Sorry but the ability for a non-privileged user to run as many programs as the like is a feature, not a bug.
Sorry, but the ability of a mail reader to automagically run as many programs as it likes is a feature, not a bug.
The point being that while this may, in some rare cases, be desirable, it shouldn't be the default setting, but rather something that the adminstrator has to enable for that rare user for which it is deemed both necessary and desirable.
"Able" and "capable of" are not the same thing.
It shouldn't be the responsibility of the admin to turn on every possible security feature, but rather to turn off only those ones he deems gets in the way of the functioning of his system.
It's exactly this lacadasical approach to security that has made Windows the hell hole that it is. It certainly puts money in my pocket trying to fix it all, over and over and over again, but I'd far rather be spending my time and earning my money doing something useful.
However, one wouldn't criticize their newly-born child for not being able to run like his years-older brother.
This is true, but I can tell you which one I'd select for the cross country team until the other gets the hang of it, which process just might include a bit of constructive criticism.
The definition of "problem" is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunatly the FS/OSS model famously allows 'many eyes.'
I suppose I should point out that I'm not defending Debian as a user, because I'm not a Debian user, just the point that if it meets someone's needs who does not feel strongly that it has a 'problem' (or even that it solves their problem) that is enough.
Ubuntu solves your perception that there is a problem with Debian; and that too is good.
I'm already well on record defending the 'many distros' state of Linux as a Good Thing.
"Debian doesn't suffer from lack of users by any stretch of the imagination."
Mostly because "suffering due to some of their fans dropping if for other distros" is an undefined concept in relation to Debian, in the mathematical sense.
But people will persist in using market driven concepts with regard to non-market driven distros, and Linux in general, won't they?
A lack of developers would be a real problem, but other than submitting bugs the number of users is simply irrelevant to the Debian development process.
As I suppose I'm showing mine by pointing out that my first high level language was APL, also implying that I was already of an advanced enough age at the time to be allowed to touch a mainframe terminal.
I considered mentioning Smalltalk/Squeak, which I'm kinda fond of just messing about with myself, but I find one of the positive virtues of Python as a teaching language is the fact that it isn't a "pure" OO language. You can bend it to your will, rather than having to bend to its "vision" of what computer languages "should" be, so you can teach (and use) procedural and functional approachs just as readily as the OO approach, without having to learn a wholly new syntax and grammar just to learn a new conceptual architecture.
I'm afraid I have some issues with OO as "the one true way" of programming, so I don't like using a pure OO language for teaching, prefering to introduce OO down the line as one methodology which proves useful in dealing with certain programming problems, like, say, modeling objects.
I too learned much of my BASIC on a COCO, from the very same books (although I had a solid grounding in APL before that time; and had seen enough FORTRAN to send me screaming from the room) and I've still got, and even occasionally use, a Color Micro, but I prefer, as per my above post, to begin at a much lower level to take all the magic and mysticism out of computing by demonstrating what simple, brain dead and fully understandable machine it really is.
And when approaching the level of actually working with a teaching language I find that Python has all of the postitive benefits of BASIC, none of its drawbacks; and several of its own virtues, including being a language that one can pursue to a high level of real world use, no matter what language you end up doing most of your work in.
". ..have them see very basic principles in BASIC. .."
Nooooooooooooooo!
". ..since it was possible to "know everything" about the system, down to the bit."
Now this is where the truth lies, at bit level. I like to start, not with a computer at all, but with a bag full of Othello chips (or something similar) and demonstrate in a very clear, graphical and hands on sort of way exactly what is going on inside of the little computer brain, and then show how these arrangments of binary numbers represented in physical medium can be at control of the programer to create whatever it is you wish to have appear on your computer's monitor.
Like, a game, which also gives a chance to demonstrate the importance of getting a good foundation in mathematics and physics if you want to do really cool shit with a computer, and, let's face, it, games are what's going to get the kids exited, not the commandline or beowulf clusters.
"The difference being that Bill Gates is still making money from the sale of his software. .."
Despite the ludicrous profit margin on MS software most of the company's software business profits come from . ..support. They sell the software to have a lock on the support contract.
Of course most of their profits these days don't come from the software industry at all. They have a lot of frickin' money invested.
. . whereas Open source developers are not.
On the other hand they are not buying Billy's software, or paying any of the cocommitent costs of "owning" it.
And a penny saved is a penny earned.
"Can you provide the same level of service as IBM?"
I should hope not. I provide a superior level of service by only "competing" against IBM in those areas where I can do so. I'm not in business to engage in some pissing contest with MS or IBM. I'm in business to put money in my pocket. I'm perfectly happy to let MS and IBM piss on each other while I spend a pleasant afternoon helping a freelance writer get his systems set up and personalized, including custom software if necessary, something neither MS nor IBM is prepared or capable of doing.
"what is going to prevent other companies competing against you on support?"
You mean like I make a decent penny now and again by supporting Windows, even though I didn't write it and MS doesn't get dime one of my fee?
Jeezum Crow, even Billy hasn't figured a way around that one yet, it keeps him up nights working on it, but he still hasn't found the answer.
Still, there are people who call MS for support instead of me, because it's an MS product, yes? And there are still people who call me because I give them something they can't get from MS, like my being right over and actually fixing the problem, yes?
And am I not, when I support Linux software, taking just as much advantage of Redhat as they might be of me? I didn't pay them for the software I developed my product on. I don't give them dime one when supporting their product for a fee and they don't get dime one when I resell their product as a base to run my own on.
There is a perfectly functional reciprocity system at work in OSS, it just doesn't revolve around the exchange of money, it revolves around the direct exchange of the code itself.
So you don't sell the code. You make yourself fit into the sytem instead of trying to bludgeon some other system into it. You exchange it (got ma OS and development tools for free from Red Hat, given 'em back my zingblat code). Then you sell what can't be exchanged, your expertise with your own code. . . and Red Hat's (gonna support zingblat on Red Hat).
From Red Hat's point of view it's giving away a free OS, getting back a free app they can bundle and support.
They could sell you the OS for $20 and you can sell them zingblat for $20 and the whole thing works out the same, except now you both have to support debt, a larger army of lawyers, accountants, filing clerks, et al into the bargain.
Aha! There's the problem with the OSS business model, it eliminates offensive, makework deadbeats in the workforce, thus eliminating jobs and destroying the economy. Billy was right!
"I guess that the point is that there could be a "gentlemen's agreement" on where things to and how things should work."
The fact that we can all, in practice, agree on using ASCII, but are still talking about OS standards suggests that there is real need for greater diversity with the OS.
"LSB is certainly a step in the right direction. .."
But no particular reason why the BSD folk should adhere to it, and some rather good reasons they shouldn't.
"But, in some cases. .."
We are not speaking of some cases.
"OS is a great model at making things that LOTS of people need. .."
Quite the contrary, and I speak from experience here, one the reasons I use Linux is because OSS is, in fact, the only model in which you can make modifications to the apps and OS themselves that only one person needs.
OSS is not market driven. It is individual need driven and piles of geeks are not needed to produce any particular program, just the right few (or one) good ones. The effect of not being market driven goes right down to the core of the development model of individual programs. The essential irony of having "thousands of eyes" to work on your program is that they aren't needed outside of the commercial enviroment and you'll find that most OSS is produced by very, very small groups of people.
Linux is too much trouble, and just make X for Windows.
Who said there should be one OS to rule them all? Certainly not I. Why doesn't Bill just, as part of a gentleman's agreement, adopt a Linux standard for Windows.
Aha!
If you wish to use something that's standard, why not just choose something that's standard, and if you want something that's different go with something different. Then everybody's happy, except the zealots, no?
Easy enough to accomplish. Simply distribute in binary only format and slap a restrictive license on it that forbids people from redistributing any hacks they manage to create anyway.
You can't have your freedom (and all the benefits it provides) and eat it too.
Or maybe he's just a fruitcake. The behavior of a researcher is no indication that his results are valid, just that he believes them, and just because some early quantum theorist started wearing "quantum snowshoes" to keep himself from falling through the floor doesn't mean I have to feel in any jeopardy of doing the same.
People, even researchers, are capable of believing all sorts of doofy shit, especially that shit they have produced themselves. Or Perhaps he has a brain the size of a rat's.
Personally wearing headphones doesn't work though, as I suffer far more brain damage from the emanations from the headphones than I ever could from those of the phone itself.
Some softeware is intended to innovate, some is intended to provide comfort. OOo is intended to provide comfort. It does so reasonably well.
Personally I do most of my writing in an innovative editor that lets me control all editing functions on standard keys while touch typing, never having to take hands off home base, let alone remove them from the keyboard to use a mouse.
But some people find this uncomfortable. They're used to MS Office. For them there is OOo. That's what it's for. If you wish to find innovation, look elsewhere, but then don't complain that it's different.
Free speech broadcasters do not "provide" free expression, they express themselves freely.There is quite a difference between the two. Taking their own certain angle on stories is a result of that free expression.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one of my buttons that has been overpushed of late.
KFG
Sorry but the ability for a non-privileged user to run as many programs as the like is a feature, not a bug.
Sorry, but the ability of a mail reader to automagically run as many programs as it likes is a feature, not a bug.
The point being that while this may, in some rare cases, be desirable, it shouldn't be the default setting, but rather something that the adminstrator has to enable for that rare user for which it is deemed both necessary and desirable.
"Able" and "capable of" are not the same thing.
It shouldn't be the responsibility of the admin to turn on every possible security feature, but rather to turn off only those ones he deems gets in the way of the functioning of his system.
It's exactly this lacadasical approach to security that has made Windows the hell hole that it is. It certainly puts money in my pocket trying to fix it all, over and over and over again, but I'd far rather be spending my time and earning my money doing something useful.
Like computing.
KFG
"Debian's goal should be keeping its customers satisfied. . ."
Debian doesn't have customers. It has users.
KFG
Go watch The Tenth Victim and check out Ursula Andres's 38C Special.
And by the way, it's frickin' laser beams. I thought everyone knew that.
KFG
Don't worry, they'll be at least one "wardrobe failure" and a "caught in the rain" scene.
KFG
"The market always has ways around this."
Absolutely. Just bear in mind that the people with the badges and guns often call that way "crime."
KFG
However, one wouldn't criticize their newly-born child for not being able to run like his years-older brother.
This is true, but I can tell you which one I'd select for the cross country team until the other gets the hang of it, which process just might include a bit of constructive criticism.
KFG
What is the point of climbing everest?
What will we have conquered? None but ourselves. --George Mallory
Of course the mountain won that particular round. Nevermind.
KFG
The definition of "problem" is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunatly the FS/OSS model famously allows 'many eyes.'
I suppose I should point out that I'm not defending Debian as a user, because I'm not a Debian user, just the point that if it meets someone's needs who does not feel strongly that it has a 'problem' (or even that it solves their problem) that is enough.
Ubuntu solves your perception that there is a problem with Debian; and that too is good.
I'm already well on record defending the 'many distros' state of Linux as a Good Thing.
KFG
(I'm one of those who jumped Debian in favor of Ubuntu).
Which is one of the things that makes Linux great, n'est pas?
I'm afraid you'll get no distro war out of me.
KFG
"Debian doesn't suffer from lack of users by any stretch of the imagination."
Mostly because "suffering due to some of their fans dropping if for other distros" is an undefined concept in relation to Debian, in the mathematical sense.
But people will persist in using market driven concepts with regard to non-market driven distros, and Linux in general, won't they?
A lack of developers would be a real problem, but other than submitting bugs the number of users is simply irrelevant to the Debian development process.
KFG
As I suppose I'm showing mine by pointing out that my first high level language was APL, also implying that I was already of an advanced enough age at the time to be allowed to touch a mainframe terminal.
I considered mentioning Smalltalk/Squeak, which I'm kinda fond of just messing about with myself, but I find one of the positive virtues of Python as a teaching language is the fact that it isn't a "pure" OO language. You can bend it to your will, rather than having to bend to its "vision" of what computer languages "should" be, so you can teach (and use) procedural and functional approachs just as readily as the OO approach, without having to learn a wholly new syntax and grammar just to learn a new conceptual architecture.
I'm afraid I have some issues with OO as "the one true way" of programming, so I don't like using a pure OO language for teaching, prefering to introduce OO down the line as one methodology which proves useful in dealing with certain programming problems, like, say, modeling objects.
KFG
I too learned much of my BASIC on a COCO, from the very same books (although I had a solid grounding in APL before that time; and had seen enough FORTRAN to send me screaming from the room) and I've still got, and even occasionally use, a Color Micro, but I prefer, as per my above post, to begin at a much lower level to take all the magic and mysticism out of computing by demonstrating what simple, brain dead and fully understandable machine it really is.
And when approaching the level of actually working with a teaching language I find that Python has all of the postitive benefits of BASIC, none of its drawbacks; and several of its own virtues, including being a language that one can pursue to a high level of real world use, no matter what language you end up doing most of your work in.
KFG
". . .have them see very basic principles in BASIC. . ."
.since it was possible to "know everything" about the system, down to the bit."
Nooooooooooooooo!
". .
Now this is where the truth lies, at bit level. I like to start, not with a computer at all, but with a bag full of Othello chips (or something similar) and demonstrate in a very clear, graphical and hands on sort of way exactly what is going on inside of the little computer brain, and then show how these arrangments of binary numbers represented in physical medium can be at control of the programer to create whatever it is you wish to have appear on your computer's monitor.
Like, a game, which also gives a chance to demonstrate the importance of getting a good foundation in mathematics and physics if you want to do really cool shit with a computer, and, let's face, it, games are what's going to get the kids exited, not the commandline or beowulf clusters.
KFG
That's why God invented Wiremold. In wall wiring is one of the silliest things we do.
KFG
With an extra month to have this completed. . .
You didn't riot to get your "lost days" back when they changed calenders, did you?
I'm afraid your "extra month" is illusory in the same vein.
KFG
There are other types of "wrong" than just "against the law".
But they're working on it.
KFG
"The difference being that Bill Gates is still making money from the sale of his software. . ."
.support. They sell the software to have a lock on the support contract.
Despite the ludicrous profit margin on MS software most of the company's software business profits come from . .
Of course most of their profits these days don't come from the software industry at all. They have a lot of frickin' money invested.
. . whereas Open source developers are not.
On the other hand they are not buying Billy's software, or paying any of the cocommitent costs of "owning" it.
And a penny saved is a penny earned.
"Can you provide the same level of service as IBM?"
I should hope not. I provide a superior level of service by only "competing" against IBM in those areas where I can do so. I'm not in business to engage in some pissing contest with MS or IBM. I'm in business to put money in my pocket. I'm perfectly happy to let MS and IBM piss on each other while I spend a pleasant afternoon helping a freelance writer get his systems set up and personalized, including custom software if necessary, something neither MS nor IBM is prepared or capable of doing.
KFG
"what is going to prevent other companies competing against you on support?"
You mean like I make a decent penny now and again by supporting Windows, even though I didn't write it and MS doesn't get dime one of my fee?
Jeezum Crow, even Billy hasn't figured a way around that one yet, it keeps him up nights working on it, but he still hasn't found the answer.
Still, there are people who call MS for support instead of me, because it's an MS product, yes? And there are still people who call me because I give them something they can't get from MS, like my being right over and actually fixing the problem, yes?
And am I not, when I support Linux software, taking just as much advantage of Redhat as they might be of me? I didn't pay them for the software I developed my product on. I don't give them dime one when supporting their product for a fee and they don't get dime one when I resell their product as a base to run my own on.
There is a perfectly functional reciprocity system at work in OSS, it just doesn't revolve around the exchange of money, it revolves around the direct exchange of the code itself.
So you don't sell the code. You make yourself fit into the sytem instead of trying to bludgeon some other system into it. You exchange it (got ma OS and development tools for free from Red Hat, given 'em back my zingblat code). Then you sell what can't be exchanged, your expertise with your own code. . . and Red Hat's (gonna support zingblat on Red Hat).
From Red Hat's point of view it's giving away a free OS, getting back a free app they can bundle and support.
They could sell you the OS for $20 and you can sell them zingblat for $20 and the whole thing works out the same, except now you both have to support debt, a larger army of lawyers, accountants, filing clerks, et al into the bargain.
Aha! There's the problem with the OSS business model, it eliminates offensive, makework deadbeats in the workforce, thus eliminating jobs and destroying the economy. Billy was right!
KFG
"I guess that the point is that there could be a "gentlemen's agreement" on where things to and how things should work."
."
."
."
The fact that we can all, in practice, agree on using ASCII, but are still talking about OS standards suggests that there is real need for greater diversity with the OS.
"LSB is certainly a step in the right direction. .
But no particular reason why the BSD folk should adhere to it, and some rather good reasons they shouldn't.
"But, in some cases. .
We are not speaking of some cases.
"OS is a great model at making things that LOTS of people need. .
Quite the contrary, and I speak from experience here, one the reasons I use Linux is because OSS is, in fact, the only model in which you can make modifications to the apps and OS themselves that only one person needs.
OSS is not market driven. It is individual need driven and piles of geeks are not needed to produce any particular program, just the right few (or one) good ones. The effect of not being market driven goes right down to the core of the development model of individual programs. The essential irony of having "thousands of eyes" to work on your program is that they aren't needed outside of the commercial enviroment and you'll find that most OSS is produced by very, very small groups of people.
Linux is too much trouble, and just make X for Windows.
Who said there should be one OS to rule them all? Certainly not I. Why doesn't Bill just, as part of a gentleman's agreement, adopt a Linux standard for Windows.
Aha!
If you wish to use something that's standard, why not just choose something that's standard, and if you want something that's different go with something different. Then everybody's happy, except the zealots, no?
KFG
Easy enough to accomplish. Simply distribute in binary only format and slap a restrictive license on it that forbids people from redistributing any hacks they manage to create anyway.
You can't have your freedom (and all the benefits it provides) and eat it too.
KFG
". . .maybe he's on to something?"
Or maybe he's just a fruitcake. The behavior of a researcher is no indication that his results are valid, just that he believes them, and just because some early quantum theorist started wearing "quantum snowshoes" to keep himself from falling through the floor doesn't mean I have to feel in any jeopardy of doing the same.
People, even researchers, are capable of believing all sorts of doofy shit, especially that shit they have produced themselves. Or Perhaps he has a brain the size of a rat's.
Personally wearing headphones doesn't work though, as I suffer far more brain damage from the emanations from the headphones than I ever could from those of the phone itself.
KFG
Don't be silly, vi is so frickin' old school and I said innovative.
:)
I was talking about vim.
KFG
Some softeware is intended to innovate, some is intended to provide comfort. OOo is intended to provide comfort. It does so reasonably well.
Personally I do most of my writing in an innovative editor that lets me control all editing functions on standard keys while touch typing, never having to take hands off home base, let alone remove them from the keyboard to use a mouse.
But some people find this uncomfortable. They're used to MS Office. For them there is OOo. That's what it's for. If you wish to find innovation, look elsewhere, but then don't complain that it's different.
KFG
Free speech broadcasters do not "provide" free expression, they express themselves freely.There is quite a difference between the two. Taking their own certain angle on stories is a result of that free expression.
KFG