This certainly stings. I'm just getting up ~12:54pm because I was up till 4:30am last night learning how to use Blender. I've been meaning to tool around with it for quite some time and finally got the chance. I must have gone through every tutorial on they're web site (which had not been updated yet). Never mind that last week I bought The Official Blender 2.0 guide for $50!
The same thing happened when I found an interest in Broadcast 2000. As soon as I decided to spend some time with it they pulled it from their site! Quite frustrating!
If any of you are running late model, production Red Hat servers for any purpose, I expect you probably heard about this way before today.
Users of Red Hat Linux 7.1, or 7.2 should update to the currently released kernel errata RHSA-2002-028 (2.4.9-31) which already contains this fix.
Kernel 2.4.9-31 was released by Red Hat well over a week ago. There were patches released for earlier distros as well. If you're not using the up2date program to perform system updates then you should at least be using it to check when packages become available.
So, yes, there is a problem with zlib. But if you have good administrative practices you have either taken care of this already, or have a formulated plan to deal with it. Either way, this should not be news to a decent Red Hat administrator.
Congratulations. That was your third post ever, and you're still a fucking moron. That post will, however, still look interesting to potential moderators. So since it's 3:49am and I'm an insomniac so lemme do the work for you. MODERATORS: Read this before modding the parent, and I could care less about my own karma, but don't mod this down. Other moderators need to see this as well.
Post 1 He actually seems to know what he's talking about, but it's rare that someone not in the codec industry to know this much about codecs. This is most likely the search-copy-paste routine: Google the current story, clip what you find, post a reply. As proof, read his post and then read this. It's a direct rip.
Post 2 Wow! That's some heavy code he displays as a "hack I devised". Well then he may want to take a look here because it displays the exact same code. Somehow I don't think they are the ones performing the ripoff. Another classic search-copy-paste routine. He also makes references to coding a "next-gen" game engine for Cinemaware. Why? So they can make better versions of Wings, Defender of the Crown, and The Three Stooges?
Post 3 Off the bat it seems he's getting lazy. There don't seem to be any outside sources "cited". But he makes a fatal flaw and shows he's just a simple idiot, claiming to rm -rf/ any offending mail server he chooses. That's not even worth the time to debunk.
If there ever was a good example of who to add to your Foe list, this is it. Yeah, I'm probably an idiot for even bothering with this, but I already do origami and listen to George Michael so why not nail the coffin shut.
Well, someone is paying heavy attention to access to that site. Hitting that site causes tronkillerapp.com and hitbox.com to attempt to lay *seven* different cookies, high considering there are no adverts on that page.
Once you answer the question, it attempts to lay *nine* more cookies, and still no adverts. Aurgueable, of course, that the whole site is an advert, but 16 cookies means somebody is extremely interested.
This system doesn't allow you to display stored images on the board, only to record what you have drawn on the board. I.E. - your idea of digitally keeping track of player movement would work, but you'd have to roll out a hard copy map over the board, which would still be pretty cool. Or, if you have the bucks, I guess you could mount an LCD projector overhead to display your maps.
I don't see you offering a better, or even different solution at all, so it's hard for me to take you seriously. You haven't even experienced the new format yet and you're already bitching. I assume you're pretty heavy handed with preconception in other aspects of your life as well. No really, it's OK. Most other people are like that so why shouldn't you be?
Seriously. They could've just posted "Slashdot is now taking subscriptions" and everything below that really wouldn't matter. Everyone has already come up with their own idea of how much this place is going to suck before it has even happened. What a waste.
By describing your own living situation you actually help justify the case for subscriptions. You admit yourself that with your allotted income you can only afford so much and live so long. That happens to be exactly what the SlashOps are saying. You can't yell at someone for relying on monetary income because you have to do the same. And that line "that information and news should be free, just like code"? Please. You act like you won't be able to view Slashdot unless you pay. It's not the news and information you would be paying for, it's the services of Slashdot itself in putting it all together. A service which I have been more then pleased with for quite a while.
Honestly, I too am skeptical about the new system, but I'm keeping an open mind and waiting to see the actual product. It's my opinion that everyone else should wait-n-see as well, because untill then it's all just preconception.
Here's a quick one. In 1991 Brent Spiner, of Cmdr. Data fame on ST:TNG, released an album titled Ol' Yellow Eyes is Back. It was a very short run and only a limited number of copies were produced. It *was* put in reprint in 1994, but that was also a limited run. Since hearing of this album in ~1996 I have been on a warpath looking for a copy by any means needed.
Essentially, I am a consumer in need of a product. Is it around for me to purchase? No. Is this still copyrighted material? Yes. Will I download it the first damn chance I get. You freakin' bet. If the album is not in production any more then neither the label nor artist will be making money on any more sales, as they will be used. I would gladly purchase a used copy (in good condition, of course), but they are nowhere to be found.
This is one example. The same goes for an album by Symbiosis that I have been tracking down, and there are many more that aren't in production any more but would be illegal to download. How in the hell am I supposed to get this music? To me this is the biggest train that the RIAA/MPAA is missing.
(PS - If anyone happens to have a copy of Ol' Yellow Eyes this is an open invitation to contact me. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more)
The poeple that use Maya (full version) fall into one of the following catagories:
Professional in the industry
Hard-core hobbyist
Small time hobbyinst with to much money to spend
Warez junky
Most small time 3D hobbyists will not be using Maya because it is way out of their league as far as price in concerned. I am a big fan of Truespace because it can be had for less than $500 and does nearly everything I enjoy doing in 3D. Having a free version of Maya available lets me see what I can do with pro tools. Who knows, maybe I'd change careers.
As for stopping piracy, I don't think for one second that a pirate will choose to use this "demo" instead of downloading a full version.
I don't think a pirate will make that decision either, but I think it will keep potential pirates from downloading a warez full copy. If a lesser version is available for free it is much easier to get then warez. You could argue 'tasting the goods' will lead people to want the full version, but again nobody is going to change a pirate's ways. What this does do very well for A|W is give them clout in any potential court case. Cripled or not, there's a version of Maya for anyone who wants to use it. Remember, it's not your right to run Maya any way you see fit. They're just trying to introduce their product to "potentials".
What a lot of bitching going on in here. Get some coffee, eat a twinkie and lets break this down.
A full version can cost over $6,000. How many of us are going to legally purchase a full copy of Maya for home use? Only those who are serious about getting into the field of 3D would consider that. Now, how many of us are interested in production quality 3D and would like to play with the toys the pros use? I certainly am, and I bet there are a lot of others.
So Alias|Wavefront makes a killer move and covers a lot of ground by making this free version available. First, it makes available to us a close-to-the-original free copy of Maya for home/non-commercial use. More people than ever will be able to see what Maya is all about and perhaps become interested in a career in 3D. Second, they keep it far enough away from their full version to keep their customers happy. If you were a paying customer who just bought Maya for >$6,000 and suddenly it was free, wouldn't you be a bit upset? Third, they kill any legit reason for Maya to hit the warez circuit. The usual excuse is "If it wasn't so expensive we wouldn't have to pirate it!" and now it no longer works. If you're that serious about 3D you either have an employer who uses Maya or you will get it yourself. If you're just a home hobbyist now you've got your version too.
Yes, it's cripled, and no, there's no Linux version (WTF are you thinking A|W?). But before now it was either the full version or nothing. Just because they didn't release it under the GPL (yeah, right), or they left out some features doesn't give anyone here much right to bitch-n-moan.
Seriously, this is greatly needed. The director's cut DVD comes across as a template based, thrown-together piece of crap. The movie itself is fine but they paid zero attention unique menus, special features or anything else. Oh wait, it has scene selection... gee wiz.
What I would like to see is packaging similar to the Brazil collector's edition: It has THREE DVDs:
- Original theatrical release
- Terry Gilliam's intended release
- An entire disc of extras
Maybe there isn't enough behing-the-scenes footage to support extra material, but damnit the menus could be more then texture maps.
After reading the article this whole thing sounds like how they currently rate cell phone time. Just swap out minute for mile and it's the exact same concept:
A charge per N durring peak hours
A lesser charge per N durring off-peak hours
An (area|block) of no charge
Perhaps they could get some pointers directly from the cell phone industry? If you take this to where cells are today, you can already see the deals: Act now and get 500 anytime miles/month! Stop by your local BP station and purchase your MyMiles(c) prepaid miles card today!
It is an interesting question. Are the downloads part of a tangible "thing" that can be transfered? Currently, if I sell you a CD then you get every benifit that was originally available to me. But what if I sold you a bag of half eaten candy? You certainly aren't going to experience everything I did. But is the candy distributor to blame for that? (Could I have made a poorer analogy?)
Are we, as consumers, free to sell products we originally purchased and transfer their entire worth to the purchaser? Conversely, are we, as purchasers, entitled to expect the entire value of products we purchase second hand?
This is not meant as a direct flame, only a general response.
I am completely happy that you have a job that you love. I also have a job that I love. It makes it tough to think that when I move on I most likely will not be able to find a job that I like as much as this one. This job provides me with people I like and that like me, fresh challenges that are fun to solve, and general work that I find engaging. Of course this job pays me (and not to bad), but money is low on my reasons for liking my job. I often go into the office well after hours to play with different ideas.
I would gladly forgo the large house or the expensive vehicle for a job that I love for these reasons. I am not in this industry to make money, I am in it because I love what I do. While your comments cannot be used as a direct reflection on Microsoft, it's interesting that you quickly jumped to monetary reasons for liking your job. A new truck, expensive house and good benefits can all be nice things, but they only display the quality of your job, not the quality of your work. Ask yourself if you would still be there if you made less money and had to drive an older car. Microsoft itself seems to be more interested in inacting world dominance then it is concerned with the quality of it's products. It could stand to reason that they try to keep that mentality within the company as well.
This probably paints a somewhat incorrect picture of you, and you're welcome to rebutle and say that you also enjoy other things about your job. But the deed is done and you've already given in to money as your first, instinctive reaction to why your job is good. No matter what I do for a living I want to be able to say I like it for it's inherent qualities, not because it makes me a lot of dough.
Such an explicit statement of inocence is an indirect statement of guilt. You're not worried about the FBI (or you wouldn't have posted at all or would have posted anonymously), you're just trying to look like a badd-ass. Trying...
When are people going to start taking pride in who they are, not who they try to make other people think they are?
Re:How completely totally absurd.
on
Linux on the iMac G4
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It would be very easy to agree with you, and in large part I do. In fact, knowing what I'm about to say, it would still be incredibly easy to just say "You're right" and move on.
But...
Consider this feat from something other than a practical use standpoint. Yes, OS X is a gorgeous, useable, practical operating system that is tailored to take the best advantage of Apple hardware. With it you can begin being extremely productive right out of the box. But at the same time you are agreeing to take the operating system they built and run it on the hardware they deem appropriate.
What putting Linux on the new iMac does, is show that there are some of us who are willing and want to try things our own way. Many times it may turn up nowhere near as usable as the original product, but "usable" is a very subjective term. It's about pushing limits and trying new things. It also sends a small message to manufacturers saying "Hey, you might have made a nice piece of equipment, but now it's my turn, and I'm going to try some tings my way."
It's a bit time consuming, but tar has been doing this job for me for a while. I finally (took me a long time, ok) created a working bootable linux CD that mounts my filesystems RO and tarballs the entire contents to a remote server. It takes about 1h20m to do a full backup.
After it finishes, I test software on the existing system. If it breaks I restore, if it doesn't I play-test it for a while and if it keeps behaving I commit it to the next full "state preservation".
The biggest drawback, of course, is that this sceme requires close to 1.5 hours of downtime for the backup and more if you need to restore. But for noncritical systems it works great.
There's a (somewhat) updated version of this in XP that lets you rollback to a previous existing state. However it's not perfect. The first time I installed XP Pro to test it at work I immediately grabed all the "critical updates" available. Well those "updates" ended up blowing out any and all TCP/IP stack functionality which rolling back could not fix. TCP/IP is considered a core component and is not included into the rollback information.
Interestingly enough, XP is very selective on what information it does include into rollback information. It will revert to old drivers, old registry keys (not all), but it will not uninstall software. Durring my rollback attempts XP broke my Nero installation.
Transactional filesystems would be fantastic I bet there are tons of little quirks to get around.
the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement!
I believe "here" was meant as "here at The Register", so it's a small matter of going to The Register's front door and doing a search for "Icaza". You'll probably be most interested in the threemostrecent articles. If you still can't find the connections, just look a little harder.
Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the.NET technology specifically for GNOME
Oh, don't be such a drama queen. You, me, and everyone else here know that's just silly and obviously unrealistic. Put your tinfoil hat back on and take some deep breathes.
Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model?
You can say a lot of horrible stuff about Microsoft, and in most cases they will deserve it. But just accept for a moment a difference between a security model and a security implementation. While it could easily be argued that their model may not be the best, Microsoft has generally had a bad history of implementing security. If the same model were given to a bunch of Linux zealots and a bunch of Microsoft suits, though both based on the same foundation, I think we can agree that our prized zealots would pull through with a better implementation. So, for me at least, it not that bad of a sin to praise their security model. I just wish they would follow through a little better.
On an OT note: If you really want to throw up, read this. Direct quote - "The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"
I KNOW. I screwed up. Myth is from Bungie and Warcraft is from Blizzard. I've just finished playing an epic 8 player Warcraft II game and had the name frickin' stuck in my head. Now that I've finished my Doritos I can think.
I meant to say Halo. Bits of code from Myth III may have found their way over to Halo. I know they're different in many respects, but there's a good chance that two projects being worked on side by side can share a lot of code. And since Micro$oft is the parent...
At the Myth Village fan site, there was a post to their forums detailing the termination of the entire Myth III team back in November. Part of the following discussion has posters pondering the possibility of turning it loose to the open source community. None of it involves any sort of official stance on the subject, but it's a quick interesting read anyway.
I image that it would be highly unlikely. Given that there are proprietary bits of code not being released with the Myth II server, and work is still continuing on Warcraft III, there may be some overlaping in the engines that they don't want to spill.
Now here's an interesting bit of history relating to IBM, punchcards, and the Holocaust:
IBM USA knew that its Hollerith machines were needed and used in concentration camps. IBM USA kept careful records of where its leased property was located and played an active role in servicing these machines, training its clients how to use them, and providing punch cards and other supplies. IBM USA's inventories of 1940 and 1941 indicate that the company knew which Hollerith machines were located in camps, along with their serial numbers and the amount they were being paid for the lease of each machine. At Dachau alone there were approximately 24 IBM sorters, tabulators and printers.
For more info, look here. The link is to a piece of commentary dated 2/19/01 posted on the site of a law firm specializing in class action law.
This may seem ultra low tech, but I've been able to get away with backing up extremely large ammounts of data using plain-jane removable hard drives. In one case I built an entire "backup server" who's only purpose in life was to have mass ammounts of removable storage and perform backups. Instead of shuffling tapes around we just shuffled (slightly larger) hard drives around.
We thought of using SCSI, but the cost/MB was to high. The server had a Promise UltraATA 100 card with four 40GB WD hard drives and a single 10GB WD hard drive on the on-board IDE for the op system. The case had 5 external bays, four housing the sleds for the 40GB drives and one held the CD-Rom. The 40GB drives were whipped up in RAID to create a single 120GB volume (last drive for parity)
I realize it's not really an enterprise class sollution, but it provided the fastest backup and restores for our money.
Slashdot Mirror
This certainly stings. I'm just getting up ~12:54pm because I was up till 4:30am last night learning how to use Blender. I've been meaning to tool around with it for quite some time and finally got the chance. I must have gone through every tutorial on they're web site (which had not been updated yet). Never mind that last week I bought The Official Blender 2.0 guide for $50!
The same thing happened when I found an interest in Broadcast 2000. As soon as I decided to spend some time with it they pulled it from their site! Quite frustrating!
If any of you are running late model, production Red Hat servers for any purpose, I expect you probably heard about this way before today.
Users of Red Hat Linux 7.1, or 7.2 should update to the currently released kernel errata RHSA-2002-028 (2.4.9-31) which already contains this fix.
Kernel 2.4.9-31 was released by Red Hat well over a week ago. There were patches released for earlier distros as well. If you're not using the up2date program to perform system updates then you should at least be using it to check when packages become available.
So, yes, there is a problem with zlib. But if you have good administrative practices you have either taken care of this already, or have a formulated plan to deal with it. Either way, this should not be news to a decent Red Hat administrator.
Congratulations. That was your third post ever, and you're still a fucking moron. That post will, however, still look interesting to potential moderators. So since it's 3:49am and I'm an insomniac so lemme do the work for you. MODERATORS: Read this before modding the parent, and I could care less about my own karma, but don't mod this down. Other moderators need to see this as well.
/ any offending mail server he chooses. That's not even worth the time to debunk.
Post 1
He actually seems to know what he's talking about, but it's rare that someone not in the codec industry to know this much about codecs. This is most likely the search-copy-paste routine: Google the current story, clip what you find, post a reply. As proof, read his post and then read this. It's a direct rip.
Post 2
Wow! That's some heavy code he displays as a "hack I devised". Well then he may want to take a look here because it displays the exact same code. Somehow I don't think they are the ones performing the ripoff. Another classic search-copy-paste routine. He also makes references to coding a "next-gen" game engine for Cinemaware. Why? So they can make better versions of Wings, Defender of the Crown, and The Three Stooges?
Post 3
Off the bat it seems he's getting lazy. There don't seem to be any outside sources "cited". But he makes a fatal flaw and shows he's just a simple idiot, claiming to rm -rf
If there ever was a good example of who to add to your Foe list, this is it. Yeah, I'm probably an idiot for even bothering with this, but I already do origami and listen to George Michael so why not nail the coffin shut.
Well, someone is paying heavy attention to access to that site. Hitting that site causes tronkillerapp.com and hitbox.com to attempt to lay *seven* different cookies, high considering there are no adverts on that page.
Once you answer the question, it attempts to lay *nine* more cookies, and still no adverts. Aurgueable, of course, that the whole site is an advert, but 16 cookies means somebody is extremely interested.
Next time, follow the links :P
This system doesn't allow you to display stored images on the board, only to record what you have drawn on the board. I.E. - your idea of digitally keeping track of player movement would work, but you'd have to roll out a hard copy map over the board, which would still be pretty cool. Or, if you have the bucks, I guess you could mount an LCD projector overhead to display your maps.
I don't see you offering a better, or even different solution at all, so it's hard for me to take you seriously. You haven't even experienced the new format yet and you're already bitching. I assume you're pretty heavy handed with preconception in other aspects of your life as well. No really, it's OK. Most other people are like that so why shouldn't you be?
Seriously. They could've just posted "Slashdot is now taking subscriptions" and everything below that really wouldn't matter. Everyone has already come up with their own idea of how much this place is going to suck before it has even happened. What a waste.
By describing your own living situation you actually help justify the case for subscriptions. You admit yourself that with your allotted income you can only afford so much and live so long. That happens to be exactly what the SlashOps are saying. You can't yell at someone for relying on monetary income because you have to do the same. And that line "that information and news should be free, just like code"? Please. You act like you won't be able to view Slashdot unless you pay. It's not the news and information you would be paying for, it's the services of Slashdot itself in putting it all together. A service which I have been more then pleased with for quite a while.
Honestly, I too am skeptical about the new system, but I'm keeping an open mind and waiting to see the actual product. It's my opinion that everyone else should wait-n-see as well, because untill then it's all just preconception.
I agree somwhat, with this to offer...
Here's a quick one. In 1991 Brent Spiner, of Cmdr. Data fame on ST:TNG, released an album titled Ol' Yellow Eyes is Back. It was a very short run and only a limited number of copies were produced. It *was* put in reprint in 1994, but that was also a limited run. Since hearing of this album in ~1996 I have been on a warpath looking for a copy by any means needed.
Essentially, I am a consumer in need of a product. Is it around for me to purchase? No. Is this still copyrighted material? Yes. Will I download it the first damn chance I get. You freakin' bet. If the album is not in production any more then neither the label nor artist will be making money on any more sales, as they will be used. I would gladly purchase a used copy (in good condition, of course), but they are nowhere to be found.
This is one example. The same goes for an album by Symbiosis that I have been tracking down, and there are many more that aren't in production any more but would be illegal to download. How in the hell am I supposed to get this music? To me this is the biggest train that the RIAA/MPAA is missing.
(PS - If anyone happens to have a copy of Ol' Yellow Eyes this is an open invitation to contact me. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more)
Most small time 3D hobbyists will not be using Maya because it is way out of their league as far as price in concerned. I am a big fan of Truespace because it can be had for less than $500 and does nearly everything I enjoy doing in 3D. Having a free version of Maya available lets me see what I can do with pro tools. Who knows, maybe I'd change careers.
As for stopping piracy, I don't think for one second that a pirate will choose to use this "demo" instead of downloading a full version.
I don't think a pirate will make that decision either, but I think it will keep potential pirates from downloading a warez full copy. If a lesser version is available for free it is much easier to get then warez. You could argue 'tasting the goods' will lead people to want the full version, but again nobody is going to change a pirate's ways. What this does do very well for A|W is give them clout in any potential court case. Cripled or not, there's a version of Maya for anyone who wants to use it. Remember, it's not your right to run Maya any way you see fit. They're just trying to introduce their product to "potentials".
What a lot of bitching going on in here. Get some coffee, eat a twinkie and lets break this down.
A full version can cost over $6,000. How many of us are going to legally purchase a full copy of Maya for home use? Only those who are serious about getting into the field of 3D would consider that. Now, how many of us are interested in production quality 3D and would like to play with the toys the pros use? I certainly am, and I bet there are a lot of others.
So Alias|Wavefront makes a killer move and covers a lot of ground by making this free version available. First, it makes available to us a close-to-the-original free copy of Maya for home/non-commercial use. More people than ever will be able to see what Maya is all about and perhaps become interested in a career in 3D. Second, they keep it far enough away from their full version to keep their customers happy. If you were a paying customer who just bought Maya for >$6,000 and suddenly it was free, wouldn't you be a bit upset? Third, they kill any legit reason for Maya to hit the warez circuit. The usual excuse is "If it wasn't so expensive we wouldn't have to pirate it!" and now it no longer works. If you're that serious about 3D you either have an employer who uses Maya or you will get it yourself. If you're just a home hobbyist now you've got your version too.
Yes, it's cripled, and no, there's no Linux version (WTF are you thinking A|W?). But before now it was either the full version or nothing. Just because they didn't release it under the GPL (yeah, right), or they left out some features doesn't give anyone here much right to bitch-n-moan.
Seriously, this is greatly needed. The director's cut DVD comes across as a template based, thrown-together piece of crap. The movie itself is fine but they paid zero attention unique menus, special features or anything else. Oh wait, it has scene selection... gee wiz.
What I would like to see is packaging similar to the Brazil collector's edition:
It has THREE DVDs:
- Original theatrical release
- Terry Gilliam's intended release
- An entire disc of extras
Maybe there isn't enough behing-the-scenes footage to support extra material, but damnit the menus could be more then texture maps.
Perhaps they could get some pointers directly from the cell phone industry? If you take this to where cells are today, you can already see the deals: Act now and get 500 anytime miles/month! Stop by your local BP station and purchase your MyMiles(c) prepaid miles card today!
It is an interesting question. Are the downloads part of a tangible "thing" that can be transfered? Currently, if I sell you a CD then you get every benifit that was originally available to me. But what if I sold you a bag of half eaten candy? You certainly aren't going to experience everything I did. But is the candy distributor to blame for that? (Could I have made a poorer analogy?)
Are we, as consumers, free to sell products we originally purchased and transfer their entire worth to the purchaser? Conversely, are we, as purchasers, entitled to expect the entire value of products we purchase second hand?
This is not meant as a direct flame, only a general response.
I am completely happy that you have a job that you love. I also have a job that I love. It makes it tough to think that when I move on I most likely will not be able to find a job that I like as much as this one. This job provides me with people I like and that like me, fresh challenges that are fun to solve, and general work that I find engaging. Of course this job pays me (and not to bad), but money is low on my reasons for liking my job. I often go into the office well after hours to play with different ideas.
I would gladly forgo the large house or the expensive vehicle for a job that I love for these reasons. I am not in this industry to make money, I am in it because I love what I do. While your comments cannot be used as a direct reflection on Microsoft, it's interesting that you quickly jumped to monetary reasons for liking your job. A new truck, expensive house and good benefits can all be nice things, but they only display the quality of your job, not the quality of your work. Ask yourself if you would still be there if you made less money and had to drive an older car. Microsoft itself seems to be more interested in inacting world dominance then it is concerned with the quality of it's products. It could stand to reason that they try to keep that mentality within the company as well.
This probably paints a somewhat incorrect picture of you, and you're welcome to rebutle and say that you also enjoy other things about your job. But the deed is done and you've already given in to money as your first, instinctive reaction to why your job is good. No matter what I do for a living I want to be able to say I like it for it's inherent qualities, not because it makes me a lot of dough.
Such an explicit statement of inocence is an indirect statement of guilt. You're not worried about the FBI (or you wouldn't have posted at all or would have posted anonymously), you're just trying to look like a badd-ass. Trying...
When are people going to start taking pride in who they are, not who they try to make other people think they are?
It would be very easy to agree with you, and in large part I do. In fact, knowing what I'm about to say, it would still be incredibly easy to just say "You're right" and move on.
But...
Consider this feat from something other than a practical use standpoint. Yes, OS X is a gorgeous, useable, practical operating system that is tailored to take the best advantage of Apple hardware. With it you can begin being extremely productive right out of the box. But at the same time you are agreeing to take the operating system they built and run it on the hardware they deem appropriate.
What putting Linux on the new iMac does, is show that there are some of us who are willing and want to try things our own way. Many times it may turn up nowhere near as usable as the original product, but "usable" is a very subjective term. It's about pushing limits and trying new things. It also sends a small message to manufacturers saying "Hey, you might have made a nice piece of equipment, but now it's my turn, and I'm going to try some tings my way."
For the record, I agree with you completely.
It's a bit time consuming, but tar has been doing this job for me for a while. I finally (took me a long time, ok) created a working bootable linux CD that mounts my filesystems RO and tarballs the entire contents to a remote server. It takes about 1h20m to do a full backup.
After it finishes, I test software on the existing system. If it breaks I restore, if it doesn't I play-test it for a while and if it keeps behaving I commit it to the next full "state preservation".
The biggest drawback, of course, is that this sceme requires close to 1.5 hours of downtime for the backup and more if you need to restore. But for noncritical systems it works great.
There's a (somewhat) updated version of this in XP that lets you rollback to a previous existing state. However it's not perfect. The first time I installed XP Pro to test it at work I immediately grabed all the "critical updates" available. Well those "updates" ended up blowing out any and all TCP/IP stack functionality which rolling back could not fix. TCP/IP is considered a core component and is not included into the rollback information.
Interestingly enough, XP is very selective on what information it does include into rollback information. It will revert to old drivers, old registry keys (not all), but it will not uninstall software. Durring my rollback attempts XP broke my Nero installation.
Transactional filesystems would be fantastic I bet there are tons of little quirks to get around.
Well, looks like this guy Chuq is working on it. He seems to be a kernal hacker that works for VERITAS.
You can also find interesting filesystem info here
There's also work being done on TRAM (Transactional RAM).
the Register neglected to actually link the here in that statement!
.NET technology specifically for GNOME
I believe "here" was meant as "here at The Register", so it's a small matter of going to The Register's front door and doing a search for "Icaza". You'll probably be most interested in the three most recent articles. If you still can't find the connections, just look a little harder.
Icaza is portraying Microsoft as having graciously created the
Oh, don't be such a drama queen. You, me, and everyone else here know that's just silly and obviously unrealistic. Put your tinfoil hat back on and take some deep breathes.
Is this individual actually praising the evil empire's security model?
You can say a lot of horrible stuff about Microsoft, and in most cases they will deserve it. But just accept for a moment a difference between a security model and a security implementation. While it could easily be argued that their model may not be the best, Microsoft has generally had a bad history of implementing security. If the same model were given to a bunch of Linux zealots and a bunch of Microsoft suits, though both based on the same foundation, I think we can agree that our prized zealots would pull through with a better implementation. So, for me at least, it not that bad of a sin to praise their security model. I just wish they would follow through a little better.
On an OT note: If you really want to throw up, read this. Direct quote - "The recent release of Windows XP illustrates the concept of intelligent design. If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvelous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"
I KNOW. I screwed up. Myth is from Bungie and Warcraft is from Blizzard. I've just finished playing an epic 8 player Warcraft II game and had the name frickin' stuck in my head. Now that I've finished my Doritos I can think.
I meant to say Halo. Bits of code from Myth III may have found their way over to Halo. I know they're different in many respects, but there's a good chance that two projects being worked on side by side can share a lot of code. And since Micro$oft is the parent...
At the Myth Village fan site, there was a post to their forums detailing the termination of the entire Myth III team back in November. Part of the following discussion has posters pondering the possibility of turning it loose to the open source community. None of it involves any sort of official stance on the subject, but it's a quick interesting read anyway.
I image that it would be highly unlikely. Given that there are proprietary bits of code not being released with the Myth II server, and work is still continuing on Warcraft III, there may be some overlaping in the engines that they don't want to spill.
Now here's an interesting bit of history relating to IBM, punchcards, and the Holocaust:
IBM USA knew that its Hollerith machines were needed and used in concentration camps. IBM USA kept careful records of where its leased property was located and played an active role in servicing these machines, training its clients how to use them, and providing punch cards and other supplies. IBM USA's inventories of 1940 and 1941 indicate that the company knew which Hollerith machines were located in camps, along with their serial numbers and the amount they were being paid for the lease of each machine. At Dachau alone there were approximately 24 IBM sorters, tabulators and printers.
For more info, look here. The link is to a piece of commentary dated 2/19/01 posted on the site of a law firm specializing in class action law.
This may seem ultra low tech, but I've been able to get away with backing up extremely large ammounts of data using plain-jane removable hard drives. In one case I built an entire "backup server" who's only purpose in life was to have mass ammounts of removable storage and perform backups. Instead of shuffling tapes around we just shuffled (slightly larger) hard drives around.
We thought of using SCSI, but the cost/MB was to high. The server had a Promise UltraATA 100 card with four 40GB WD hard drives and a single 10GB WD hard drive on the on-board IDE for the op system. The case had 5 external bays, four housing the sleds for the 40GB drives and one held the CD-Rom. The 40GB drives were whipped up in RAID to create a single 120GB volume (last drive for parity)
I realize it's not really an enterprise class sollution, but it provided the fastest backup and restores for our money.
I wasn't getting at using the firewall as a central syslog as in the central syslog. I should have worded it a little better!