I really don't think that that much support is required for CVS as it is a really straight forward system, but corporations have a hard enough time going with it now; I don't see anyone using it without corporate support.
The company I work for uses ClearCase and ClearGuide for code management and they are decent, but we have had all sorts of problems with mangaled code on checkins. The only advantages I see with it is the multi-version filesystem, which on a large project like this (several hundred developers and about 12 months) does save considerable cost in space, since only changed files must be saved on all systems, and the user interface (personally I like CVS's interface better. The GUI for this system is exteremely slow and the commandline options are more complex than CVS's, but I know many people perfer graphical systems.) The argument for training is rather mute because in any reasonably complex system you are going to have to spend time in training and I don't think the time it takes to train someone to use CVS is that much longer than the time it takes to train them to use a GUI based system. We had all sorts of problems with ClearGuide when it was installed, and I can't imagine taking more than 10 minutes to set up a CVS system so I don't think installation is very simple. I was really hoping that with Cyclic advertising and stuff CVS might get some corporate backing and make a take some marketshare, but I'm afraid that corporate use just isn't going to happen with out support and advertising.
The poor audio quality has to do with lossy compression. Your phone compresses the signal and sends it to the tower. Your carrier then takes uncompresses it and runs mu-Law encoding on it and sends it over a phone network. Then it gets to the person your calling's carrier and they take get the analog signal out of the mu-Law transmissions and compress them to their compression system and send them to the destination. Everyone of these steps is lossy and the loss accumulates faster than linear.
like this one. This article has absolutely nothing to do with the Mindcraft emails and does not belong in this forum. The answer to your question is that a bunch of Slashdot readers like you are moderating Slashdot and in my opinion they usually do a good job. I would be disappointed to see comments moderated down because they are anti-Linux, but it is usually only those which don't relate to the topic that are moderated down. For instance if you look at this article, all the posts (except yours) which meet a threshold of 3 (my comment threshold) pertain directly to the emails posted by Mindcraft. Some of them are about their disappointment with the people who posted the mails, some about their disappointment with Mindcraft for posting them, and at least one is downright accusative of Linux users for giving in easily to flamebait. But regardless of their slant they all have to do with the article, yours does not.
If you want help with a linux problem you should problem try reading comp.os.linux.questions or a newsgroup or mailing list related to your problem, and posting if your question goes unanswered. Not only will people probably be more receptive to your question, you're a bit more likely to find people knowledgable of your particular problem than on a news item about emails posted concerning rigged benchmarks.
Sorry for the confusion. Just to clear things up: I've been around a while and remember gopher and UUCP. I didn't think the internet was the web; I just got a little confused about what exactly Al Gore invented.
Again, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
all voting should be done on an ip-by-ip basis just like forum voting.
And Rob would intantly need a terabyte RAID to keep the list of IPs associated with each of the 2000 comments a day and a UE10k to do the database accesses.
Besides, do we really want to call it Unrecognized/Linux?
No, we want to call it Linux. You know the name of the kernel. You never see "Sun Microsystems/Solaris", or "AT&T/Unix", or "IBM/OS/2" There is no reason to recognize a software contributor in the name of the OS, if you're going to do that you might as well call it "GNU/Linus Torvalds/Sun Microsystems/University of California/Washington University/Donald Becker/Alan Cox/AT&T/Aladdin Enterprises/X Consortiom/XFree/Red Hat Labs/Cygnus/I'm sorry about people I forgot/Linux." That's rediculous. I have no problem with "RedHat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" because when you get down to it they decided what goes in the OS, they created the OS, they can call it whatever the heck they want. Debian can call it "GNU/Linux" if they want, but FSF should expect me to.
Both normal types of dashes are actually supported by the HTML standard with the and characters. Unfortunately I have never seen a browser that supports these characters.
Though I do think your original post was unclear my remarks about you software being overpriced and in a stagnant market were unjustified. Based on several things in you post I assumed that you were one of those people who tries to pass off hypothetical situations as fact and made blanket statements that, though they are probably true for the majority of software patents today (like the patents on delivering customized content to multiple subscribers, style sheets, and a number of other things that are common sense), but don't necessarily apply to your specific instance. I do know how much R&D cost because I work in it, and I should not have made statements when I didn't know whether or not they applied.
I do however think that the only reason free (as in freedom) software would take 20 years to catch up would be a lack of interest (both among developers and corporations). I work in Telecomm, and I know that if copyrights went away tomorrow my company would still employ a whole bunch of programmers to write software to run on their products. My housemate is right now being paid to write free security software. Just because the software is free, that doesn't mean you can't get paid for it.
To clarify my actual position on software patents I think that they should still exist, but they should not be issued except in the instance of a specific algorithm (a specific way to do CSS, and not the concept of CSS) that is non-obvious and they should only last 2-7 years. I also think that a patented algorithm should never be used in an open standard (like MP3). If patents went away completely I think it would hurt the market, but I don't think it would be devastating. (Devastating to some current markets, not to R&D as a whole)
The FCC has fairly broad power to regulate common carriers, the services they provide, and the content of broadcast media surrounding them. Thinking harder about it it might not be so bad a thing as I thought since Rob already provides equal services to everyone for the same price, and it's easy to show that he is using a non-limited transmission medium, but I'd still rather see the FCC keep away from Slashdot.
Do not speak the "C" word here. The last thing Slashdot needs is FCC regulation as a common carrier. Don't declare it as one or even hint that it might be one.
I'd really like to know what you product is that has an algorithm so special that it can only be discovered with millions of dollars in R&D, and why it is that you assume you competitor reverse engineered you product rather than figured it out himself, but putting that aside you have done an excellent job of quashing your own arguments.
You conclude a post about how you were violated by someone selling a product which you admit was better than yours for less than yours with the statement that in 20 years Free Software will still be where commercial software is now. I find this rather odd not only because I think it's already ahead of commercial software in many aspects, but also because you have just argued that somebody was beating the pants off of you until you used patents to step in and keep your inferior, overpriced software in a stagnent, non-competitive environment.
I want to know who these criminals are so dangerous that it is worth implementing an extremely expensive key recovery system, but too stupid to get around the law by using stenography, or spoofing an account and using strong crypto anyway, or any of a number of other obvious ways around these silly laws.
Hasn't this happened before? I seem to remember hearing about this at the first ALS or something... Anyway it's not too suprising, I mean how many Slashdot readers would recognize Linus on site, let alone security people. As for banning masqurading, that's funny.
I will never take ZDNet seriously. A year ago they were running unresearched garbage that was almost always at odds with what I've seen from experience (my favorite was an article talking about what a bad OS Linux is, written by an author who had never used it, and using the poor writing on www.linux.org as his primary reference); these days they are printing unresearched garbage that often supports what I've seen, but that doesn't mean they can be seriously.
If they run a front page article on how great Linux is, it will only show that the popularity of Linux has made it easy to write trash favoring it. Asking a three year old for strategic IT information is more likely to get you useful information than reading anything published by ZDNet.
It is a page that supposed to further the commercial awareness of Linux, so yes it should be a.com.
In addition to this linux.org is owned by Linux Online, a commercial entity devoted to making money off of banner ads on www.linux.org, and after numerous approaches to takeover/buy the domain they won't give it up.
It will be interesting to see if they build their own package management system or use an existing one. It will also be interesting to see what they do about the DE...
I'm intrigued (though I doubt I'll actually use something aimed at the normal luser)
I assume that you did. At any rate I'll start by quoting relavant portions:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to sell, give or otherwise distribute or possess with the intent to sell, give or distribute software which (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to facilitate or enable the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information; or (iii) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in facilitating or enabling the falsification of electronic mail transmission information or other routing information.
That said, sendmail clearly does not qualify (unless marketed by the accused or a person acting in concert with the accused, with the accused's knowledge, as a program for address falsification). Mail bombing software is made illegal by this bill, but I don't see a case there, as software has already been ruled unprotected. This bill would then make mail bombing software unprotected speech specifically designed to aid and abet criminal activity, something which I see the ACLU having a hard time defending.
Hmm, Have you read the bill? I have no use for the right of making unauthorized connections to an online services for the purposes of falsifing addresses. This bill doesn't really do that much; I liked Washington's better.
While RMS, ESR, and Bruce are sitting around bickering about the definitions of terms, and whether or not all software should be free (Has anyone actually read the GNU Manifesto? There are really two options, either RMS is right and there's nothing we can do about it, eventually copyrights will go away; or RMS is wrong and there's nothing we can do about it, copyrights are here to stay), Linus, Alan Cox, and countless other developers are doing productive work to give us better software. Who's making the bigger contribution to Open Source/Free Software?
contrib.redhat.com contains RPMS submitted my lots of people in order to make up for the deficiency in RPMS supported by RedHat. If you were using Slackware you wouldn't wait for a program to be included in the distribution, you would just go get the source. If even contrib doesn't have an RPM then make one yourself and submit it, that way other people can use your work of compiling it to save them time.
I've been using RedHat since 4.0 on multiple computers and I have never unintentionally destroyed my libraries with an RPM, not once. Maybe it's because I'm very careful about using --force, or maybe it's because I resist the temptation to just make and install stuff without using RPMs so I don't have noncontrolled files sitting around (except in/usr/local and/opt, which no RPM should touch), but I've never noticed a problem with this.
Please don't think that I'm an RPM bigot. It definately has it's shortcomings, and they get very noticable, very quickly on a large installation (lots of NFS storage starts making problems with putting way too much on the/usr drive), but I definately prefer RPMs to compiling and installing. I've never looked at the Debian nor the Stampede package management system, so I don't know how good they are comparatively (nor how many packages are available in them). There is no reason to repeat work that someone else has done for you.
The internet 2 is access restricted to scientific and academic usage only. You have to be on an approved research project or something to get on it. Hopefully this will keep the AOL lusers (which I use as a term for a class of users, not people from AOL specifically) off and the signal to noise ratio fairly high, but it does mean that just because you have the 20,000/month to throw at UUNet for a high speed connection, that won't get you on inet2.
And for those of you who think I won't be able to run this because of the system load these fork bombs are only going to get to run 32 instances (probably less, because of the shell and login) because of process limits, and I assure you that won't be enough really hit my system. Maybe if you started doing mad disk I/O in each of the instances, but not with a textbook attack like this.
I think he knew it was a joke. Maybe you should go back and read his post. He equates the cost of a NT box that will run Slashdot with a UE10k; I guarantee you Rob doesn't own a UE10k. If he did Slashdot would not have a key rate of a measly 511128.99 keys/second.
You probably ought to run that as root if you really want a crash. Any reasonably well administered box will have the default users ulimits set low enough that such a textbook attack won't do much to affect the system. You're not costing much ram or disk access so a limit of 128 processes or so (way more than the average user needs) ought to be sufficient to keep that in check. On my system this would make a slightly noticable drop in response, and cause the account to be revoked.
Slashdot Mirror
The company I work for uses ClearCase and ClearGuide for code management and they are decent, but we have had all sorts of problems with mangaled code on checkins. The only advantages I see with it is the multi-version filesystem, which on a large project like this (several hundred developers and about 12 months) does save considerable cost in space, since only changed files must be saved on all systems, and the user interface (personally I like CVS's interface better. The GUI for this system is exteremely slow and the commandline options are more complex than CVS's, but I know many people perfer graphical systems.) The argument for training is rather mute because in any reasonably complex system you are going to have to spend time in training and I don't think the time it takes to train someone to use CVS is that much longer than the time it takes to train them to use a GUI based system. We had all sorts of problems with ClearGuide when it was installed, and I can't imagine taking more than 10 minutes to set up a CVS system so I don't think installation is very simple. I was really hoping that with Cyclic advertising and stuff CVS might get some corporate backing and make a take some marketshare, but I'm afraid that corporate use just isn't going to happen with out support and advertising.
The poor audio quality has to do with lossy compression. Your phone compresses the signal and sends it to the tower. Your carrier then takes uncompresses it and runs mu-Law encoding on it and sends it over a phone network. Then it gets to the person your calling's carrier and they take get the analog signal out of the mu-Law transmissions and compress them to their compression system and send them to the destination. Everyone of these steps is lossy and the loss accumulates faster than linear.
If you want help with a linux problem you should problem try reading comp.os.linux.questions or a newsgroup or mailing list related to your problem, and posting if your question goes unanswered. Not only will people probably be more receptive to your question, you're a bit more likely to find people knowledgable of your particular problem than on a news item about emails posted concerning rigged benchmarks.
Again, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
You misspelled "Al Gore."
And Rob would intantly need a terabyte RAID to keep the list of IPs associated with each of the 2000 comments a day and a UE10k to do the database accesses.
No, we want to call it Linux. You know the name of the kernel. You never see "Sun Microsystems/Solaris", or "AT&T/Unix", or "IBM/OS/2" There is no reason to recognize a software contributor in the name of the OS, if you're going to do that you might as well call it "GNU/Linus Torvalds/Sun Microsystems/University of California/Washington University/Donald Becker/Alan Cox/AT&T/Aladdin Enterprises/X Consortiom/XFree/Red Hat Labs/Cygnus/I'm sorry about people I forgot/Linux." That's rediculous. I have no problem with "RedHat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" because when you get down to it they decided what goes in the OS, they created the OS, they can call it whatever the heck they want. Debian can call it "GNU/Linux" if they want, but FSF should expect me to.
Both normal types of dashes are actually supported by the HTML standard with the and characters. Unfortunately I have never seen a browser that supports these characters.
Though I do think your original post was unclear my remarks about you software being overpriced and in a stagnant market were unjustified. Based on several things in you post I assumed that you were one of those people who tries to pass off hypothetical situations as fact and made blanket statements that, though they are probably true for the majority of software patents today (like the patents on delivering customized content to multiple subscribers, style sheets, and a number of other things that are common sense), but don't necessarily apply to your specific instance. I do know how much R&D cost because I work in it, and I should not have made statements when I didn't know whether or not they applied.
I do however think that the only reason free (as in freedom) software would take 20 years to catch up would be a lack of interest (both among developers and corporations). I work in Telecomm, and I know that if copyrights went away tomorrow my company would still employ a whole bunch of programmers to write software to run on their products. My housemate is right now being paid to write free security software. Just because the software is free, that doesn't mean you can't get paid for it.
To clarify my actual position on software patents I think that they should still exist, but they should not be issued except in the instance of a specific algorithm (a specific way to do CSS, and not the concept of CSS) that is non-obvious and they should only last 2-7 years. I also think that a patented algorithm should never be used in an open standard (like MP3). If patents went away completely I think it would hurt the market, but I don't think it would be devastating. (Devastating to some current markets, not to R&D as a whole)
The FCC has fairly broad power to regulate common carriers, the services they provide, and the content of broadcast media surrounding them. Thinking harder about it it might not be so bad a thing as I thought since Rob already provides equal services to everyone for the same price, and it's easy to show that he is using a non-limited transmission medium, but I'd still rather see the FCC keep away from Slashdot.
Do not speak the "C" word here. The last thing Slashdot needs is FCC regulation as a common carrier. Don't declare it as one or even hint that it might be one.
I'd really like to know what you product is that has an algorithm so special that it can only be discovered with millions of dollars in R&D, and why it is that you assume you competitor reverse engineered you product rather than figured it out himself, but putting that aside you have done an excellent job of quashing your own arguments.
You conclude a post about how you were violated by someone selling a product which you admit was better than yours for less than yours with the statement that in 20 years Free Software will still be where commercial software is now. I find this rather odd not only because I think it's already ahead of commercial software in many aspects, but also because you have just argued that somebody was beating the pants off of you until you used patents to step in and keep your inferior, overpriced software in a stagnent, non-competitive environment.
I want to know who these criminals are so dangerous that it is worth implementing an extremely expensive key recovery system, but too stupid to get around the law by using stenography, or spoofing an account and using strong crypto anyway, or any of a number of other obvious ways around these silly laws.
Hasn't this happened before? I seem to remember hearing about this at the first ALS or something... Anyway it's not too suprising, I mean how many Slashdot readers would recognize Linus on site, let alone security people. As for banning masqurading, that's funny.
I will never take ZDNet seriously. A year ago they were running unresearched garbage that was almost always at odds with what I've seen from experience (my favorite was an article talking about what a bad OS Linux is, written by an author who had never used it, and using the poor writing on www.linux.org as his primary reference); these days they are printing unresearched garbage that often supports what I've seen, but that doesn't mean they can be seriously.
If they run a front page article on how great Linux is, it will only show that the popularity of Linux has made it easy to write trash favoring it. Asking a three year old for strategic IT information is more likely to get you useful information than reading anything published by ZDNet.
It is a page that supposed to further the commercial awareness of Linux, so yes it should be a .com.
In addition to this linux.org is owned by Linux Online, a commercial entity devoted to making money off of banner ads on www.linux.org, and after numerous approaches to takeover/buy the domain they won't give it up.
It will be interesting to see if they build their own package management system or use an existing one. It will also be interesting to see what they do about the DE...
I'm intrigued (though I doubt I'll actually use something aimed at the normal luser)
Hmm, Have you read the bill? I have no use for the right of making unauthorized connections to an online services for the purposes of falsifing addresses. This bill doesn't really do that much; I liked Washington's better.
While RMS, ESR, and Bruce are sitting around bickering about the definitions of terms, and whether or not all software should be free (Has anyone actually read the GNU Manifesto? There are really two options, either RMS is right and there's nothing we can do about it, eventually copyrights will go away; or RMS is wrong and there's nothing we can do about it, copyrights are here to stay), Linus, Alan Cox, and countless other developers are doing productive work to give us better software. Who's making the bigger contribution to Open Source/Free Software?
contrib.redhat.com contains RPMS submitted my lots of people in order to make up for the deficiency in RPMS supported by RedHat. If you were using Slackware you wouldn't wait for a program to be included in the distribution, you would just go get the source. If even contrib doesn't have an RPM then make one yourself and submit it, that way other people can use your work of compiling it to save them time.
/usr/local and /opt, which no RPM should touch), but I've never noticed a problem with this.
/usr drive), but I definately prefer RPMs to compiling and installing. I've never looked at the Debian nor the Stampede package management system, so I don't know how good they are comparatively (nor how many packages are available in them). There is no reason to repeat work that someone else has done for you.
I've been using RedHat since 4.0 on multiple computers and I have never unintentionally destroyed my libraries with an RPM, not once. Maybe it's because I'm very careful about using --force, or maybe it's because I resist the temptation to just make and install stuff without using RPMs so I don't have noncontrolled files sitting around (except in
Please don't think that I'm an RPM bigot. It definately has it's shortcomings, and they get very noticable, very quickly on a large installation (lots of NFS storage starts making problems with putting way too much on the
The internet 2 is access restricted to scientific and academic usage only. You have to be on an approved research project or something to get on it. Hopefully this will keep the AOL lusers (which I use as a term for a class of users, not people from AOL specifically) off and the signal to noise ratio fairly high, but it does mean that just because you have the 20,000/month to throw at UUNet for a high speed connection, that won't get you on inet2.
kill -9 $(ps aux | awk '{if($1=="username"){print $2}')
cp
awk 'BEGIN{FS=":"; OFS=":"} {if($1=="username"){$2="*"; $7="/bin/false"} print $0}' </password.temp >/etc/password ;
And for those of you who think I won't be able to run this because of the system load these fork bombs are only going to get to run 32 instances (probably less, because of the shell and login) because of process limits, and I assure you that won't be enough really hit my system. Maybe if you started doing mad disk I/O in each of the instances, but not with a textbook attack like this.
I think he knew it was a joke. Maybe you should
go back and read his post. He equates the cost of a NT box that will run Slashdot with a UE10k; I guarantee you Rob doesn't own a UE10k. If he did Slashdot would not have a key rate of a measly
511128.99 keys/second.
You probably ought to run that as root if you really want a crash. Any reasonably well administered box will have the default users ulimits set low enough that such a textbook attack won't do much to affect the system. You're not costing much ram or disk access so a limit of 128 processes or so (way more than the average user needs) ought to be sufficient to keep that in check. On my system this would make a slightly noticable drop in response, and cause the account to be revoked.