to find and launch the apps that they need; nobody has has had any complaints about it.
or a linux machine (which could look like anything depending on the window manager installed and the programs opened).
That's a bullshit comparison. You need to compare desktop operating systems, not a kernel and a desktop OS.
Furthermore, OS X can also "look like anything" if people choose to theme it.
The real problem is X and the fact that it is an utter pile of gash.
That's a pretty ironic statement, given that both Apple and Microsoft had to abandon their previous window systems a few years back and adopt an X11-like architecture.