According to Compaq, VMS has an installed base of 500,000 machines and 10,000,000 users worldwide. VMS is the number one OS in the health care industry, and also runs most of the world's major financial exchanges.
It's open as in Open Systems. OpenVMS is an Open System, which VMS didn't used to be.
Cheese makes internet history?
on
Quantum Project
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I know this is off topic, but when I saw the headline on the BBC page with Netscape's slightly screwed up fonts, it looked like "Cheese makes internet history"
It's only ugly because YOU don't know how to use X resources. If you want to configure it so you have no 3D look, marble buttons and wood scrollbars, you can. You could make it look like Windows, or Gtk, if you wanted to.
KDE and GNOME have extended Qt and GTK to provide a great deal of application infrastructure. These are closely tied to the toolkit and for most intents and purposes, can be considered a part of them. Does Motif have COM? I didn't think so.
Excuse me, but you're wrong. CDE, the standard UNIX and VMS desktop, based on (and tied into) Motif, has ToolTalk, which does the kind of "COM" stuff you're talking about, and has for years. ToolTalk is like CORBA, but more lightweight and nicer in many ways.
You need to check your facts. The fact you're ignorant doesn't give you an excuse to spew this blather.
That's right, change it. Motif uses Xt, which means you can use resources, and you can use them to do amazing things--if you want round buttons, if you want to get rid of the 3D look, if you want all your buttons to have a marble texture and all your scrollbars to be wood, you can do it. Motif is not ugly--it's the default look that you think is ugly. If you don't like it, edit a resource file and voila! It will look the way you want it to look.
That was the leap back. It was the leap back because since Sam and Al got switched, Sam got to go back to the future for an episode, meet his forgotten wife, etc.
You can't patent it anymore...
on
Laptop Lojack?
·
· Score: 1
As of your post, your idea has become public domain. Sorry.
I was about to sign the petition, and then I saw the references to GNU/Linux. I'm tired of this, and I'm sick of GNU. I call it Linux because it's convenient. I don't give a rat's ass about giving Stallman credit for anything. Might as well call it GNU/X/Netscape/BSD/.../Linux, but I don't. And I'm not going to sign my name to anything including this GNU crap.
I originally was a GNU/GPL believer. They have a way with words and a way of building convincing arguments. But I'm sick and tired of the fanaticism, the anti-corporatism, and the hours and hours of rhetoric on something that is essentially just a set of tools.
The people who set this up need to learn that when you want people to agree with you, you shouldn't mix political issues. If you want people to sign this petition, make it JUST the one issue, and people like me won't get pissed off when you (indirectly) bring up an entirely different issue by calling it 'GNU/Linux', which is NOT the standard accepted term.
In "The Leap Back" didn't Al send one of these to the future via post to get Ziggy to open the doors to the holographic chamber (or whatever it was called)?
Star Wars was cancelled after it was realised that the technology involved (new types of lasers, etc) did not exist and was not about to, not to mention the fact they could never work out a way to solve the problem of thousands of decoys.
However, Clinton recently (within the last year) made a statement to the effect a scaled down version of Star Wars was in the works. This is in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972, in which the US and the USSR agreed the largest anti-missile system either one would develop would be to protect one (1) city, e.g. Moscow or Washington.
Needless to say, Russia isn't happy about Clinton making statements to the effect he's going to violate this treaty (I'm sure they weren't too happy about Reagan doing it either, of course). As a result, when they agreed to a recent big nuclear arms reduction treaty, the name of which escapes me, a couple of weeks ago, Putin announced that if the US persisted in violating the ABM treaty of 1972, Russia would pull out of every arms treaty it has entered into.
The point of the ABM treaty, if it's not obvious, is that if a country were to successfully develop such a system, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction would be rendered completely null and void, thus allowing for destruction of at least half industrialized world. And it would be even worse if a country unsuccessfully developed such a system; such a confident country could launch an attack and then find its system fails defending against the counterattack, in which case there would be 100% destruction rather than just 50%.
There is still a great deal of hostility between Russia and the US, and in many ways Russia's current rule is the same as it was, under a new name. As a result, there are still a lot of worries about restarting an arms race. If the US is smart, it will not violate the ABM treaty--therefore, if the US is smart, Star Wars is gone for good.
Hmm, I think I missed the point there, I thought that was a reference to Geordi's blindness and the ability to use speech synthesis on digitized text for the visually impaired. Which is an interesting argument for putting books online, in any case.
The GPL is a license for one author to release his software to an end user. What happens if someone gets GPL'd software, then releases it to me under a different license (and I don't complain), since I have never been bound by the GPL for this particular piece of software, couldn't I just release it under whatever license I wanted (in accordance with the license under which my GPL-violating friend gave me the software)? Furthermore, if I was interrogated as to the identity of the GPL-violator from whom I got the software, would I be under any legal obligation to reveal it? It seems to me this is a rather easy way of circumventing the GPL (and if it's not, you could always download the software in a country where software licenses don't apply and re-release it any way you like)
Am I wrong here?
Will RMS shut up for once??
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
Ok, first of all, eBooks are NOT going to replace real books; people like paper books. Books are static information, and people like to have an object associated with that information, something with a smell and a feel that reminds them of the last time they read it, etc. I'm sure this has all been said before anyway.
Second, books have this thing called copyright, that I know Stallman doesn't agree with, but right now you can't copy real books. You can pass them around, but no more than one person can have a real book at once. You can't xerox them legally and give them out. But even if you do, there's a limited number of people you can give them to. So copying regular old books isn't as big a deal. eBooks, on the other hand, have an infinite distribution radius (well, at least to everyone on the Internet). Thus, who is going to pay for them? Everyone will just get them free. The same thing may eventually happen with mp3 (I know several people who have dozens or hundreds of songs without owning the CDs).
One point that Stallman and his anti-intellectual-property cronies seem to miss is this: A) AUTHORS/MUSICIANS/EVERYONE HAVE TO EAT. B) YOU CAN'T SELL SUPPORT FOR BOOKS AND MUSIC (and it's not clear you can make money selling support for software, either, even after all the big talk about it)
These people run around claiming they're not communists. Well, guess what, capitalism depends on intellectual property. If there's no intellectual property, all creative/scientific works have to be done for the fun of it by hobbyists. Remember, these people are now going to be spending most of their time WORKING IN COAL MINES because there is no money to be made from free information. So when these people get home from their long day at the coal mine, they are of course going to fire up their fancy new multi-GHz computer and write a ton of free software/write a book/write music, whatever, right? NO, they're going to go to SLEEP, because they're tired from their MENIAL LABOUR, which is the ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WHEN THERE'S NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
All this crap about "information should be free" is bullshit. You want to make some information free, fine. But for the sake of everyone, do it BSD style, not GPL style. And don't whine because all information isn't free.
Be careful what you wish for; you may be working in a coal mine someday (even though your costs are dramatically cut by the free availability of music, books, and everything else that comes from peoples' minds, although all of it will be thirty years old)
It seems to me Linux being free might actually be a problem for a lot of university departments. I know a lot of people who work in/head up university departments and they have talked a lot of times about the funding problems you have if you're under budget. In the eyes of the people who are funding you, if you didn't spend all the money they gave you, you didn't need it, so they'll give you less next year (and this starts a continuing cycle). So university departments try very, very hard to spend every last dime, because if they don't, they'll have a lot less dimes to spend next year.
Pinkerton doesn't care about your email. Your congressperson doesn't care much either; he or she will just increment a number in a big spreadsheet of political views of the masses.
The way to do it is to write your local press--newspapers, TV stations, etc. If you can do that, maybe you can get some reporters involved, some articles published and stories done. By getting local people involved, you are helping to ensure that by the time Pinkerton gets to your town, they won't have much hope. The more this happens around the country, the less hope Pinkerton will have of expanding, and the more awareness will be raised in North Carolina as well.
It's easy to defend against these things; we just need to develop a new kind of corbomite device that sends the "email bomb" back at the sender 10 fold when it explodes! Of course, a beowulf cluster of these could cause a bit of a Strangelove effect...
Oh, come on now... Every time anyone releases a closed source product for Linux, and every time anyone talks about Unix, everyone here gets up in arms about how it's closed source. In the entire 130+ comments here there are no Stallman posts! Why not? This is extremely hypocritical. You guys do the same thing with games. So what is it? Everything closed source is evil EXCEPT BeOS and games??
I'm tired of Unix getting beat up on by you people because it's not open source when you turn around and say "Hey, BeOS, cool!"
Oh, come on, it's not a movement, it's a bunch of people who want free music. And no, he's not a poor starving artist, but he's someone who's worked hard and put his stuff out into the world as a privilege, not a right, with the understanding that it's on his terms. He has every right to enforce those terms, as he created it and he didn't have to release it in the first place.
Give me a break. There's nothing "movement-like" about mp3s.
Many times when I've spent over 36 hours mudding without sleep, I have a natural inclination to type "open door" when I want to open a door, "eat cheese" when I want to eat a cheese, etc. When are these homes going to be smart enough to do that?
I don't understand why everyone on Slashdot seems to be dancing around singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" (SCO's obviously not dead, but everyone seems to be so overjoyed at the prospect anyway)...
I like open source software as much as the next guy--it's great to have access to the code, as a programmer. It's also nice to get things free of charge. But one thing we have to admit is that Linux isn't anywhere near the point at which it can rival any of the major Unix systems in actual performance. Maybe some day it will be, I'm not sure. The major benefit of Linux (to businesses) seems to be cost at the moment. So why are you all so happy about a Unix system dying? Can't open source co-exist with these other things? Especially when Unix is so damned good.
And another thing. I don't think I'd personally want to see Linux do better than all the Unix systems, or even equal them. Because if it equals them, but it's free of charge, it will beat them. A world where there's only one operating system is not a world in which I'd want to use computers. When we have just one operating system, we have no competition, and most of the drive for innovation is lost, plus there's nowhere to run if you don't like something. I've always thought Unix fragmentation was a good thing, not bad.
I'm not about to start arguing the virtues of non-open source software; I do like and use open source software every day. But when I first started using it, I really thought it was absurd that anyone took software so seriously as to think there should be this whole philosophy surrounding it. I mean, it's just software. It's a tool. And having a philosophy about it is like having a philosophy about a screwdriver. (I know I'm going to get attacked for that) In any case, the way this relates to the story is that I think a lot of the reason so many people are posting so happy about this is that they're like "Oh, great, another piece of proprietary software dead!"
I find this really, really sad. I love and respect Unix.
Flame me as much as you want, but I am one of the few Linux users who really really loves and respects the CDE--because unlike most Linux users, I took the time to learn about the technology behind it instead of just saying "Oh, it's proprietary, it must be evil"... I have yet to see one Linux user explain why CDE's technology is bad, but I see them every day talking ignorantly about it and making tons of false statements about it... why? Because it's proprietary, I assume. But I think it's a really good product, and, like Unix, it's irrational and sad to want it to die because you can't see the code (when you probably wouldn't use it anyway) and cause you have to pay some money for it.
I like open source software. But I don't believe the "philosophy". I like Unix too. I like a lot of technology, open source or not. Why do we have to do this? Why does there have to be such enmity toward stuff like this?
When I see IBM, SCO, SGI & co chasing after Linux, it sickens and saddens me. Not because I don't like Linux, but because I love Unix. I want these things to co-exist. I don't want one of them, driven by cost and massive hype, to kill all the others. If anyone should be pro-choice in operating systems, it should be Linux people.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what amazing new technology... Who would have thought you'd one day be able to remotely administer a Linux system? Or even (gasp!) a remote GUI!
It's open as in Open Systems. OpenVMS is an Open System, which VMS didn't used to be.
Sorry, I know this is off topic, but when I saw the headline on the BBC page with Netscape's slightly screwed up fonts, it looked like "Cheese makes internet history"
It's only ugly because YOU don't know how to use X resources. If you want to configure it so you have no 3D look, marble buttons and wood scrollbars, you can. You could make it look like Windows, or Gtk, if you wanted to.
KDE and GNOME have extended Qt and GTK to provide a great deal of application infrastructure. These are closely tied to the toolkit and for most intents and purposes, can be considered a part of them. Does Motif have COM? I didn't think so.
Excuse me, but you're wrong. CDE, the standard UNIX and VMS desktop, based on (and tied into) Motif, has ToolTalk, which does the kind of "COM" stuff you're talking about, and has for years. ToolTalk is like CORBA, but more lightweight and nicer in many ways.
You need to check your facts. The fact you're ignorant doesn't give you an excuse to spew this blather.
That's right, change it. Motif uses Xt, which means you can use resources, and you can use them to do amazing things--if you want round buttons, if you want to get rid of the 3D look, if you want all your buttons to have a marble texture and all your scrollbars to be wood, you can do it. Motif is not ugly--it's the default look that you think is ugly. If you don't like it, edit a resource file and voila! It will look the way you want it to look.
That was the leap back. It was the leap back because since Sam and Al got switched, Sam got to go back to the future for an episode, meet his forgotten wife, etc.
As of your post, your idea has become public domain. Sorry.
I originally was a GNU/GPL believer. They have a way with words and a way of building convincing arguments. But I'm sick and tired of the fanaticism, the anti-corporatism, and the hours and hours of rhetoric on something that is essentially just a set of tools.
The people who set this up need to learn that when you want people to agree with you, you shouldn't mix political issues. If you want people to sign this petition, make it JUST the one issue, and people like me won't get pissed off when you (indirectly) bring up an entirely different issue by calling it 'GNU/Linux', which is NOT the standard accepted term.
In "The Leap Back" didn't Al send one of these to the future via post to get Ziggy to open the doors to the holographic chamber (or whatever it was called)?
Come on, this guy posted asking whether we'd shell out $600 to see his unit...
However, Clinton recently (within the last year) made a statement to the effect a scaled down version of Star Wars was in the works. This is in violation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty of 1972, in which the US and the USSR agreed the largest anti-missile system either one would develop would be to protect one (1) city, e.g. Moscow or Washington.
Needless to say, Russia isn't happy about Clinton making statements to the effect he's going to violate this treaty (I'm sure they weren't too happy about Reagan doing it either, of course). As a result, when they agreed to a recent big nuclear arms reduction treaty, the name of which escapes me, a couple of weeks ago, Putin announced that if the US persisted in violating the ABM treaty of 1972, Russia would pull out of every arms treaty it has entered into.
The point of the ABM treaty, if it's not obvious, is that if a country were to successfully develop such a system, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction would be rendered completely null and void, thus allowing for destruction of at least half industrialized world. And it would be even worse if a country unsuccessfully developed such a system; such a confident country could launch an attack and then find its system fails defending against the counterattack, in which case there would be 100% destruction rather than just 50%.
There is still a great deal of hostility between Russia and the US, and in many ways Russia's current rule is the same as it was, under a new name. As a result, there are still a lot of worries about restarting an arms race. If the US is smart, it will not violate the ABM treaty--therefore, if the US is smart, Star Wars is gone for good.
Hmm, I think I missed the point there, I thought that was a reference to Geordi's blindness and the ability to use speech synthesis on digitized text for the visually impaired. Which is an interesting argument for putting books online, in any case.
Am I wrong here?
Second, books have this thing called copyright, that I know Stallman doesn't agree with, but right now you can't copy real books. You can pass them around, but no more than one person can have a real book at once. You can't xerox them legally and give them out. But even if you do, there's a limited number of people you can give them to. So copying regular old books isn't as big a deal. eBooks, on the other hand, have an infinite distribution radius (well, at least to everyone on the Internet). Thus, who is going to pay for them? Everyone will just get them free. The same thing may eventually happen with mp3 (I know several people who have dozens or hundreds of songs without owning the CDs).
One point that Stallman and his anti-intellectual-property cronies seem to miss is this: A) AUTHORS/MUSICIANS/EVERYONE HAVE TO EAT. B) YOU CAN'T SELL SUPPORT FOR BOOKS AND MUSIC (and it's not clear you can make money selling support for software, either, even after all the big talk about it)
These people run around claiming they're not communists. Well, guess what, capitalism depends on intellectual property. If there's no intellectual property, all creative/scientific works have to be done for the fun of it by hobbyists. Remember, these people are now going to be spending most of their time WORKING IN COAL MINES because there is no money to be made from free information. So when these people get home from their long day at the coal mine, they are of course going to fire up their fancy new multi-GHz computer and write a ton of free software/write a book/write music, whatever, right? NO, they're going to go to SLEEP, because they're tired from their MENIAL LABOUR, which is the ONLY WAY TO MAKE MONEY WHEN THERE'S NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
All this crap about "information should be free" is bullshit. You want to make some information free, fine. But for the sake of everyone, do it BSD style, not GPL style. And don't whine because all information isn't free.
Be careful what you wish for; you may be working in a coal mine someday (even though your costs are dramatically cut by the free availability of music, books, and everything else that comes from peoples' minds, although all of it will be thirty years old)
Just a thought (somewhat OT I guess)
The way to do it is to write your local press--newspapers, TV stations, etc. If you can do that, maybe you can get some reporters involved, some articles published and stories done. By getting local people involved, you are helping to ensure that by the time Pinkerton gets to your town, they won't have much hope. The more this happens around the country, the less hope Pinkerton will have of expanding, and the more awareness will be raised in North Carolina as well.
Thanks Jon.
Esther Dyson is the only person in the world who can log onto IRC and say "I 0wN j00" ... and be right?
It's easy to defend against these things; we just need to develop a new kind of corbomite device that sends the "email bomb" back at the sender 10 fold when it explodes! Of course, a beowulf cluster of these could cause a bit of a Strangelove effect...
You must be on the right track!
Wow, first Slashdot, now Mir tourism. What will come out of that place next?
I'm tired of Unix getting beat up on by you people because it's not open source when you turn around and say "Hey, BeOS, cool!"
Give me a break. There's nothing "movement-like" about mp3s.
Many times when I've spent over 36 hours mudding without sleep, I have a natural inclination to type "open door" when I want to open a door, "eat cheese" when I want to eat a cheese, etc. When are these homes going to be smart enough to do that?
The Fugitive was a long running and excellent TV series before it was ever a film. The film was based on the series.
I like open source software as much as the next guy--it's great to have access to the code, as a programmer. It's also nice to get things free of charge. But one thing we have to admit is that Linux isn't anywhere near the point at which it can rival any of the major Unix systems in actual performance. Maybe some day it will be, I'm not sure. The major benefit of Linux (to businesses) seems to be cost at the moment. So why are you all so happy about a Unix system dying? Can't open source co-exist with these other things? Especially when Unix is so damned good.
And another thing. I don't think I'd personally want to see Linux do better than all the Unix systems, or even equal them. Because if it equals them, but it's free of charge, it will beat them. A world where there's only one operating system is not a world in which I'd want to use computers. When we have just one operating system, we have no competition, and most of the drive for innovation is lost, plus there's nowhere to run if you don't like something. I've always thought Unix fragmentation was a good thing, not bad.
I'm not about to start arguing the virtues of non-open source software; I do like and use open source software every day. But when I first started using it, I really thought it was absurd that anyone took software so seriously as to think there should be this whole philosophy surrounding it. I mean, it's just software. It's a tool. And having a philosophy about it is like having a philosophy about a screwdriver. (I know I'm going to get attacked for that) In any case, the way this relates to the story is that I think a lot of the reason so many people are posting so happy about this is that they're like "Oh, great, another piece of proprietary software dead!"
I find this really, really sad. I love and respect Unix.
Flame me as much as you want, but I am one of the few Linux users who really really loves and respects the CDE--because unlike most Linux users, I took the time to learn about the technology behind it instead of just saying "Oh, it's proprietary, it must be evil" ... I have yet to see one Linux user explain why CDE's technology is bad, but I see them every day talking ignorantly about it and making tons of false statements about it... why? Because it's proprietary, I assume. But I think it's a really good product, and, like Unix, it's irrational and sad to want it to die because you can't see the code (when you probably wouldn't use it anyway) and cause you have to pay some money for it.
I like open source software. But I don't believe the "philosophy". I like Unix too. I like a lot of technology, open source or not. Why do we have to do this? Why does there have to be such enmity toward stuff like this?
When I see IBM, SCO, SGI & co chasing after Linux, it sickens and saddens me. Not because I don't like Linux, but because I love Unix. I want these things to co-exist. I don't want one of them, driven by cost and massive hype, to kill all the others. If anyone should be pro-choice in operating systems, it should be Linux people.
I just don't understand.