See, you say that, and I read it on my IBM monitor, with signal provided to it by my CentOS box. I haven't seen an IBM ad for years, and I've NEVER seen advertising for Linux
While I agree with your sentiment--that even without marketing really useful inventions will still sell--it is not fair to say that IBM doesn't use marketing just because you haven't seen an ad. There's a lot more to marketing than a TV spot or a billboard. IBM's marketing is likely salesrep-to-CEO in style. The big, stupid slideshow-heavy presentations where buzzwords are tossed around as if they mean something are also marketing, are often designed by or done by marketers and result in sales.
Javascript is a fine language given a bad name because
- serious programmers don't program for the web
- amateurs do what serious programmers won't and do it *really badly*
The result is a lot of shitty javascript programs and JS getting a bad name for being shitty. It's not the language, it's the programmers!
This situation has vastly improved over the last 5-7 years. Serious programmers started using JS, or in some cases amateurs figured out how to be real programmers.
Javascript is/scheme with a C syntax/. Really. It's also more popular than scheme ever was (or is ever likely to be). It's a fine, fine language and is not going to go away in the foreseeable future--certainly not for at least 10 years.
How about you don't store your passwords in your scripts? Config files are where you want this kind of thing. I recommend a hashed passsword stored in YAML.
Windows 9x and ME were versioned as well. I forget the exact numbers, but Wikipedia says:
Windows 4.00.950 aka Windows 95 Windows 4.10.1998 aka Windows 98 Windows 4.90.3000 aka Windows ME
And, the NT progression goes like this:
Windows NT 3.1 Windows NT 3.51 Windows NT 4.0 Windows NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000 Windows NT 5.1 aka Windows XP Windows NT 6.0 aka Windows Vista Windows NT 6.1 aka Windows 7
The article mentioned some of this, but not all of it.
What has this got to do with the topic? (Inb4 "You must be new here," check the uid.)
The issue here seems to be that because most browser vendors say "We wont implement Theora natively" the spec writers are saying "Then we can't have it in the spec." This seems crazy to me! They should put Theora in the spec, not because the browsers are going to implement it anyway, and not because it will force the browsers to use it. The poster repeatedly says that the browser vendors cannot be forced by the spec, as if this was ever in doubt! You put it in the spec because that way Microsoft Internet Explorer is/non conformant/, and so that we can all say this to our PHBs. The spec cannot pressure Microsoft or Apple, but their/customers/ can demand spec conformance. If you don't put it in the spec you undermine our efforts.
The accepted way to do this is with JPEG + RAR. rar files with a garbage header are valid, jpegs with garbage at the end are valid. You simply rar your data, make a simple jpeg, cat simple.jpg data.rar > innocent.jpg and then upload.
We already know exactly how this will go. RS already bans certain types of 'objectionable' porn, so such material is routinely uploaded as password protected RARs. The intended audience does not report it, so it remains up.
AD is best only if you mean it's easy for a monkey to do the initial setup. If you want robustness, scalability and maintainability you will find nearly everything else is better.
If you're not going with a F/OSS DS, eDirectory is the product to buy. By itself it's great, with Novell's other tools it's even better. And it supports Windows clients, so no trouble there. If you're thinking "A directory server is a directory server, AD is good enough"--DON'T think this. There is such as thing as better and eDir is it, vs. AD or OLDAP.
However I didn't know how to direct Linux to use the second drive as the user directory. I found out later that the fstab file has to be edited, but that's it, I still don't know how to edit it.
Get an IRC client, connect to irc.freenode.net and/join the ##linux channel. Someone there will walk you through the process; it's not difficult.
I'm not sure why this is so obvious to everyone as an ethical proposition. If I want to show someone my family vacation photos, I feel like it's quite proper for me to say "look but don't copy" -- same for a draft of a novel I'm writing or a short piece of music I've composed.
Since you have no right in the first place to demand that someone send you a stream of bytes at all, it seems to me quite obvious that you have no right to require that they not attach conditions to those bytes. This reasoning is known in legal circles as a maiore ad minus -- from the stronger unto the weaker. If the BBC can refuse to give you the bytes in at all, they can give you the right to read the bytes but not copy them.
The difference is that with a digital item the BBC is already giving me a copy. If you give me a copy of a manuscript to a book you've written you might say "Give it back when you're finished." You might also say "Don't publish this." Fine. But you still gave me a copy. Can you say "Don't keep this in a safe"? Can you say "Store only in a filing cabinete"? Can you say "Destroy after reading"? Can you say "Show this to no one else"? These questions are directly comparable to the digital case.
If you stream bytes to me, you gave me a copy. I have a copy. You can say "Store only in RAM", perhaps, or "Destroy after reading", but you can't say "Don't copy"--you already gave me a copy.
Copyright ought not to control when and how I can consume the copy I buy. If I buy your book, can you stipulate that I may only read it in the evening? Once the BBC sells me a copy of their work I ought to be able to view it when I want, independent of whether I have a currently active internet connection. If they want me to view it only immediately they ought to make me sign a contract to that effect. Either way, if I do not do as they wish that ought to be (legally) my problem, not the problem of any tool-maker. Gunsmiths aren't prosecuted for murder when a hand gun they sold shoots someone, neither should circumvention tool authors be prosecuted when tools they made are used for their intended purposes.
Though I do have some problems with copyright as such, I have more problems with the uneven way in which it is 'enforced' when it comes to digital works. Why should the rules be so much more strict for digital than non-digital?
Threads do go on interesting tangents, as you say, but since his was the first post in the thread he is likely to be on topic unless the post clearly indicates otherwise. I do not take the evidence you site as an indication that Linux in general was his intended topic. I interpreted his statements as no worse than hyperbole combined with some mild. flame bait, which I think is reasonable.
Code for Linux and open source in general is often contributed by people who are not employed as software developers, also known as amateurs. A lot of FOSS developers are touchy and will not engage in a conversation about the quality of their code, instead they just stop replying. To say that FOSS development takes place outside the normal disciplines of IT is fundamentally true (and often a good thing). Have you ever tried getting a FOSS developer to write documentation they weren't planning on writing anyway?
These are not problems that are specific to Desktop Linux, but they certainly apply to it and are therefore valid criticisms. I don't see a problem with the OP, except exaggeration and omission.
All comments are assumed to be about the article by default. If someone replies to an article about Linux on the desktop and talks about Linux I assume he is talking about Linux on the desktop. Why would you assume anything else?
I read the OP. Nothing in it implies that he was talking outside the scope of the subject of the article. Must we all qualify all of our references to Linux with "on the desktop", even though the page title and the linked article have already clearly set the subject? This would be redundant and it is quite strange for you to expect it.
The GP made no specific reference to desktop versus server versions of Linux, but instead talked up how it was a hobby OS with people who would stop coding it if their feelings were hurt.
Excuse me, but the entire FA was about Desktop Linux. What did you think we were talking about?
Being an ass about it was a mistake, but so would be complying with their unreasonable requests. Politely declining their unreasonably requests and allaying their reasonable suspicions in an anonymous manner would be the appropriate action until a real cop arrives. Then, do as others have advised when dealing with cops.
I envision a manga series in which everyone is obsessed with databases and SQL queries, in the style of (say) Hikaru no Go. The part that's hard to decide is where to take the plot: Defeat a giant mega-corporation by selecting the right datasets at the right time? Find love with carefully crafted nested selects? Fight invading aliens? Cast spells? It hardly matters, it would be fun.
This is no different from The Power Rangers and other kid shows in the US.
You don't know how right you are: Power Rangers is based on some dumb Japanese kids show.
I do think a lot of the recent stuff coming out from Japan is crap. It has mostly been loli shows about little school girls and harems. But once in a while you can find a good show suitable for adults.
And then you have things in between, like Haruhi. Can you really enjoy it without being a Japanophile (or otherwise conversant with typical Anime cliches)? I don't know. But, if you are somewhat familiar with the style, it's good.
I'd like to take a moment to recommend Trigun to anyone who is non-hostile to Anime and wants something that isn't just for kids. It's fun, but not completely frivolous, is available on DVD in the USA for cheap, will introduce you to a lot of the style of Anime without bombarding you with too many in-jokes, and it's deep enough that you might enjoy it. It's a one-season show if 26 episodes (IIRC), nicely self contained unlike a Ranma/Dragonball/Naruto/One Piece/etc/etc..
I can also recommend the well-known Cowboy Bebop for many of the same reasons. It might be a bit hard to follow, but a lot of Anime is like that in that it sometimes expects the audience to infer things on their own. But, everybody recommends Cowboy Bebop.
If you want to jump in the deep end of weird... try Bobobo-bo Bobobo or Excel Saga, but you may not find them funny.
Slashdot Mirror
See, you say that, and I read it on my IBM monitor, with signal provided to it by my CentOS box. I haven't seen an IBM ad for years, and I've NEVER seen advertising for Linux
While I agree with your sentiment--that even without marketing really useful inventions will still sell--it is not fair to say that IBM doesn't use marketing just because you haven't seen an ad. There's a lot more to marketing than a TV spot or a billboard. IBM's marketing is likely salesrep-to-CEO in style. The big, stupid slideshow-heavy presentations where buzzwords are tossed around as if they mean something are also marketing, are often designed by or done by marketers and result in sales.
Javascript is a fine language given a bad name because
- serious programmers don't program for the web
- amateurs do what serious programmers won't and do it *really badly*
The result is a lot of shitty javascript programs and JS getting a bad name for being shitty. It's not the language, it's the programmers!
This situation has vastly improved over the last 5-7 years. Serious programmers started using JS, or in some cases amateurs figured out how to be real programmers.
Javascript is /scheme with a C syntax/. Really. It's also more popular than scheme ever was (or is ever likely to be). It's a fine, fine language and is not going to go away in the foreseeable future--certainly not for at least 10 years.
Flash == shitty web design.
There, fixed it for ya.
How about you don't store your passwords in your scripts? Config files are where you want this kind of thing. I recommend a hashed passsword stored in YAML.
You could do it like that:
while read host ; do dig $host ; done foo.iplist
But the output is ugly as sin.
What you and the article do not mention is this:
Windows 9x and ME were versioned as well. I forget the exact numbers, but Wikipedia says:
Windows 4.00.950 aka Windows 95
Windows 4.10.1998 aka Windows 98
Windows 4.90.3000 aka Windows ME
And, the NT progression goes like this:
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 aka Windows 2000
Windows NT 5.1 aka Windows XP
Windows NT 6.0 aka Windows Vista
Windows NT 6.1 aka Windows 7
The article mentioned some of this, but not all of it.
X is one of the few things on which most people in the Linux (and BSD) world can agree. Why change that?
What has this got to do with the topic? (Inb4 "You must be new here," check the uid.)
The issue here seems to be that because most browser vendors say "We wont implement Theora natively" the spec writers are saying "Then we can't have it in the spec." This seems crazy to me! They should put Theora in the spec, not because the browsers are going to implement it anyway, and not because it will force the browsers to use it. The poster repeatedly says that the browser vendors cannot be forced by the spec, as if this was ever in doubt! You put it in the spec because that way Microsoft Internet Explorer is /non conformant/, and so that we can all say this to our PHBs. The spec cannot pressure Microsoft or Apple, but their /customers/ can demand spec conformance. If you don't put it in the spec you undermine our efforts.
For a JPEG+RAR just pass the file through unrar. You may rename the extension first if you prefer.
The accepted way to do this is with JPEG + RAR. rar files with a garbage header are valid, jpegs with garbage at the end are valid. You simply rar your data, make a simple jpeg, cat simple.jpg data.rar > innocent.jpg and then upload.
We already know exactly how this will go. RS already bans certain types of 'objectionable' porn, so such material is routinely uploaded as password protected RARs. The intended audience does not report it, so it remains up.
Or you could just sudo -s
You have got to be kidding.
AD is best only if you mean it's easy for a monkey to do the initial setup. If you want robustness, scalability and maintainability you will find nearly everything else is better.
Second!
If you're not going with a F/OSS DS, eDirectory is the product to buy. By itself it's great, with Novell's other tools it's even better. And it supports Windows clients, so no trouble there. If you're thinking "A directory server is a directory server, AD is good enough"--DON'T think this. There is such as thing as better and eDir is it, vs. AD or OLDAP.
You can LDAP query AD like my moped can race in the Indy 500.
However I didn't know how to direct Linux to use the second drive as the user directory. I found out later that the fstab file has to be edited, but that's it, I still don't know how to edit it.
Get an IRC client, connect to irc.freenode.net and /join the ##linux channel. Someone there will walk you through the process; it's not difficult.
I'd mod you plus one million if I could, but today I have no mod points.
Very well put.
I'm not sure why this is so obvious to everyone as an ethical proposition. If I want to show someone my family vacation photos, I feel like it's quite proper for me to say "look but don't copy" -- same for a draft of a novel I'm writing or a short piece of music I've composed.
Since you have no right in the first place to demand that someone send you a stream of bytes at all, it seems to me quite obvious that you have no right to require that they not attach conditions to those bytes. This reasoning is known in legal circles as a maiore ad minus -- from the stronger unto the weaker. If the BBC can refuse to give you the bytes in at all, they can give you the right to read the bytes but not copy them.
The difference is that with a digital item the BBC is already giving me a copy. If you give me a copy of a manuscript to a book you've written you might say "Give it back when you're finished." You might also say "Don't publish this." Fine. But you still gave me a copy. Can you say "Don't keep this in a safe"? Can you say "Store only in a filing cabinete"? Can you say "Destroy after reading"? Can you say "Show this to no one else"? These questions are directly comparable to the digital case.
If you stream bytes to me, you gave me a copy. I have a copy. You can say "Store only in RAM", perhaps, or "Destroy after reading", but you can't say "Don't copy"--you already gave me a copy.
Copyright ought not to control when and how I can consume the copy I buy. If I buy your book, can you stipulate that I may only read it in the evening? Once the BBC sells me a copy of their work I ought to be able to view it when I want, independent of whether I have a currently active internet connection. If they want me to view it only immediately they ought to make me sign a contract to that effect. Either way, if I do not do as they wish that ought to be (legally) my problem, not the problem of any tool-maker. Gunsmiths aren't prosecuted for murder when a hand gun they sold shoots someone, neither should circumvention tool authors be prosecuted when tools they made are used for their intended purposes.
Though I do have some problems with copyright as such, I have more problems with the uneven way in which it is 'enforced' when it comes to digital works. Why should the rules be so much more strict for digital than non-digital?
Threads do go on interesting tangents, as you say, but since his was the first post in the thread he is likely to be on topic unless the post clearly indicates otherwise. I do not take the evidence you site as an indication that Linux in general was his intended topic. I interpreted his statements as no worse than hyperbole combined with some mild. flame bait, which I think is reasonable.
Code for Linux and open source in general is often contributed by people who are not employed as software developers, also known as amateurs. A lot of FOSS developers are touchy and will not engage in a conversation about the quality of their code, instead they just stop replying. To say that FOSS development takes place outside the normal disciplines of IT is fundamentally true (and often a good thing). Have you ever tried getting a FOSS developer to write documentation they weren't planning on writing anyway?
These are not problems that are specific to Desktop Linux, but they certainly apply to it and are therefore valid criticisms. I don't see a problem with the OP, except exaggeration and omission.
All comments are assumed to be about the article by default. If someone replies to an article about Linux on the desktop and talks about Linux I assume he is talking about Linux on the desktop. Why would you assume anything else?
I read the OP. Nothing in it implies that he was talking outside the scope of the subject of the article. Must we all qualify all of our references to Linux with "on the desktop", even though the page title and the linked article have already clearly set the subject? This would be redundant and it is quite strange for you to expect it.
The GP made no specific reference to desktop versus server versions of Linux, but instead talked up how it was a hobby OS with people who would stop coding it if their feelings were hurt.
Excuse me, but the entire FA was about Desktop Linux. What did you think we were talking about?
You'd like it to be so, but it isn't.
When you buy the game you are buying a license to the game software and you get some associated media for free. Everything else is copyright.
Being an ass about it was a mistake, but so would be complying with their unreasonable requests. Politely declining their unreasonably requests and allaying their reasonable suspicions in an anonymous manner would be the appropriate action until a real cop arrives. Then, do as others have advised when dealing with cops.
I envision a manga series in which everyone is obsessed with databases and SQL queries, in the style of (say) Hikaru no Go. The part that's hard to decide is where to take the plot: Defeat a giant mega-corporation by selecting the right datasets at the right time? Find love with carefully crafted nested selects? Fight invading aliens? Cast spells? It hardly matters, it would be fun.
This is no different from The Power Rangers and other kid shows in the US.
You don't know how right you are: Power Rangers is based on some dumb Japanese kids show.
I do think a lot of the recent stuff coming out from Japan is crap. It has mostly been loli shows about little school girls and harems. But once in a while you can find a good show suitable for adults.
And then you have things in between, like Haruhi. Can you really enjoy it without being a Japanophile (or otherwise conversant with typical Anime cliches)? I don't know. But, if you are somewhat familiar with the style, it's good.
I'd like to take a moment to recommend Trigun to anyone who is non-hostile to Anime and wants something that isn't just for kids. It's fun, but not completely frivolous, is available on DVD in the USA for cheap, will introduce you to a lot of the style of Anime without bombarding you with too many in-jokes, and it's deep enough that you might enjoy it. It's a one-season show if 26 episodes (IIRC), nicely self contained unlike a Ranma/Dragonball/Naruto/One Piece/etc/etc..
I can also recommend the well-known Cowboy Bebop for many of the same reasons. It might be a bit hard to follow, but a lot of Anime is like that in that it sometimes expects the audience to infer things on their own. But, everybody recommends Cowboy Bebop.
If you want to jump in the deep end of weird... try Bobobo-bo Bobobo or Excel Saga, but you may not find them funny.