> Better in the sense that any person who buys something that later turns out to be crap/dies/whatever has to justify it to death > why it is better and why the market was wrong.
Nah, Beta was better from a techical sense. It had a better picture, I could see that. I bought VHS though because it was better in every other way. Which is pretty much par for the course for Sony. They make good tech then screw it up in the implementation and marketing. See Mini-Disc and I'm afraid we can add Blue-Ray to that list in a few years.
> Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel > or is it just an ego trip for the developers at these distros?
Yes, there are lots of good reasons. We can start with Xen. All of the big distros support it but it isn't in the mainline kernel tree. So right there you blow away the ability to run the mainline kernel without breaking things. The list goes on from there. The latest device drivers that haven't yet made it upstream, bug fixes that are working their way upstream, etc. There are lots of other good reasons why a distro kernel gets patches.
SUSE, like RHEL is longterm stable. That means bug fixes and security issues get patched into the same base kernel that originally shipped with that version of the distro because revving the whole kernel would be a nightmare.
That said, Fedora does have a policy of trying to stay close to the upstream kernel, pushing their patches upline wherever possible and not being afraid to revv the whole kernel in the lifetime of a 'stable' release. But when it comes down to big patchsets like Xen that they really want to ship but that neither Xen nor Linus appear interested in seeing merged they don't really have much of a choice. Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.
I mean, like duh! Steve have been Bills's bitch now for over two decades, about time they made it legal and all.:)
Seriously, anyone here doesn't believe they sat down years ago and came to an agreement hasn't been paying attention. Bill owns the world but he permits Steve to continue to exist... under some fairly obvious limitations.
1) Bill can plunder Apple for ideas at will and Steve is permitted to whine like the bitch he is so long as nothing is really done about it. Lawsuits are OK, they are part of what keeps the DOJ convinced there is 'competition.'
2) Apple must NEVER sell 10% of pc units. As overpriced boutique items, briefly exceeding 10% of sales volume would be grudgingly acceptable perhaps... unless Dell cries.
Go follow your link again, the article ahs been updated, striking the closed part and adding an explicit statement from Palm that it is OPEN. Guess I should not have doubted Palm (in another post) on that part, they built the company on 3rd party developers.
Ok, if they are really printing UV with a standard CMYK color laser printer then they deserve a patent. That's real innovation at work and not some lame ass '...on the Internet' patent.
> Nope, communist, socialist, they're all the same.
Actually, they ARE the same. The only difference is that socialists haven't achieved a total political victory yet, as soon as they do they rapidly morph into communists. Because when socialists attempt to actually put their theory into practice they realize, just as every other example, that the only two choices are to abandon the attempt or bit the bullet and go for communism. Some socialists WILL recoil and attempt to abort the slide to communism.... and be exiled, imprisioned or shot by the ones who don't. Communism/fascism/nazism is not what happens when 'bad people' hijack the revolution. It is socialism in practice. Go reread _The Road to Serfdom_ and try to understand it this time. (or more likely for the first time for the average slashdot reader) Socialist policies cannot coexist with liberty in practice, only in college classrooms.
> Think of it as a modern Tandy 102 and it begins to make sense.
Yea, the Tandy 100 changed the world in it's day.
If this thing is open, as in we can get in and make changes without losing the supplied applications and without violating the DMCA, then I can see myself lusting after one after the first refresh. Just because I NEVER buy first generation, I leave that to the people with more money than good sense.
From what I have been able to learn from the articles it would be able to do everything I really need from a portable. Give me net, email and a terminal with ssh and I'd be pretty close to good. If it would also easilly replace my old Handspring I'd be golden. Wifi would be good enough net for me, don't really need the smartphone.
> Chomsky isn't a communist, he's an anarchist, as he's said numerous times.
I don't care what he SAYS he is, he doesn't get to define the words "communist" or "anarchist" and when you map his stated political positions to the accepted definitions of the words he does not match "anarchist" but does match "communist", "socialist", "collectivist" and matches pretty well with "insane". Too much Doublethink will tend to damage the mind and apparently he actually believes the crap he spews.
And as a pretty reliable rule of thumb anyone who speaks well of Chomsky isn't someone with a well developed moral compass or very knowledgable on political issues. Most often a slacker college student.
Guess you missed the part where I recommended Macs in certain scenarios. Longterm, yea I'm a Free Software believer. But mostly I think Windows is a menace and a disaster. Other than gamers I really don't know of a question where Windows is a good answer.
But more importantly Microsoft is fast becoming a threat to the entire idea of 'personal computers.' I'm becoming convinced they intend, and have a fair chance of attaining, nothing less than the elimination of the general purpose computer, replacing it with something more akin to an X-Box that runs IE and Office. If we can't gain enough control to offer credible competition before they manange to buy a law requiring all unregulated hardware to enforce code signing and DRM we all lose bigtime. On that day all small independent software houses are going to be hosed.
> They are correct in believing that MS is the simplest solution.
They may be believe it but they would be wrong. Odds are as a developer in a vertical industry you are more computer literate than they are, but YOU believe it too so you can't correctly advise them.
This is 2007, if there is a Windows victim left who hasn't been wiping and reinstalling (or using Ghost) end user machines at least annually I haven't met em. Add in the cost of the 'protection' software that allows one to survive even a year with an end user and it is pretty awful... and expensive. Then add in the other costs of owning and maintaining Windows.
It isn't the best choice. It is just that most users have never even SEEN anything else and are afraid of the unknown.
If you are selling into operations too small to even have consultant system admins you probably should have Macs as your ultimate target to be guiding towards. Remember that there are a LOT of options these days to get the odd Windows executable running on a Mac. Have a look at what Code Weavers is doing in this area. Make YOUR stuff able to either run native on either platform or from a small server in their corner.
If the customer is a little bigger thin clients make sense. Remote in Windows from a server to cover the legacy stuff. But get those Windows desktops scrapped and stop the pain! Crossover Office is also something to experiment with, it runs a LOT of those simple 'industry specific apps' (read VB) and will only get better at it.
If you haven't experienced a thin client or server hosted homes on a thick client you can't really understand the difference. In my world (with 100 total seats at six sites) a workstation can die and we don't care. We toss the spare out and get on with our work. NO inportant data lives on the clients even though ours still have the OS on a local HDD. Yes you can pull most of this stuff off with Windows clients & servers but by the time you are done you have spent a lot more in time and money to make it actually work correctly and will spend more keeping it running. But until you experience it and truly understand there is a better way than unreliable Dells running unstable Windows you won't be able to explain it to others.
Whatever the question, Windows is probably the wrong answer. The sole exception is a gamer who wants more than a Playstation/X-Box can offer.
No. You don't really. You like to bitch and moan once in awhile but you really don't mind taking it up the pooper whenever Microsoft wants to shaft you. Harsh? Yup. Happens to be true though, based on what you are writing.
Because you have KNOWN exactly what Microsoft is and how your fortunes (and you customer, etc) are tied to Microsoft's whims for years (hell, decades now) and I didn't hear you mention the FIRST step towards an attempt to correct a situation you yourself realize is ultimately going to hurt you.
Yes you are right, that you and your customers have become ensnared in Microsoft's trap of dependency. And you are at least toying with the first step of admitting you have a dependency problem. Now you need a plan to break the unhealthy addiction. You really needed to start years back to have a leg up on the smart competitors who already figured it out but perhaps it isn't too late for you to save yourself.
Step one: When you are in a hole that is rapidly filling with water, the first step has to be to stop digging. That means make every effort to avoid adding any new dependencies on Microsoft technologies. That means don't touch Vista or any of any of it's new technologies or APIs. Same for Office 2007.
Step two: Develop a roadmap that will lead you where you want to be tomorrow, not where Microsoft wants you to go. Many find the easy path to be web based apps, especially in this era of AJAX. Pitch your customers a client neutral web based version of the apps you currently push on them as.net IE/Windows only crap and see if they are receptive. Explore whether your existing stuff can be run under Wine and fix things until it does work. Then plant a bug in your customer's ear that you AREN'T one of those crappy little vertical vendors who only understands Microsoft. and that if they want to escape you won't be one of the vendors holding them back, that you can support other platforms. If everyone is a passive as you and waits for someone else to go first Microsoft wins.
Step three: start finding and deploying alternatives whenever practical. OO.o instead of Office where it will work, Firefox instead of IE anywhere there isn't a lot of ActiveX BS to snarl things up. Outlook/Outlook Express should be trashed anywhere people aren't already addicted to Exchange stuff. The more of those dependencies you can break, both for yourself and your customers, the easier it will be to open up options down the road. Same for file/print servers. They can make a great first step and let you gain practical experience.
Step four: Explore and experiment, learning what is out there is half the struggle. Microsoft crams their stuff down your craw, the free stuff is often waiting for you to go looking for it.
Step five: Don't just look at Linux. Yes a Mac isn't any more RMS pure than Windows and they want the same power Microsoft has, but Microsoft is the threat to independent developers and users today. And a Mac can run Photoshop/etc.
> With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.
Amen to that. Yes there is a lot of potential for bad stuff in the future if the Internet regulation thing goes horribly wrong. But patents and copyrights probably won't get any WORSE regardless who is elected President.
However all that pales into the background compared to the big issue, survival.
There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen and/or lend the terrorists aid, confort and political cover to the ones with the AK-47s and the bomb belts.
One of our major political parties, from a combination of mindless BDS and a natural tendency towards spinelessness, is arrayed from apathy through surrender with a few outright ON THE OTHER FSCKING SIDE. The other has nost major candidates paying lip service to winning the War on Radical Islam but giving off strong hints they will at best be like Bush, willing to fight just enough to piss people off but with ho hope of going all in for the win and at worst as bad as the other party.
> So, in other words, they don't want to work in IT.
Exactly, they don't want to WORK in IT... but if offered on a silver platter they might consent to starting right into a management position in the IT Dept. Yes I know management skills aren't the same as the ones needed for hands on stuff, but it damn sure helps if one knows SOME of the skills your underlings use, if nothing else it allows you to communicate in ways that don't look ripped straight from the pages of Dilbert.
And because of quotas and fear of the EEOC I suspect quite a few are getting exactly what they are asking for. God only knows it is the only explanation for how Carly ever made CEO at HP. Ok, that wasn't nice.... but probably true.
> Have news cameras in the mosques every day recording the bad teachings? Have non-muslims attending the mosque sermons
If that is what it takes. Listen up Citizen, we are in a battle for the survival of our civilization, not just a single nation state. One side is going to win and one lose.. or in the words of Ming the Merciless, "be willing to settle for less." I'm as simplistic as Reagan, "We win, they lose." is the only outcome I plan on accepting.
> Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.
Yea, if carried to the extreme. But it wouldn't. Assume we (we being followers of what could broadly be called Western Civilivation) grew a pair and started holding the Religion of Peace(tm) to account for their more dangerous notions. Well it is safe to assume that under the scrutiny there would be a trend to moderate in some while others decided their host country was no longer hospitable and return to somewhere where Sharia prevails. As Islam (at least as taught and practiced in the West) moderated there being less to poke fun at, we would be less motivated to poke fun at em. Eventually a balance would be reached, much like Christian churches and the Enlightenment reached a stable relationship by moderating some of it's more antiquated notions.
Much like the Spanish Inquisition isn't likely to come knocking anymore, Islam has to give up a few of it's more uncivilized traditions if it is to be permitted to live in civilized lands.
> If there's a strong anti-Semitic view in the mosques of England, I suppose there's nothing we can do about that.
Yes there is. No the government should not pass more useless asshattery like 'hate crimes' laws. No the government should not establish a commission to regulate the contents of religious teachings. Yes the rest of society can and should hold those mosques that teach evil and stupid things up to public inspection and yes even ridicule. They get away with what they do because everyone is afraid to even object, and that is BEFORE the worries that the 'Religion of Peace(tm)' will KILL you for offending their insensibilities. Yes we can and MUST expose the terrorist supporting portion of Islam within Western societies, put protesters outside their door, regular dosings of media exposes and long well researched and 100% factual newpaper and magazine articles, etc.
The second thing we can do is FORCE them to integrate into our society instead of this politically correct multiculturalism that teaches that anything that isn't Western is superior so we have no right to object, even when leftist loons are forced to defend 7th Century misogeny like honor killings, forced weddings and female genital mutilation. Step one, force imigrants to know the dominate language and customs before granting Citizenship. That gets em out of their media and cultural ghetto.
No. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, not their own reality. You get to to have your own ideas about what facts mean but you don't get your own facts. 2+2=4 no matter how hard you believe otherwise.
Reality is that which doesn't change no matter how hard you wish it otherwise. The Holocost is objective reality. The fact the whole Middle East was on the Axis side is also objective reality. The fact they LOST WWII is objective reality. And in the end that last fact is the heart of the matter. Because if all three of the facts I just stated are reality their own worldview can't exist, so they collectively went into denial. Because it all comes down to their objection of the Western powers setting up Israel. Here in Reality winning WWII gave the victors the right to remake the defeated enemies territories including, granting Israel to the surviving Jews, splitting up Germany, tearing apart Japanese society and remaking it in our own image, etc.
The difference is we didn't occupy the Middle East and force their backwards asses into the 20th Century, mostly because before oil was discovered nobody cared enough. That was a mistake, but hindsight is always better than foresight. What is happening now with appeasing the crazies is obviously stupid to anyone outside government and the far left. If we won't stand up and defend the teaching of objective REALITY how is the West supposed to muster the courage to defend it's BELIEFS?
> There is no inexpensive and hassle-free way to selectively grant and deny based on whether you are a customer.
Inexpensive? Depends on your definition of inexpensive. There are a LOT of 'vendor solutions' out there for wireless access control and I doubt they consider themselves unaffordable. It is up to each operator to decide if the cost of a 'solution' is worth the asking price. And yes a popular, rational I might add, option is to decide that the bother of registering each customer's laptop for a limited time exceeds the losses from freeloaders even if the enabling software were free, easy to install and dead simple to use. But if there were demand for the feature I'm sure equipment vendors would at least offer a capture url on first access that displayed a terms of service page editable by the operator of the access point. Pretty sure OpenWRT can do that.
If you got a page that says "This access point is provided for the exclusive use of paying customers of "XYZ Coffeeshop", all other access is UNAUTHORIZED and will constitute theft of service." it would change the legal picture entirely. Because then you would know what the house rules are and that you were breaking them. But an open access point is just that, open. And usually pretty anonymous since the people who don't secure their AP often leave the ESSID set to linksys.
Only because judges are generally illiterate on things tech. DHCP is exactly a request to be assigned network resources. Your workstation/laptop sends out a request containing a globally unique identifier (MAC addr) and the server is free to permit or deny access based on it. That dhcp server is under your control and making decisions based on a policy you gave it, thus it is acting on authority you delegated unto it. By default most routers will hand out an address to anyone who asks for one, which implies a GRANT ANY policy. However almost all DHCP servers offer more restrictive options, even those found in consumer electronics class wireless routers.
Perhaps we need a warning label on the boxes:
"Warning, by default this product will grant access to anyone within it's range who asks. If this is NOT what you want please follow the directions to change it's policy."
Exactly. People here are just shocked, shocked I say, that an arm of an explicitly political[1] organization is influenced by politics. What next, the sad realization that cute kittens KILL? That corporations are amoral, almost by definition? That Mother Nature is a bitch? That Michael Moore is a socialist tool? Hello! reality calling, will you accept the charges?
[1] The Smithsonian, as even the blurb here on/. notes, is operated directly by Congress. If anyone would care to name a more politically motivated organization I wanna hear about it. Which it must be, btw, any asshat who says otherwise is an ignorant twat.
> This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Either you believe in NO restriction on field of use or you don't. Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers. It is if course perfectly fine to object to puppy mulchers, and anyone who actually mulches a puppy but whether the machine runs Linux, BSD or Windows shouldn't matter. Except if it has some neato realtime hacks in the control mech, they use Linux and the manufacturer refuses to give up the patches. But if they participate in the usual way their patches should follow the same path into the kernel as anyone else's. If the fscking Norks start sending in patches they should be given exactly the same peer review as any one else's.
But on the broader issues here, part of civilizived behaviour is being able to agree with someone on one issue and work with them while disagreeing on others. I don't claim to understand the intricate German politics involved in this issue but if the Interior Ministry is putting money into sponsoring a show I just don't see the problem unless they plan to use their money to influence the show for some purpose at odds with the goals of Linux in the commercial settings a trade show normally deals with.
Let me give a few examples. I'm a right leaning anti-idiotarian libertarian, which puts me at odds politically with most of the readership here and a majority of the F/OSS camp. I can still think RMS is a visionary on the issue of Free Software, while also considering him a hopeless 'crazed moonbat with near terminal BDS' politically. But since he doesn't go to Linux events and rant about how evil Bush is I don't have a problem with him, at least on software issues. When RMS speaks with his FSF St. Ignuisus hat on I'll listen and often agree. I suppose he is also active on Kos or DU, but I wouldn't know. Which is the point, he doesn't try to use his considerable influence and moral authority to lend weight to issues is isn't an authority on. On the other hand I stopped donating to the EFF after 9/11 because they DID let their conspiracy theory politics infect their work.
> I don't see how a content site that collects confidential information that may be used in a > screening process can possibly be considered a common carrier under anyone's definition of the term.
You are correct... as far as that reasoning goes. But the CORRECT ruling (yea, good luck getting a sane ruling in CA) would have been to toss the case on the grounds that neither the "Fair Housing Act" nor the CDA pass Constituitional muster. The CDA fails on 1st and 10th Amendment grounds and the FHA on 10th. So it should have been tossed back into state courts.
Listen up pinheads, people have the right to be wrong. At least 'wrong' from your point of view. Since Stallman already has claimed Freedom Zero call this one Freedom -1. For if you claim the right to tell someone they are wrong and must agree with you, you are asserting yourself as their master. And the odds approach 100% that sooner or later everyone else is going to think one of your cherished beliefs/practices is 'wrong' and impose their will on you. And having given up the principles of Freedom you will have no moral argument to offer as to why you should be left in peace.
Tolerence isn't allowing people you agree with to do things you approve of, it is permitting people you don't like to do things you disapprove of so long as they don't use force or fraud against others. Yes that means yo have to tolerate the intolerant sometimes.
> This is why I'm in favor of an Enumerated Powers act
It's called the 9th and 10th Amendment. It makes explicit the idea that the default for the Federal Government is NO. And they generally pay lip service.... and invoke the Commerce Clause yet again.
The problem isn't in the code, it is in the execution. But in the end more Amendments won't save us, the occasional feel good Act of Congress won't. We have to save us. We have to make violations of the Oath of Office a firing offense. Good luck getting the government schools to actually teach kids to read something as complex as the Constituition though.... Not that it is actually hard or anything, but now anything longer than a paragraph written at a K-4 reading level is "hard" for most high school graduates.
What would put is on the road to solving our problem is sneak a ringer into one of the presidential debates and rig the questions to insert a couple of tough Constituitional questions into the pool, thus sparking a good national debate on the subject. Most people have never actually READ the Constituition, they just know it means whatever the talking head on the TV says it says.
Stuff like:
1. Mr. McCain, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." did you have a problem comprehending when you voided the Right to petition the government for Redress of grievances?
2. Mrs. Clinton, would you kindly point to exactly what part of the Constituition gave you the power to attempt to nationalize the medical profession in this country? In the interest of time you can even skip the part about not actually being president at the time.
3. Mr. Giuliani, you recently admitted in an interview that you believe the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. Please reconcile this with your support of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban"? What part of "Shall not be infringed" confuses you?
4. Mr. Thompson, you talk really good about limited government NOW, but while you were actually IN office you voted for McCain/Feingold and you even supported Mr. McCain for President in 2000. Care to explain?
oh hell, the rest are either fish in a barrel or not a good enough candidate to be worth the bother ripping on.
And once we win back the Republic one of the best ways to keep it would be an Amendment to permit the following: Mandatory civics classes for seniors that end with handing em a copy of the Constituition and a warning that in a week will be an open debate/q&a on various topics followed by a final test. Multiple choice, a few dozen questions. Fail more than one and no voting priviledges and no retake for five years. Future generations might fall for voting for bread & circuses again but at least they would KNOW they were doing it.
> Well, am not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is that the Constitution must be interpreted according to > case law, not according to what any given individual thinks it should mean. You can't just pick and choose > how you interpret the words that make up the language of the Constitution and expect that it to be legitimate.
No, we aren't living on Omega IV. The "E plab nista" isn't just for Chiefs and sons of Chiefs. It isn't just for Supreme Court justices to hand down from on high either. Even though that was a very weak Trek episode, Kirk was spot on with that final admonition to Chief William. The US Constituition is a remarkably well written and short document that anyone of average intellect can easily read and understand.
Just because almost every section is violated every day Congress is in session and most days it ain't doesn't mean we aren't all responsible for allowing it to happen. We The People are the ones who ultimately are responsible for losing the Republic our mighty forebearers bequeathed unto us. Because we stopped caring enough to insist our elected representitves actually be bound by the clear language in that document, because we decided we would rather vote ourselves bread & circuses, failing to realize the cost.
Any person who reads it and fails to agree with, just some personal examples add your own below, the following is ignorant or willfully opposed to our form (on paper at least) of government.
1. McCain/Feingold is clearly a violation of the Rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment. Since Congress failed to amend the Constitiution to grant Congress the powers it usurped, every member who voted for it (and the President who signed it; Bush and the Supremes who put their stamp of approval on it) is clearly in violation of their Oath.
2. Most of the Federal Government, exercising powers not clearly enumerated, violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Note that almost any of the various rogue agencies COULD be legal by amending the Constitution. I'm not saying we should not HAVE a Dept of Education, what I assert is that it should be evident to any literate sentient being that the current Constituition & Bill of Rights does not permit one.
3. Row V Wade has no rational basis in the Constituition as written. This does not preclude proposing an Amendment if the pro abortion side feels a) that the matter is one the government must intervene in and b) that allowing the states to regulate it is a bad idea. What isn't arguable is that the Supremes did great violence to our system of government with this ruling.
4. The 2nd Amendmemt is just as much an individual right as any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights where the phrase "the People" appears. While it might be possible to argue the 2nd REQUIRES every citizen to possess a weapon suitable for military purpose there is zero logical basis for an argument that it permits the outlawing of the possession by lawful citizens of personal arms. Again, if you want to argue that 'times have changed' or 'New York isn't Montana' you are free to do so, in the context of proposing an Amendment to the Constituition.
No, I think this idea has merit in a bigger sense. Think about it, post where I'm wrong if you see an error.
Ok, Microsoft threatens Linux/OSS with a patent fudbomb. Now the world is waiting for a response. But lets focus on the part of the world that matters here, large instituitional shareholders of Microsoft stock. If our response is to just start at the most recent patent on record and devalue it by documenting weaknesses (prior art, obviouslness, whatever) and showing every intention of moving backward until we hit the expired ones what sort of potential paper losses would that involve? Remember that they derive a non-trivial income by cross licensing that patent portfolio and the size of it reduces the cost they pay to license other companies patents. Directly attack that treasure chest and they would certainly feel pain. Even a credible threat of a concerted distributed attack on that valuable balance sheet line item would get the interest of the professional investors. Remember the one thing they dislike is uncertainty when assessing risk.
In summary it is one of the only ways we can demonstrate a counter attack that would do more than simply annoy them. Microsoft only understands force and the threat of it. They ruthlessly attack when they see weakness and deal when they encounter strength... and look for ways to undermine the foe and then attack.
> I know this is Slashdot and everything, but at what point do the Microsoft stories become redundant?
This story justifies the coverage. It is almost certain to grow into THE dominant tech story for 2007 and will almost certainly still be dragging through the courts come the end of the decade. On the outcome rides billions of dollars, massive egos and the fate of the entire IT industry.
Slashdot Mirror
> Better in the sense that any person who buys something that later turns out to be crap/dies/whatever has to justify it to death
> why it is better and why the market was wrong.
Nah, Beta was better from a techical sense. It had a better picture, I could see that. I bought VHS though because it was better in every other way. Which is pretty much par for the course for Sony. They make good tech then screw it up in the implementation and marketing. See Mini-Disc and I'm afraid we can add Blue-Ray to that list in a few years.
> Is there a good reason they seem to think they know better than Linus and all the other devs working hard on the standard kernel
> or is it just an ego trip for the developers at these distros?
Yes, there are lots of good reasons. We can start with Xen. All of the big distros support it but it isn't in the mainline kernel tree. So right there you blow away the ability to run the mainline kernel without breaking things. The list goes on from there. The latest device drivers that haven't yet made it upstream, bug fixes that are working their way upstream, etc. There are lots of other good reasons why a distro kernel gets patches.
SUSE, like RHEL is longterm stable. That means bug fixes and security issues get patched into the same base kernel that originally shipped with that version of the distro because revving the whole kernel would be a nightmare.
That said, Fedora does have a policy of trying to stay close to the upstream kernel, pushing their patches upline wherever possible and not being afraid to revv the whole kernel in the lifetime of a 'stable' release. But when it comes down to big patchsets like Xen that they really want to ship but that neither Xen nor Linus appear interested in seeing merged they don't really have much of a choice. Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.
I mean, like duh! Steve have been Bills's bitch now for over two decades, about time they made it legal and all. :)
Seriously, anyone here doesn't believe they sat down years ago and came to an agreement hasn't been paying attention. Bill owns the world but he permits Steve to continue to exist... under some fairly obvious limitations.
1) Bill can plunder Apple for ideas at will and Steve is permitted to whine like the bitch he is so long as nothing is really done about it. Lawsuits are OK, they are part of what keeps the DOJ convinced there is 'competition.'
2) Apple must NEVER sell 10% of pc units. As overpriced boutique items, briefly exceeding 10% of sales volume would be grudgingly acceptable perhaps... unless Dell cries.
Go follow your link again, the article ahs been updated, striking the closed part and adding an explicit statement from Palm that it is OPEN. Guess I should not have doubted Palm (in another post) on that part, they built the company on 3rd party developers.
Ok, if they are really printing UV with a standard CMYK color laser printer then they deserve a patent. That's real innovation at work and not some lame ass '...on the Internet' patent.
> Nope, communist, socialist, they're all the same.
Actually, they ARE the same. The only difference is that socialists haven't achieved a total political victory yet, as soon as they do they rapidly morph into communists. Because when socialists attempt to actually put their theory into practice they realize, just as every other example, that the only two choices are to abandon the attempt or bit the bullet and go for communism. Some socialists WILL recoil and attempt to abort the slide to communism.... and be exiled, imprisioned or shot by the ones who don't. Communism/fascism/nazism is not what happens when 'bad people' hijack the revolution. It is socialism in practice. Go reread _The Road to Serfdom_ and try to understand it this time. (or more likely for the first time for the average slashdot reader) Socialist policies cannot coexist with liberty in practice, only in college classrooms.
> Think of it as a modern Tandy 102 and it begins to make sense.
Yea, the Tandy 100 changed the world in it's day.
If this thing is open, as in we can get in and make changes without losing the supplied applications and without violating the DMCA, then I can see myself lusting after one after the first refresh. Just because I NEVER buy first generation, I leave that to the people with more money than good sense.
From what I have been able to learn from the articles it would be able to do everything I really need from a portable. Give me net, email and a terminal with ssh and I'd be pretty close to good. If it would also easilly replace my old Handspring I'd be golden. Wifi would be good enough net for me, don't really need the smartphone.
> Chomsky isn't a communist, he's an anarchist, as he's said numerous times.
I don't care what he SAYS he is, he doesn't get to define the words "communist" or "anarchist" and when you map his stated political positions to the accepted definitions of the words he does not match "anarchist" but does match "communist", "socialist", "collectivist" and matches pretty well with "insane". Too much Doublethink will tend to damage the mind and apparently he actually believes the crap he spews.
And as a pretty reliable rule of thumb anyone who speaks well of Chomsky isn't someone with a well developed moral compass or very knowledgable on political issues. Most often a slacker college student.
> My god, you really are a fanatic OSS troll,
Guess you missed the part where I recommended Macs in certain scenarios. Longterm, yea I'm a Free Software believer. But mostly I think Windows is a menace and a disaster. Other than gamers I really don't know of a question where Windows is a good answer.
But more importantly Microsoft is fast becoming a threat to the entire idea of 'personal computers.' I'm becoming convinced they intend, and have a fair chance of attaining, nothing less than the elimination of the general purpose computer, replacing it with something more akin to an X-Box that runs IE and Office. If we can't gain enough control to offer credible competition before they manange to buy a law requiring all unregulated hardware to enforce code signing and DRM we all lose bigtime. On that day all small independent software houses are going to be hosed.
> Users want the simplest solution.
Of course, so do I.
> They are correct in believing that MS is the simplest solution.
They may be believe it but they would be wrong. Odds are as a developer in a vertical industry you are more computer literate than they are, but YOU believe it too so you can't correctly advise them.
This is 2007, if there is a Windows victim left who hasn't been wiping and reinstalling (or using Ghost) end user machines at least annually I haven't met em. Add in the cost of the 'protection' software that allows one to survive even a year with an end user and it is pretty awful... and expensive. Then add in the other costs of owning and maintaining Windows.
It isn't the best choice. It is just that most users have never even SEEN anything else and are afraid of the unknown.
If you are selling into operations too small to even have consultant system admins you probably should have Macs as your ultimate target to be guiding towards. Remember that there are a LOT of options these days to get the odd Windows executable running on a Mac. Have a look at what Code Weavers is doing in this area. Make YOUR stuff able to either run native on either platform or from a small server in their corner.
If the customer is a little bigger thin clients make sense. Remote in Windows from a server to cover the legacy stuff. But get those Windows desktops scrapped and stop the pain! Crossover Office is also something to experiment with, it runs a LOT of those simple 'industry specific apps' (read VB) and will only get better at it.
If you haven't experienced a thin client or server hosted homes on a thick client you can't really understand the difference. In my world (with 100 total seats at six sites) a workstation can die and we don't care. We toss the spare out and get on with our work. NO inportant data lives on the clients even though ours still have the OS on a local HDD. Yes you can pull most of this stuff off with Windows clients & servers but by the time you are done you have spent a lot more in time and money to make it actually work correctly and will spend more keeping it running. But until you experience it and truly understand there is a better way than unreliable Dells running unstable Windows you won't be able to explain it to others.
Whatever the question, Windows is probably the wrong answer. The sole exception is a gamer who wants more than a Playstation/X-Box can offer.
> I agree.
.net IE/Windows only crap and see if they are receptive. Explore whether your existing stuff can be run under Wine and fix things until it does work. Then plant a bug in your customer's ear that you AREN'T one of those crappy little vertical vendors who only understands Microsoft. and that if they want to escape you won't be one of the vendors holding them back, that you can support other platforms. If everyone is a passive as you and waits for someone else to go first Microsoft wins.
No. You don't really. You like to bitch and moan once in awhile but you really don't mind taking it up the pooper whenever Microsoft wants to shaft you. Harsh? Yup. Happens to be true though, based on what you are writing.
Because you have KNOWN exactly what Microsoft is and how your fortunes (and you customer, etc) are tied to Microsoft's whims for years (hell, decades now) and I didn't hear you mention the FIRST step towards an attempt to correct a situation you yourself realize is ultimately going to hurt you.
Yes you are right, that you and your customers have become ensnared in Microsoft's trap of dependency. And you are at least toying with the first step of admitting you have a dependency problem. Now you need a plan to break the unhealthy addiction. You really needed to start years back to have a leg up on the smart competitors who already figured it out but perhaps it isn't too late for you to save yourself.
Step one: When you are in a hole that is rapidly filling with water, the first step has to be to stop digging. That means make every effort to avoid adding any new dependencies on Microsoft technologies. That means don't touch Vista or any of any of it's new technologies or APIs. Same for Office 2007.
Step two: Develop a roadmap that will lead you where you want to be tomorrow, not where Microsoft wants you to go. Many find the easy path to be web based apps, especially in this era of AJAX. Pitch your customers a client neutral web based version of the apps you currently push on them as
Step three: start finding and deploying alternatives whenever practical. OO.o instead of Office where it will work, Firefox instead of IE anywhere there isn't a lot of ActiveX BS to snarl things up. Outlook/Outlook Express should be trashed anywhere people aren't already addicted to Exchange stuff. The more of those dependencies you can break, both for yourself and your customers, the easier it will be to open up options down the road. Same for file/print servers. They can make a great first step and let you gain practical experience.
Step four: Explore and experiment, learning what is out there is half the struggle. Microsoft crams their stuff down your craw, the free stuff is often waiting for you to go looking for it.
Step five: Don't just look at Linux. Yes a Mac isn't any more RMS pure than Windows and they want the same power Microsoft has, but Microsoft is the threat to independent developers and users today. And a Mac can run Photoshop/etc.
> With everything that's going on now, I can't imagine putting geek issues on top of my list when I pick a candidate.
Amen to that. Yes there is a lot of potential for bad stuff in the future if the Internet regulation thing goes horribly wrong. But patents and copyrights probably won't get any WORSE regardless who is elected President.
However all that pales into the background compared to the big issue, survival.
There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen and/or lend the terrorists aid, confort and political cover to the ones with the AK-47s and the bomb belts.
One of our major political parties, from a combination of mindless BDS and a natural tendency towards spinelessness, is arrayed from apathy through surrender with a few outright ON THE OTHER FSCKING SIDE. The other has nost major candidates paying lip service to winning the War on Radical Islam but giving off strong hints they will at best be like Bush, willing to fight just enough to piss people off but with ho hope of going all in for the win and at worst as bad as the other party.
> So, in other words, they don't want to work in IT.
Exactly, they don't want to WORK in IT... but if offered on a silver platter they might consent to starting right into a management position in the IT Dept. Yes I know management skills aren't the same as the ones needed for hands on stuff, but it damn sure helps if one knows SOME of the skills your underlings use, if nothing else it allows you to communicate in ways that don't look ripped straight from the pages of Dilbert.
And because of quotas and fear of the EEOC I suspect quite a few are getting exactly what they are asking for. God only knows it is the only explanation for how Carly ever made CEO at HP. Ok, that wasn't nice.... but probably true.
> Have news cameras in the mosques every day recording the bad teachings? Have non-muslims attending the mosque sermons
If that is what it takes. Listen up Citizen, we are in a battle for the survival of our civilization, not just a single nation state. One side is going to win and one lose.. or in the words of Ming the Merciless, "be willing to settle for less." I'm as simplistic as Reagan, "We win, they lose." is the only outcome I plan on accepting.
> Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.
Yea, if carried to the extreme. But it wouldn't. Assume we (we being followers of what could broadly be called Western Civilivation) grew a pair and started holding the Religion of Peace(tm) to account for their more dangerous notions. Well it is safe to assume that under the scrutiny there would be a trend to moderate in some while others decided their host country was no longer hospitable and return to somewhere where Sharia prevails. As Islam (at least as taught and practiced in the West) moderated there being less to poke fun at, we would be less motivated to poke fun at em. Eventually a balance would be reached, much like Christian churches and the Enlightenment reached a stable relationship by moderating some of it's more antiquated notions.
Much like the Spanish Inquisition isn't likely to come knocking anymore, Islam has to give up a few of it's more uncivilized traditions if it is to be permitted to live in civilized lands.
> If there's a strong anti-Semitic view in the mosques of England, I suppose there's nothing we can do about that.
Yes there is. No the government should not pass more useless asshattery like 'hate crimes' laws. No the government should not establish a commission to regulate the contents of religious teachings. Yes the rest of society can and should hold those mosques that teach evil and stupid things up to public inspection and yes even ridicule. They get away with what they do because everyone is afraid to even object, and that is BEFORE the worries that the 'Religion of Peace(tm)' will KILL you for offending their insensibilities. Yes we can and MUST expose the terrorist supporting portion of Islam within Western societies, put protesters outside their door, regular dosings of media exposes and long well researched and 100% factual newpaper and magazine articles, etc.
The second thing we can do is FORCE them to integrate into our society instead of this politically correct multiculturalism that teaches that anything that isn't Western is superior so we have no right to object, even when leftist loons are forced to defend 7th Century misogeny like honor killings, forced weddings and female genital mutilation. Step one, force imigrants to know the dominate language and customs before granting Citizenship. That gets em out of their media and cultural ghetto.
> ...it's their right to believe what they choose.
No. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, not their own reality. You get to to have your own ideas about what facts mean but you don't get your own facts. 2+2=4 no matter how hard you believe otherwise.
Reality is that which doesn't change no matter how hard you wish it otherwise. The Holocost is objective reality. The fact the whole Middle East was on the Axis side is also objective reality. The fact they LOST WWII is objective reality. And in the end that last fact is the heart of the matter. Because if all three of the facts I just stated are reality their own worldview can't exist, so they collectively went into denial. Because it all comes down to their objection of the Western powers setting up Israel. Here in Reality winning WWII gave the victors the right to remake the defeated enemies territories including, granting Israel to the surviving Jews, splitting up Germany, tearing apart Japanese society and remaking it in our own image, etc.
The difference is we didn't occupy the Middle East and force their backwards asses into the 20th Century, mostly because before oil was discovered nobody cared enough. That was a mistake, but hindsight is always better than foresight. What is happening now with appeasing the crazies is obviously stupid to anyone outside government and the far left. If we won't stand up and defend the teaching of objective REALITY how is the West supposed to muster the courage to defend it's BELIEFS?
> There is no inexpensive and hassle-free way to selectively grant and deny based on whether you are a customer.
Inexpensive? Depends on your definition of inexpensive. There are a LOT of 'vendor solutions' out there for wireless access control and I doubt they consider themselves unaffordable. It is up to each operator to decide if the cost of a 'solution' is worth the asking price. And yes a popular, rational I might add, option is to decide that the bother of registering each customer's laptop for a limited time exceeds the losses from freeloaders even if the enabling software were free, easy to install and dead simple to use. But if there were demand for the feature I'm sure equipment vendors would at least offer a capture url on first access that displayed a terms of service page editable by the operator of the access point. Pretty sure OpenWRT can do that.
If you got a page that says "This access point is provided for the exclusive use of paying customers of "XYZ Coffeeshop", all other access is UNAUTHORIZED and will constitute theft of service." it would change the legal picture entirely. Because then you would know what the house rules are and that you were breaking them. But an open access point is just that, open. And usually pretty anonymous since the people who don't secure their AP often leave the ESSID set to linksys.
> and no a judge wouldn't
Only because judges are generally illiterate on things tech. DHCP is exactly a request to be assigned network resources. Your workstation/laptop sends out a request containing a globally unique identifier (MAC addr) and the server is free to permit or deny access based on it. That dhcp server is under your control and making decisions based on a policy you gave it, thus it is acting on authority you delegated unto it. By default most routers will hand out an address to anyone who asks for one, which implies a GRANT ANY policy. However almost all DHCP servers offer more restrictive options, even those found in consumer electronics class wireless routers.
Perhaps we need a warning label on the boxes:
"Warning, by default this product will grant access to anyone within it's range who asks. If this is NOT what you want please follow the directions to change it's policy."
> Who ever has the gold, makes the rules.
/. notes, is operated directly by Congress. If anyone would care to name a more politically motivated organization I wanna hear about it. Which it must be, btw, any asshat who says otherwise is an ignorant twat.
Exactly. People here are just shocked, shocked I say, that an arm of an explicitly political[1] organization is influenced by politics. What next, the sad realization that cute kittens KILL? That corporations are amoral, almost by definition? That Mother Nature is a bitch? That Michael Moore is a socialist tool? Hello! reality calling, will you accept the charges?
[1] The Smithsonian, as even the blurb here on
> This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Either you believe in NO restriction on field of use or you don't. Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers. It is if course perfectly fine to object to puppy mulchers, and anyone who actually mulches a puppy but whether the machine runs Linux, BSD or Windows shouldn't matter. Except if it has some neato realtime hacks in the control mech, they use Linux and the manufacturer refuses to give up the patches. But if they participate in the usual way their patches should follow the same path into the kernel as anyone else's. If the fscking Norks start sending in patches they should be given exactly the same peer review as any one else's.
But on the broader issues here, part of civilizived behaviour is being able to agree with someone on one issue and work with them while disagreeing on others. I don't claim to understand the intricate German politics involved in this issue but if the Interior Ministry is putting money into sponsoring a show I just don't see the problem unless they plan to use their money to influence the show for some purpose at odds with the goals of Linux in the commercial settings a trade show normally deals with.
Let me give a few examples. I'm a right leaning anti-idiotarian libertarian, which puts me at odds politically with most of the readership here and a majority of the F/OSS camp. I can still think RMS is a visionary on the issue of Free Software, while also considering him a hopeless 'crazed moonbat with near terminal BDS' politically. But since he doesn't go to Linux events and rant about how evil Bush is I don't have a problem with him, at least on software issues. When RMS speaks with his FSF St. Ignuisus hat on I'll listen and often agree. I suppose he is also active on Kos or DU, but I wouldn't know. Which is the point, he doesn't try to use his considerable influence and moral authority to lend weight to issues is isn't an authority on. On the other hand I stopped donating to the EFF after 9/11 because they DID let their conspiracy theory politics infect their work.
> I don't see how a content site that collects confidential information that may be used in a
> screening process can possibly be considered a common carrier under anyone's definition of the term.
You are correct... as far as that reasoning goes. But the CORRECT ruling (yea, good luck getting a sane ruling in CA) would have been to toss the case on the grounds that neither the "Fair Housing Act" nor the CDA pass Constituitional muster. The CDA fails on 1st and 10th Amendment grounds and the FHA on 10th. So it should have been tossed back into state courts.
Listen up pinheads, people have the right to be wrong. At least 'wrong' from your point of view. Since Stallman already has claimed Freedom Zero call this one Freedom -1. For if you claim the right to tell someone they are wrong and must agree with you, you are asserting yourself as their master. And the odds approach 100% that sooner or later everyone else is going to think one of your cherished beliefs/practices is 'wrong' and impose their will on you. And having given up the principles of Freedom you will have no moral argument to offer as to why you should be left in peace.
Tolerence isn't allowing people you agree with to do things you approve of, it is permitting people you don't like to do things you disapprove of so long as they don't use force or fraud against others. Yes that means yo have to tolerate the intolerant sometimes.
> This is why I'm in favor of an Enumerated Powers act
It's called the 9th and 10th Amendment. It makes explicit the idea that the default for the Federal Government is NO. And they generally pay lip service.... and invoke the Commerce Clause yet again.
The problem isn't in the code, it is in the execution. But in the end more Amendments won't save us, the occasional feel good Act of Congress won't. We have to save us. We have to make violations of the Oath of Office a firing offense. Good luck getting the government schools to actually teach kids to read something as complex as the Constituition though.... Not that it is actually hard or anything, but now anything longer than a paragraph written at a K-4 reading level is "hard" for most high school graduates.
What would put is on the road to solving our problem is sneak a ringer into one of the presidential debates and rig the questions to insert a couple of tough Constituitional questions into the pool, thus sparking a good national debate on the subject. Most people have never actually READ the Constituition, they just know it means whatever the talking head on the TV says it says.
Stuff like:
1. Mr. McCain, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." did you have a problem comprehending when you voided the Right to petition the government for Redress of grievances?
2. Mrs. Clinton, would you kindly point to exactly what part of the Constituition gave you the power to attempt to nationalize the medical profession in this country? In the interest of time you can even skip the part about not actually being president at the time.
3. Mr. Giuliani, you recently admitted in an interview that you believe the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right. Please reconcile this with your support of the so called "Assault Weapons Ban"? What part of "Shall not be infringed" confuses you?
4. Mr. Thompson, you talk really good about limited government NOW, but while you were actually IN office you voted for McCain/Feingold and you even supported Mr. McCain for President in 2000. Care to explain?
oh hell, the rest are either fish in a barrel or not a good enough candidate to be worth the bother ripping on.
And once we win back the Republic one of the best ways to keep it would be an Amendment to permit the following: Mandatory civics classes for seniors that end with handing em a copy of the Constituition and a warning that in a week will be an open debate/q&a on various topics followed by a final test. Multiple choice, a few dozen questions. Fail more than one and no voting priviledges and no retake for five years. Future generations might fall for voting for bread & circuses again but at least they would KNOW they were doing it.
> Well, am not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is that the Constitution must be interpreted according to
> case law, not according to what any given individual thinks it should mean. You can't just pick and choose
> how you interpret the words that make up the language of the Constitution and expect that it to be legitimate.
No, we aren't living on Omega IV. The "E plab nista" isn't just for Chiefs and sons of Chiefs. It isn't just for Supreme Court justices to hand down from on high either. Even though that was a very weak Trek episode, Kirk was spot on with that final admonition to Chief William. The US Constituition is a remarkably well written and short document that anyone of average intellect can easily read and understand.
Just because almost every section is violated every day Congress is in session and most days it ain't doesn't mean we aren't all responsible for allowing it to happen. We The People are the ones who ultimately are responsible for losing the Republic our mighty forebearers bequeathed unto us. Because we stopped caring enough to insist our elected representitves actually be bound by the clear language in that document, because we decided we would rather vote ourselves bread & circuses, failing to realize the cost.
Any person who reads it and fails to agree with, just some personal examples add your own below, the following is ignorant or willfully opposed to our form (on paper at least) of government.
1. McCain/Feingold is clearly a violation of the Rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment. Since Congress failed to amend the Constitiution to grant Congress the powers it usurped, every member who voted for it (and the President who signed it; Bush and the Supremes who put their stamp of approval on it) is clearly in violation of their Oath.
2. Most of the Federal Government, exercising powers not clearly enumerated, violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Note that almost any of the various rogue agencies COULD be legal by amending the Constitution. I'm not saying we should not HAVE a Dept of Education, what I assert is that it should be evident to any literate sentient being that the current Constituition & Bill of Rights does not permit one.
3. Row V Wade has no rational basis in the Constituition as written. This does not preclude proposing an Amendment if the pro abortion side feels a) that the matter is one the government must intervene in and b) that allowing the states to regulate it is a bad idea. What isn't arguable is that the Supremes did great violence to our system of government with this ruling.
4. The 2nd Amendmemt is just as much an individual right as any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights where the phrase "the People" appears. While it might be possible to argue the 2nd REQUIRES every citizen to possess a weapon suitable for military purpose there is zero logical basis for an argument that it permits the outlawing of the possession by lawful citizens of personal arms. Again, if you want to argue that 'times have changed' or 'New York isn't Montana' you are free to do so, in the context of proposing an Amendment to the Constituition.
> We'll have done their homework for them.
No, I think this idea has merit in a bigger sense. Think about it, post where I'm wrong if you see an error.
Ok, Microsoft threatens Linux/OSS with a patent fudbomb. Now the world is waiting for a response. But lets focus on the part of the world that matters here, large instituitional shareholders of Microsoft stock. If our response is to just start at the most recent patent on record and devalue it by documenting weaknesses (prior art, obviouslness, whatever) and showing every intention of moving backward until we hit the expired ones what sort of potential paper losses would that involve? Remember that they derive a non-trivial income by cross licensing that patent portfolio and the size of it reduces the cost they pay to license other companies patents. Directly attack that treasure chest and they would certainly feel pain. Even a credible threat of a concerted distributed attack on that valuable balance sheet line item would get the interest of the professional investors. Remember the one thing they dislike is uncertainty when assessing risk.
In summary it is one of the only ways we can demonstrate a counter attack that would do more than simply annoy them. Microsoft only understands force and the threat of it. They ruthlessly attack when they see weakness and deal when they encounter strength... and look for ways to undermine the foe and then attack.
> I know this is Slashdot and everything, but at what point do the Microsoft stories become redundant?
This story justifies the coverage. It is almost certain to grow into THE dominant tech story for 2007 and will almost certainly still be dragging through the courts come the end of the decade. On the outcome rides billions of dollars, massive egos and the fate of the entire IT industry.