Yeah, last time i looked (it's been a while...) 8.6 with the ATM, Quicktime, and Notes extensions used 20 megs on it's own. Not to mention running the apps that graphics people run...
I'm just applauding apple for actually giving a realistic number, rather than undershooting the requirements in order to make it appeal to a broader audience...
Why'd you even bother with a Quadra? You could have gotten yourself a Pentium class machine for the same price no doubt. Especially if your aim is to run a BSD. Not bashing Apple here, but it just seems confusing that anyone would buy their hardware and adamantly refuse to use their software... Their software is the only real reason to buy the hardware.
Yeah... run WinME on a P200 with 32 megs of RAM... Try Win2000 on a Celeron 300 with 32 megs of RAM... At least Apple's being HONEST about what it's system requires, as opposed to some other company that gives you the most lowball figures in the world, just to sell a license for something that may not actually run on the hardware you own..
I guess we can be thankful that microsoft officially retired the 386 and 486 by now...
I'm under the understanding that it's NOT BSD. It's Mach. Mach just happens to run a BSD personality when needed. That said, they don't need to display anything else... Mach is the kernel used in darwin and OS X.
I think that person meant "graphics" professionals... The ones that were complaining that the new interfacew was too colorful, and therefore would distract them from more serious tasks like color management, matching and management.
Not things that excel users worry about, but definetly things that Photoshop users worry about, especially when their in print production and holding an iris proof or matchprint in one hand and adjust the curves or brightness/contrast of their image with the other.
oops. My bad. However, if there is a solution to be found, i'm sure we could find one within 1000 years. Humans are funny that way, always thinking up new things to solve their problems.
When you have that much time between action and reaction, it really kills off the whole aspect of interaction. Yes, interaction is just a series of reactions, but it happens a lot more rapidly than can occur here, and generally for longer periods at a time. Like right now. I wrote something. You replied to it an hour later. An hour after that, i'm replying to you. We're not discussing anything, like point-counterpoint or anythinglike that. You're stating something. I'm stating something.
I don't know of any telephone based communities (unless you want to call all those 976 numbers communities). Telephones can be used to extend or supplement a real community, just as the internet, through the www, email, irc, aim, et al, can be used to extend a community. But i don't think that the internet is capable of creating a true community. It's only a means of transporting communications. A real community, i think, needs to extend beyond the communication aspect of it, and into the interaction part of it.
The internet isn't a community... Your school could be, in that you interact with people there, and then use other tools to extend those interactions: ie: telephone and email. Your work could be considered more of a community than the internet. Your home town.
The internet is just a medium for communications. It's like saying that a bunch of people that subscribe to the same magazine are all part of the same community. They might be. But not at all because of the act of reading the same magazine.
Well, in the end it's been better for them than it has been for Microsoft, Redhat, VA Linux, Dell, or Amazon for that matter... So don't rag on them for their little snafu until you look at how the entire land scape is looking about now...
The web only has "forums" not true communities. There is no real interaction on the web, just reaction. Without ongoing interaction, there can't be any form of community, because no one knows how to work and be with one another, they just know how to anticipate and react to the actions of each other. It's a difference.
Yes, community, just like anything "e-" or "i-", was just another buzzword that caught on as web companies were trying to figure out a way to make market valuations seem fair, so they'ed spout "but we have this great community aspect going for us".
dotcoms are dead. their buzzwords should die off as well.
On another tangent, is it me or is the first JonKatz article around here in a LONG TIME?
Ummmmm... Do you really think it'd be easier to move our trash or 12 billion people (a guess at what our population will be... a very very low guess)?
Or do you propose a noah's arc type deal? Maybe something out of Moonraker (it was just on last night so it's fresh in my mind). Who choses who goes and who stays? Is this information made public, or do the chosen few just sort of sneak off? Because if it's made public that "oh, you're all gonna die, but we're going to escape because we're special" i doubt anyone would be leaving the planet.
Maybe we should just realize that our time may come to an end and start devising ways to transport simple (single-cell) organisms to other planets and solar systems in the hopes that they'll one day evolve into a greater lifeform. It'd seem like the much more noble way to do it...
Of course, we could spend the next 2000 years trying to figure a way to eject the greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere or recycle them...
Well, according to what I found here, my problem stems from Redhat installing a kernel that expects a Pentium instead of an Athlon... When it disables the CPUID it crashes the system.
Anyone with Mandrake 7 experience here who can testify that it works with an Athlong 700 Socket A processor, and an Asus motherboard (I don't have the model number handy, but it's 5 PCI, 1 AGP, if that helps identify it at all).
Or maybe I'll just get Redhat 7, and upgrade from that once fixes are available...
I just bought and received a brand new AMD Athlon system last week. It runs Redhat 5.2 without a glitch, but that version only sees the first 8 GB of my drive. Redhat 6.2 will install, but not boot, due to a bug I just found out about (something about the wrong kernel getting installed). 7.0 should run fine, according to Redhat's site, but now it's apparently full of holes...
Seriously. I bought this box to run linux, and it's seeming more and more like it just won't be possible for another few months, in which case i really just should have waited for 7.1 to arrive. Any suggestions?
Only 25% Which would still make them one of the largest shareholders, if not the largest, but also not anywhere near the majority.
Maybe Corel turned the same screws that apple did? Otherwise, why would MSFT invest in them? Not just because Corel distributes Linux and has an office suite. Corel's a nobody in the Linux market, and Sun and Applixware also have office suites tht cost a lot less than Corel's while having the same amount of respect.
Seriously. There're plenty of other ways for them to get themselves into a "linux company" without drawing so much attention to themselves for doing so... I think Corel was going to bring up another lawsuit, myself...
n addition, both companies have agreed to settle outstanding legal issues.
Microsoft wants nothing of Corel... They just don't want to end up in court against yet another pissed off competitor...
No, if anything, Napster would be in violation of anti-competitive laws and/or dumping, since they sell their product for a cost much lower than which it costs to create ("free").
The labels pay the artists. They pay the engineers, managers, producers, roadies. They pay to make the videos and the ads you see in Spin magazine. And then napster just lets you take it for free...
Re:Sounds like a bad idea from a legal stand point
on
Napster Back in Court
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you feel that subpar music isn't pay-for-able, shouldn't it also be unlisten-to-able? I'd think so. If you think it's good enough to listen to, then obviously it suits your needs, and you should need to pay.
Well, geez... If you're the religious type, you might as well say if it weren't for Adam and Eve, there'd be no Tim Berners-Lee. I'm not the religious type, so I won't say that.
Most of the great scientists and inventors stand on the shoulders of all of those that came before them. The others might have made the initial steps, but you always need someone to take those steps the extra one step further.
The way i see it, unless digital signatures are backed by cryptography, what's to stop me from "signing" something for you? How do you opt in and opt out of this thing? Do you have to show up at a government office and say "yes, i'd like my clicks to be legally binding". Or do you have to show and say "NO! I don't want to participate"? How many forms of ID do you need? Or can this be done via postal mail?
Digital signatures are supposed to be HARDER to forge than real ones. Not just more convienient, otherwise we'll be seeing a huge rise in fraud... That means being based on public key encryption (I think), so everyone can verify you, but no one can be you.
The law does not specify a type of technology for e-signatures. They can be obtained through secured processes, like secret passwords or digital fingerprints, as well as unsecured ones, such as faxed signatures or clicking an acceptance button on a Web page
Oh great. I just clicked a button that and sold my house. Seriously, how could anyone pass such a vague law? If that's hwo the wording of the actual bill really is, then we're in trouble.
I thought the entire purpose of digital signatures was to prevent forgeries, since signatures based on encryption algorithms are very hard to crack. And then it gets convoluted to the point that clicking a button on a non-secure webpage could constitute signing a contract? What next?
That'd make sense if they were actually developing anything, but besides the installer, RPM and funding other projects, how much work do they actually actually have to put into their distro's?
Sell less copies of Redhat for Sparc? Fine. Hire less tech support people. It really seems absurd that any Linux company could drop anything, being that they don't actually have to pay to create it in the first place...
How about: 3- run windows primarily, but would like to learn enough about linux to feel comfortable abandoning windows?
Or is that category just not good enough for you?
Yes, you don't reboot an office server. But if you have just a couple of machines in your home, you can set one up as a server/router for the rest and feel free to take it down whenever you want.
Clear this up for me... What has he done that's so evil? I read Theo this and Theo that all the time here on slashdot, but no one's ever actually said what makes him so bad?
Regardless of what you think of him, his code is about the most secure out there these days... And that IS saying something.
or else they want to use linux but everything they need isn't there yet, be it MS Office, Quickbooks, GAMES, 3D Studio Max, Adobe Premiere, QuickTime, see the pattern of things not yet available for linux? Just about everything?
Yes. Linux makes a great server. But if nothing else, this past week has taught me that it's in no way ready for the desktop... (THOUGH I'm incredbily happy to have been pointed towards VMWare... installing NT4 as I type this note...)
Well, all the developers who work on GPLed software, and by extension, Redhat, all have granted the right of redistribution to you. Musicians and labels haven't.
Funny though the correlation between Developer and Musician, Redhat and Record Label. You all should think about that one for a little while.
And yes, things like napster and gnutella could have legitamate uses, but overwhelmingly, they're not used for those uses, IMHO. But even then, distributing Redhat over gnutella would seem to almost violate the GPL in that the person that gives you the binaries is obligated to give you the source if you want it. It's not Redhat's responsibility to give it to you if you acquired it through that medium... So if you wanted it and for some reason couldn't get it from redhat, or the distributor, someone just violated the GPL, correct?
contrary to what microsoft would like to make you think, Windows 95 and 98 are more predominatly used in many companies than NT and 2000. And an extra processor in one of those machines is dead weight.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, last time i looked (it's been a while...) 8.6 with the ATM, Quicktime, and Notes extensions used 20 megs on it's own. Not to mention running the apps that graphics people run...
I'm just applauding apple for actually giving a realistic number, rather than undershooting the requirements in order to make it appeal to a broader audience...
Why'd you even bother with a Quadra? You could have gotten yourself a Pentium class machine for the same price no doubt. Especially if your aim is to run a BSD. Not bashing Apple here, but it just seems confusing that anyone would buy their hardware and adamantly refuse to use their software... Their software is the only real reason to buy the hardware.
Yeah... run WinME on a P200 with 32 megs of RAM... Try Win2000 on a Celeron 300 with 32 megs of RAM... At least Apple's being HONEST about what it's system requires, as opposed to some other company that gives you the most lowball figures in the world, just to sell a license for something that may not actually run on the hardware you own..
I guess we can be thankful that microsoft officially retired the 386 and 486 by now...
I'm under the understanding that it's NOT BSD. It's Mach. Mach just happens to run a BSD personality when needed. That said, they don't need to display anything else... Mach is the kernel used in darwin and OS X.
I think that person meant "graphics" professionals... The ones that were complaining that the new interfacew was too colorful, and therefore would distract them from more serious tasks like color management, matching and management.
Not things that excel users worry about, but definetly things that Photoshop users worry about, especially when their in print production and holding an iris proof or matchprint in one hand and adjust the curves or brightness/contrast of their image with the other.
oops. My bad. However, if there is a solution to be found, i'm sure we could find one within 1000 years. Humans are funny that way, always thinking up new things to solve their problems.
When you have that much time between action and reaction, it really kills off the whole aspect of interaction. Yes, interaction is just a series of reactions, but it happens a lot more rapidly than can occur here, and generally for longer periods at a time. Like right now. I wrote something. You replied to it an hour later. An hour after that, i'm replying to you. We're not discussing anything, like point-counterpoint or anythinglike that. You're stating something. I'm stating something.
I don't know of any telephone based communities (unless you want to call all those 976 numbers communities). Telephones can be used to extend or supplement a real community, just as the internet, through the www, email, irc, aim, et al, can be used to extend a community. But i don't think that the internet is capable of creating a true community. It's only a means of transporting communications. A real community, i think, needs to extend beyond the communication aspect of it, and into the interaction part of it.
The internet isn't a community... Your school could be, in that you interact with people there, and then use other tools to extend those interactions: ie: telephone and email. Your work could be considered more of a community than the internet. Your home town.
The internet is just a medium for communications. It's like saying that a bunch of people that subscribe to the same magazine are all part of the same community. They might be. But not at all because of the act of reading the same magazine.
Well, in the end it's been better for them than it has been for Microsoft, Redhat, VA Linux, Dell, or Amazon for that matter... So don't rag on them for their little snafu until you look at how the entire land scape is looking about now...
The web only has "forums" not true communities. There is no real interaction on the web, just reaction. Without ongoing interaction, there can't be any form of community, because no one knows how to work and be with one another, they just know how to anticipate and react to the actions of each other. It's a difference.
Yes, community, just like anything "e-" or "i-", was just another buzzword that caught on as web companies were trying to figure out a way to make market valuations seem fair, so they'ed spout "but we have this great community aspect going for us".
dotcoms are dead. their buzzwords should die off as well.
On another tangent, is it me or is the first JonKatz article around here in a LONG TIME?
Ummmmm... Do you really think it'd be easier to move our trash or 12 billion people (a guess at what our population will be... a very very low guess)?
Or do you propose a noah's arc type deal? Maybe something out of Moonraker (it was just on last night so it's fresh in my mind). Who choses who goes and who stays? Is this information made public, or do the chosen few just sort of sneak off? Because if it's made public that "oh, you're all gonna die, but we're going to escape because we're special" i doubt anyone would be leaving the planet.
Maybe we should just realize that our time may come to an end and start devising ways to transport simple (single-cell) organisms to other planets and solar systems in the hopes that they'll one day evolve into a greater lifeform. It'd seem like the much more noble way to do it...
Of course, we could spend the next 2000 years trying to figure a way to eject the greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere or recycle them...
Well, according to what I found here, my problem stems from Redhat installing a kernel that expects a Pentium instead of an Athlon... When it disables the CPUID it crashes the system.
Anyone with Mandrake 7 experience here who can testify that it works with an Athlong 700 Socket A processor, and an Asus motherboard (I don't have the model number handy, but it's 5 PCI, 1 AGP, if that helps identify it at all).
Or maybe I'll just get Redhat 7, and upgrade from that once fixes are available...
I just bought and received a brand new AMD Athlon system last week. It runs Redhat 5.2 without a glitch, but that version only sees the first 8 GB of my drive. Redhat 6.2 will install, but not boot, due to a bug I just found out about (something about the wrong kernel getting installed). 7.0 should run fine, according to Redhat's site, but now it's apparently full of holes...
Seriously. I bought this box to run linux, and it's seeming more and more like it just won't be possible for another few months, in which case i really just should have waited for 7.1 to arrive. Any suggestions?
Only 25% Which would still make them one of the largest shareholders, if not the largest, but also not anywhere near the majority.
Maybe Corel turned the same screws that apple did? Otherwise, why would MSFT invest in them? Not just because Corel distributes Linux and has an office suite. Corel's a nobody in the Linux market, and Sun and Applixware also have office suites tht cost a lot less than Corel's while having the same amount of respect.
Seriously. There're plenty of other ways for them to get themselves into a "linux company" without drawing so much attention to themselves for doing so... I think Corel was going to bring up another lawsuit, myself...
n addition, both companies have agreed to settle outstanding legal issues.
Microsoft wants nothing of Corel... They just don't want to end up in court against yet another pissed off competitor...
No, if anything, Napster would be in violation of anti-competitive laws and/or dumping, since they sell their product for a cost much lower than which it costs to create ("free").
The labels pay the artists. They pay the engineers, managers, producers, roadies. They pay to make the videos and the ads you see in Spin magazine. And then napster just lets you take it for free...
Well, if you feel that subpar music isn't pay-for-able, shouldn't it also be unlisten-to-able? I'd think so. If you think it's good enough to listen to, then obviously it suits your needs, and you should need to pay.
So then whatever became of the companies that tried reverse engineering Apple II's (anyone remember the Laser 128?) and Macintoshes?
Well, geez... If you're the religious type, you might as well say if it weren't for Adam and Eve, there'd be no Tim Berners-Lee. I'm not the religious type, so I won't say that.
Most of the great scientists and inventors stand on the shoulders of all of those that came before them. The others might have made the initial steps, but you always need someone to take those steps the extra one step further.
The way i see it, unless digital signatures are backed by cryptography, what's to stop me from "signing" something for you? How do you opt in and opt out of this thing? Do you have to show up at a government office and say "yes, i'd like my clicks to be legally binding". Or do you have to show and say "NO! I don't want to participate"? How many forms of ID do you need? Or can this be done via postal mail?
Digital signatures are supposed to be HARDER to forge than real ones. Not just more convienient, otherwise we'll be seeing a huge rise in fraud... That means being based on public key encryption (I think), so everyone can verify you, but no one can be you.
The law does not specify a type of technology for e-signatures. They can be obtained through secured processes, like secret passwords or digital fingerprints, as well as unsecured ones, such as faxed signatures or clicking an acceptance button on a Web page
Oh great. I just clicked a button that and sold my house. Seriously, how could anyone pass such a vague law? If that's hwo the wording of the actual bill really is, then we're in trouble.
I thought the entire purpose of digital signatures was to prevent forgeries, since signatures based on encryption algorithms are very hard to crack. And then it gets convoluted to the point that clicking a button on a non-secure webpage could constitute signing a contract? What next?
That'd make sense if they were actually developing anything, but besides the installer, RPM and funding other projects, how much work do they actually actually have to put into their distro's?
Sell less copies of Redhat for Sparc? Fine. Hire less tech support people. It really seems absurd that any Linux company could drop anything, being that they don't actually have to pay to create it in the first place...
How about: 3- run windows primarily, but would like to learn enough about linux to feel comfortable abandoning windows?
Or is that category just not good enough for you?
Yes, you don't reboot an office server. But if you have just a couple of machines in your home, you can set one up as a server/router for the rest and feel free to take it down whenever you want.
Clear this up for me... What has he done that's so evil? I read Theo this and Theo that all the time here on slashdot, but no one's ever actually said what makes him so bad?
Regardless of what you think of him, his code is about the most secure out there these days... And that IS saying something.
or else they want to use linux but everything they need isn't there yet, be it MS Office, Quickbooks, GAMES, 3D Studio Max, Adobe Premiere, QuickTime, see the pattern of things not yet available for linux? Just about everything?
Yes. Linux makes a great server. But if nothing else, this past week has taught me that it's in no way ready for the desktop... (THOUGH I'm incredbily happy to have been pointed towards VMWare... installing NT4 as I type this note...)
Well, all the developers who work on GPLed software, and by extension, Redhat, all have granted the right of redistribution to you. Musicians and labels haven't.
Funny though the correlation between Developer and Musician, Redhat and Record Label. You all should think about that one for a little while.
And yes, things like napster and gnutella could have legitamate uses, but overwhelmingly, they're not used for those uses, IMHO. But even then, distributing Redhat over gnutella would seem to almost violate the GPL in that the person that gives you the binaries is obligated to give you the source if you want it. It's not Redhat's responsibility to give it to you if you acquired it through that medium... So if you wanted it and for some reason couldn't get it from redhat, or the distributor, someone just violated the GPL, correct?
contrary to what microsoft would like to make you think, Windows 95 and 98 are more predominatly used in many companies than NT and 2000. And an extra processor in one of those machines is dead weight.