Re:Good move (probably their only move)
on
Be Inc. IPO-bound
·
· Score: 1
E*Trade is not the underwriter for this offering. They are just another brokerage who has access to an allotment of shares to sell.
The underwriters are Volpe Brown Whelan & Company and Needham & Company.
After reading through the prospectus, I have to say that I'd feel more comfortable taking my cash to Las Vegas and throwing it down on the craps table. They definitely have a very, very weak position in the industry, both with their (only) product and with their large accumulation of debt.
The IPO will provide them with the capital that they need to pursue just that issue. Of course, whether it works or not is a matter of speculation.
Something that appeals to me about Be, as opposed to, say, Yahoo or Excite, is that that Be actually has a product, a physical "thing" that they can sell. Rather than being a nebulous, non-producing company, they do have something to sell. Now, that may not make any difference if the operating system ends up being another OS/2, but it does make them somewhat more traditional than the current crop of Internet companies.
That being said, I can say that I have no intention of investing my money in Be. I don't think that they are poised to step in as a replacement for anyone. They certainly don't compete with Microsoft and they aren't the media darling that is Linux. But perhaps they will find a niche.
Oh, and I do use BeOS 4.5 on one of my systems, but only because they sent it to me for free!
To say that the article excludes a lot of technological information is an understatement. The article claims that they don't know where the technology came from! Either their command of the English language is absolutely terrible, or this is a perfect candidate for Joe Firmage's new company to fund.
The web site looks like more of an April Fools' joke...they slapped their logo on a Pentium II cartridge with some paint program, took a stock photo of a silicon wafer and somehow came up with this "unknown" technology that they aren't going to sell to the monopolizing computer companies.
Does anyone REALLY believe this? Remember, just because it's on the web doesn't mean that it's true!
A well thought response, like the one above, is an effective means of countering a poor piece of journalism.
Unfortunately, its author's credibility becomes strained when it contains spelling and grammar errors.
Please, I must urge those who elect to take a high profile stand in any cause to ask somebody to review your writing for errors. A well crafted, well thought response will always be better received than just a well thought response.
You might even use a computerized grammar/spell checker.
Codewarrior was initially announced as being targeted to RedHat. A bit more research tells us that, in fact, the initial release will be a RedHat-centric product, followed by releases supporting other distributions.
Who do you blame here? If the programmers who wrote Codewarrior felt the need to target a specific distribution, that means that there must be a difference in distributions that one release could not address. If that's the case, then let's distribute the blame evenly, not just at RedHat's door.
But somehow, I feel that there is not such a substantial difference. I believe that the issue here is that a distribution had to be selected to test against and RedHat won out by virtue of its popularity and large installation base. Nothing sinister, here!
Re:Yea, well they arnt evil, just a company
on
Linux is Not Red Hat
·
· Score: 1
Hasn't the aim of every Linux advocate been to encourage the adoption of Linux as a mainstream operating system? That would be an operating system for the masses.
Of course RedHat is out to make money. Every company that Publishes a Linux distribution is out to make money.
I disagree that we need a healthy amount of different operating systems. The idea of having to port an application between a "healthy amount of different operating systems" ought to be horrifying. Linux has an excellent paradigm. One operating system, many versions, almost complete interoperability.
I say that we need to get off of this hack on RedHat mentality. It's nothing but jealousy...somebody's getting ahead and that sits bad with a few people. Get over it.
I became involved with Linux when I was in the Navy in San Diego in 1994. At that point, Slackware was the dominant distribution, a very narrow range of hardware was supported and a 486 was as powerful a processor as you might ever need.
At that time, OS/2 was the big threat to Microsoft because it was a "better Windows than Windows." Nobody gave Linux a second, third or fourth thought. And there were no rabid Linux enthusiasts, trying to find ways to promote that operating system as a replacement for Microsoft's.
Five years is a long time in the computer world. It's like dog years, I suppose. In that time, fantastic things have happened with Linux, developments that can certainly be attributed to the advocacy of legions of vocal Linux supporters.
Linux has been something like a stepchild that craves attention. It can do so many things very well, and other things competently. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the operating system. But Windows has been the family favorite and that's tough to swallow.
But lately, something has changed. Linux is becoming more accepted. And that's what we want, right? Well? Isn't that what we want?
Finally, a Linux distribution has gained enough respect and understanding to be the subject of an IPO. The operating system gets more positive media attention than any other. And most of that attention is being paid to the one distribution whose publishers do the most to market: RedHat.
So all of a sudden, RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux. Just because they've achieved significant media attention. Well, so what?
The problem that I see here is one of expectations. You wanted Linux to become a mainstream operating system, but you wanted it to remain open and free. You wanted corporations to embrace Linux over Windows, but you wanted it to remain unencumbered by corporate marketing.
You wanted the same Linux that you've always had to remain the same, even though the short history of the computing industry shows that corporations will not accept software that does not have some sort of traditional means of support and distribution.
You can't have it both ways. Linux will remain a hobbyist's toy and a specialist's tool if it must continue with its established paradigm. But if you want Linux to compete with Windows, then somebody has to adopt the characteristics of Microsoft. The industry reacts poorly to wholesale change, so for Linux to triumph, its advocates must select the best aspects of Microsoft's methods and apply those.
All assuming, of course, that what you really want from Linux is a Microsoft killer.
The update engine at setiathome has not been working correctly for at least a week. You'll find that individual totals don't come close to team totals. So, although Slashdot may be listed as number one, it's entirely possible that it is not.
Indeed, there are far more people participating than there is data to be processed. The site has already announced that they are re-sending data from a two or three day period to be processed again.
This is an interesting project, and I was involved early on with the Linux client. I don't believe that the organizers had any idea of how explosive the participation was going to be. I suppose that some people may perceive that as a bad thing (from a planning point of view), but I'm encouraged by it...besides, the Windows-based application has a cool looking screen saver!
RedHat's IPO announcement seems to have generated plenty of FUD here on Slashdot. I hate to add to it, but I have some questions:
What does RedHat offer that other distributions do not? Is it that RedHat is the dominant (in terms of installed base) distribution? If so, that seems like a fleeting position. I believe that whomever offers the best distribution at the lowest price will be a winner. Caldera's product certainly is no slouch in that regard.
What happens to RedHat if SuSE, Debian or Caldera decide that the easiest way to become the best is to offer their distribution for US$20 or $30 less than RedHat? Caldera is in CompUSA for $29 before rebate. As somebody already pointed out, what happens if a major contributor to Linux goes to another distributor?
I don't think that RedHat's past performance is any indication of their viability as a public company. The fact that they have lost money doesn't make them a bad investment...after all, they are shipping a product and have a physical customer base. This is not a Yahoo or Excite.
In RedHat's favor, the do have significant control over GNOME and appear intent upon it becoming the dominant environment. They also have significantly higher name recognition amongst Linux distributions. They also have the support of big "names" in the computer industry. It strikes me that if Intel is willing to put money into RedHat, that lends some validity to the company's presence in this industry.
Finally, just because a company elects to go public, we as Linux advocates should not view them as enemies. While a public company has a responsibility to their stockholders, they also have a mission and a philosophy that carries over from their time as a private company. The stockholders must invest with that in mind. I think that the S-1 filing clearly shows that. Because of the nature of an S-1, there is blunt language in there that may grate us somewhat, but it's part of the responsibility that RedHat has to its investors. Nothing about RedHat has changed, except that now they have to actually say the things that we've always quietly wondered.
Is the IPO a good thing? Who knows? The people who buy the stock will think so. Does RedHat "owe" something to the legions of Linux advocates who have supported them over time? Maybe, but when the rubber hits the road, RedHat, like every other Linux distributor, is a company and as such, must behave as one.
US West has no restrictions on the number of machines you can connect, although, of course, they will only support one system if you have problems.
No servers? How can they stop you? Guess what? If you have an IP, you can have a server because that machine will have a name. You just need to do a little extra work to find out what that name is.
If DSL is available in your area, then there is probably more than one ISP providing DSL service. Shop around...get the best deal.
In my case, DSL made the PERFECT home network...11 computers, I host two domains, and even though the IP addresses are assigned with dhcp, they are keyed to the MAC, so they never change.
I completely disagree that the ISP's make the pipe impossible to use. If you can't find an ISP who is willing to give you what I seem to be able to get from US West, then look at it from the point of getting an extremely fast connection for a reasonable amount of money...and if you want to be an ISP, then lease a T1 line and go into business!
$76.95 seems high? Really? For an operating system that competes against Windows NT Server? I don't suppose that you've priced that package lately. Oh, and check out the license...how many computers can you install that copy of NT on?
I bought RedHat 5.1 for $50. Ditto for 5.2. Yeah, it's a 50% increase in price, but I think that I'm still getting good value for my money.
$76.95 is the MOST that you'll pay for Red Hat. Or you can buy it for a couple of bucks from CheapBytes. Or you can download it for nothin' from that high speed ethernet connection at school.
Why do you suppose that RedHat charges what they do? Because it's not a slap-dash mix of whatever Linux-related stuff is out there. They do compatibility testing and fix what doesn't work. They paid the programmers to develop Gnome. And they pay a ton of money to have a call center to answer installation questions.
The thing that I find so remarkable is that they've added tremendous value to the product, yet you or I can download it for nothing on the Internet. With the source code. Nobody else does that.
And for what it's worth, pop over to your local computer store or out onto the 'net and see what Windows 98 full version sells for. Then decide who's charging too much money. As a hint...it ain't Red Hat!
There is at least one good reason to ship with UPS or some other *reliable* shipping company. UPS, et al, provides a tracking number that lets you see where the package went. They actually account for your package. USPS does not.
Also, the $8 (actually, it's $9.37) covers quite a bit more than shipping. UPS for a CD is only three or four bucks. So that "free" CD is actually somewhat more expensive.
Wait...before we get all lathered up about hacker/cracker/script kiddie/whatever...
This article is nothing more than a string of quotes from security "experts". Let's not lambaste Wired just yet. In fact, perhaps they ought to be congratulated. They just associated names with some very odd uses of the term "hacker".
At this point, I'd be pretty embarassed to have my name show up in that article. I, for one, think that Wired's article wasn't so bad and may insidiously work to alter the hacker/cracker misconception.
These aren't electrostatic...I recall reading about the development of the "exciter" that they mention on the web site several months ago. In the press release, they claimed that they could make speakers of almost any size, so long as the transmitting medium was stiff enough.
I see a couple of problems with planar speakers, although they are more personal in nature than objective.
1. They are not a point source, so they are very poor performers in creating a spatial sound field, such as that generated by 3-D sound cards. Since the sound is radiated 360 degrees in a horizontal plane (or nearly so...there are "dead" areas at the sides of the speakers), there is no "focal point" or discernable origin of the sound.
2. Frequency response from planar speakers has always been problematical at best. Infinity probably made the best use of the characteristics of planar elements in their ribbon tweeters of 20 years ago or so. These speakers produce great mide and high range sound, but they are simply too large in area to move coherently over large distances to create any kind of substantial bass frequencies. You'll see that most fans of planar speakers are also fans of subwoofers for this very reason. That's also why these speakers come with a subwoofer.
As far as speaker tech goes, these are really more of a curiosity than anything else, I think. But there are other uses for the technology, such as panels built into walls or ceilings that can produce sound without the physical intrusiveness of a speaker box.
I suppose that a case can be made for the smaller footprint that these speakers have. And they do look very cool...and that's certainly worth something!
Hmmm...how many trips to Idaho? If you made any, then you must have been traveling with your eyes closed.
Let's see...technological wasteland that it is, Idaho is home to:
Micron Technology (corporate headquarters) Micron Electronics (corporate headquarters) Zilog (corporate headquarters) Extended Systems (corporate headquarters) Boise Cascade (corporate headquarters) Morrison Knudesen (corporate headquarters) Albertson's (corporate headquarters) Hewlett Packard (largest single facility the company owns) TCI/Primestar MCI
Let's see...ADSL is available. Boise State University offers degrees in Engineering and Computer Science.
AND...snow and water skiing is 15 miles away. So is the forest. Like the desert? 15 miles the other way. Rivers? One goes through the middle of town...and you can swim in it 'cause it isn't polluted.
Maybe you couldn't screw up writing about these guys, but, on the other hand, they are screwed up enough that you took the line they gave you...and they reeled in a big one!
I'm writing this from my PII450 which is just a small part of an 11 computer network (if you count the four system Beowulf cluster as four computers) connected to a 512K ADSL bridge (tweaked to 1088K outbound) that supports two different domains (fluidlight.com and nospin.org) and a grunch of mailing lists. At my house. And I'm a lightweight.
I work for a company that makes Linux-based networking products. I'm majoring in Electrical Engineering at Boise State University (not Idaho State...Katz needs to check his facts!)
Micron Technology is the largest memory maker in the US. Zilog is just down the road. Micron Electronics is number 10. Hewlett Packard's single largest facility is here.
Don't like tech? Albertson's, Boise-Cascade and Morrison-Knudsen have headquarters here.
Yeah, maybe Caldwell isn't the hip, high tech scene of a geek's desire, but if Katz's boys cared to drive down the road 30 miles, then his article would have had no meaning.
As usual, Katz has written an article that manages to show that yet again he can drag those old blinders out of the barn and see just what he wants to see. I hope that the money's good.
So this evening, like a lot of evenings, I turn on my computer, fire up the web browser and/. comes up because it's my default home page. And I take a look at the little graphic that comes with the web page. It goes something like this: Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Then I see this article...obviously it's a joke, and it's a pretty clever one.
Then my brain engages. How is this "News for Nerds"? Exactly why is this "Stuff that matters"? The answer is...drum roll please...it's not.
What's going on with/.? This used to be a pretty hip place that collected a lot of good news that was really interesting, but lately it's turning into a place for tired old news to get a fresh spin before it goes back into the boneyard. It's a site to look over one more April Fool's joke page, a week into the month. It's where we can debate such important topics as how to moderate messages.
In the meantime, I'm having a hard time seeing the news for all the noise. If I want to see junk on a web page, I can go over to CNN.
Something's wrong with/.. Maybe it's that sad sort of decline that comes to an organization when it becomes so self absorbed that it forgets what its original purpose was. Or maybe it's that Rob is too busy doing other important things to keep an eye on the quality of the site. Whatever it is, I'm disappointed to see the road that we're traveling here.
Maybe things will change. I hope so, because/. serves a good purpose...it's like a giant distributed nerd made up of lots of little nerds. Let's make sure that the nerd doesn't get too wrapped up in himself and forget why he's here.
Forgive me for straying from the topic, but you've hit a sore point with me.
The Internet was not created to withstand a nuclear attack. It was created because the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) couldn't afford to keep buying tremendously expensive mainframe computers for every organization that was performing research for them. To solve the problem, they contracted with several organizations, including BBN, University of California and University of Utah to join their existing mainframe computers together. Ultimately, that became the Internet of today, after mixing in a good dose of PARC, NSF and a phone company or two. But the defense department never had any intention of using ARPANet, NSFNet or the Internet for any strategic purpose.
That's an interesting idea, but I wonder if it could serve to silence a minority opinion? I mean, I'd like to think that if I didn't agree with an opinion, but it was well crafted that I'd upgrade it, but I wonder if, in reality I'd really do that? Multiply that by a few thousand.
As a case in point, say somebody writes a well thought out response that shows, point by point, why Windows NT is a superior OS when compared to Linux. No rhetoric, no flamethrowing, just a carefully reasoned comment. I certainly wouldn't agree with it. And I'll bet that not only would most of the readers not agree with it, but many would be vitriolic in their disagreement. Suddenly, this comment is relegated to the moderation basement, all because it's an unpopular position.
This is a long winded way of saying that a cadre of impartial, careful moderators can do a lot of good at weeding out the chaff, while protecting the voices of the minority. The new system seems like the right way to go.
Uh...yeah, OK. By god, the whole industry went to hell after Henry Ford stopped making the Model T.
Sheesh. Get a grip. Maybe we ought to lower the speed limit to 20.
The devices aren't dangerous, it's the imbeciles who use them that are dangerous. Hey, that's it! We'll pass a law making imbecility a crime! Hmm...I wonder who we can throw in jail first?
I've done this on a couple of Micron systems with the M55Hi+ motherboard. It's got the integrated SB16. I just configured ISAPNP, then recompiled the kernel with the settings that came out of/etc/isapnp.conf and it worked fine. I haven't worked on a system with video down, but I don't see why that should be any different than video on a card, as long as it's a supported chipset. You can email me if you want to know more...me@adsl12.bois.uswest.net
Maybe we should attach the name of every single person or organization who has worked on Linux to the name of the operating system. Yeah, that's it! Then instead of wasting our time arguing over who should get credit for it, we can waste our time trying to pronounce it.
Stallman claims that he's not seeking any glory for himself, but the quotes in the article say otherwise. Here is a man who is obviously very bitter that he hasn't gotten some large chunk of the Linux payoff.
I submit that he does not get acknowledged because his behaviour is so far out on the fringe of society that he himself could do more damage to the concept of free software simply by being who he is.
Personally, I think that we should all breath a sigh of relieve that Stallman is not too closely associated in people's minds with Linux.
There...I said it. Linux. Not GNU/Linux. I call BS on the idea that people are too lazy to say it...they call it by the name that it really is. Sheesh. Egos.
Slashdot Mirror
E*Trade is not the underwriter for this offering. They are just another brokerage who has access to an allotment of shares to sell.
The underwriters are Volpe Brown Whelan & Company and Needham & Company.
After reading through the prospectus, I have to say that I'd feel more comfortable taking my cash to Las Vegas and throwing it down on the craps table. They definitely have a very, very weak position in the industry, both with their (only) product and with their large accumulation of debt.
=h=
The IPO will provide them with the capital that they need to pursue just that issue. Of course, whether it works or not is a matter of speculation.
Something that appeals to me about Be, as opposed to, say, Yahoo or Excite, is that that Be actually has a product, a physical "thing" that they can sell. Rather than being a nebulous, non-producing company, they do have something to sell. Now, that may not make any difference if the operating system ends up being another OS/2, but it does make them somewhat more traditional than the current crop of Internet companies.
That being said, I can say that I have no intention of investing my money in Be. I don't think that they are poised to step in as a replacement for anyone. They certainly don't compete with Microsoft and they aren't the media darling that is Linux. But perhaps they will find a niche.
Oh, and I do use BeOS 4.5 on one of my systems, but only because they sent it to me for free!
=h=
To say that the article excludes a lot of technological information is an understatement. The article claims that they don't know where the technology came from! Either their command of the English language is absolutely terrible, or this is a perfect candidate for Joe Firmage's new company to fund.
The web site looks like more of an April Fools' joke...they slapped their logo on a Pentium II cartridge with some paint program, took a stock photo of a silicon wafer and somehow came up with this "unknown" technology that they aren't going to sell to the monopolizing computer companies.
Does anyone REALLY believe this? Remember, just because it's on the web doesn't mean that it's true!
=h=
A well thought response, like the one above, is an effective means of countering a poor piece of journalism.
Unfortunately, its author's credibility becomes strained when it contains spelling and grammar errors.
Please, I must urge those who elect to take a high profile stand in any cause to ask somebody to review your writing for errors. A well crafted, well thought response will always be better received than just a well thought response.
You might even use a computerized grammar/spell checker.
Codewarrior was initially announced as being targeted to RedHat. A bit more research tells us that, in fact, the initial release will be a RedHat-centric product, followed by releases supporting other distributions.
Who do you blame here? If the programmers who wrote Codewarrior felt the need to target a specific distribution, that means that there must be a difference in distributions that one release could not address. If that's the case, then let's distribute the blame evenly, not just at RedHat's door.
But somehow, I feel that there is not such a substantial difference. I believe that the issue here is that a distribution had to be selected to test against and RedHat won out by virtue of its popularity and large installation base. Nothing sinister, here!
Hasn't the aim of every Linux advocate been to encourage the adoption of Linux as a mainstream operating system? That would be an operating system for the masses.
Of course RedHat is out to make money. Every company that Publishes a Linux distribution is out to make money.
I disagree that we need a healthy amount of different operating systems. The idea of having to port an application between a "healthy amount of different operating systems" ought to be horrifying. Linux has an excellent paradigm. One operating system, many versions, almost complete interoperability.
I say that we need to get off of this hack on RedHat mentality. It's nothing but jealousy...somebody's getting ahead and that sits bad with a few people. Get over it.
This RedHat backlash has me bemused...and amused.
I became involved with Linux when I was in the Navy in San Diego in 1994. At that point, Slackware was the dominant distribution, a very narrow range of hardware was supported and a 486 was as powerful a processor as you might ever need.
At that time, OS/2 was the big threat to Microsoft because it was a "better Windows than Windows." Nobody gave Linux a second, third or fourth thought. And there were no rabid Linux enthusiasts, trying to find ways to promote that operating system as a replacement for Microsoft's.
Five years is a long time in the computer world. It's like dog years, I suppose. In that time, fantastic things have happened with Linux, developments that can certainly be attributed to the advocacy of legions of vocal Linux supporters.
Linux has been something like a stepchild that craves attention. It can do so many things very well, and other things competently. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the operating system. But Windows has been the family favorite and that's tough to swallow.
But lately, something has changed. Linux is becoming more accepted. And that's what we want, right? Well? Isn't that what we want?
Finally, a Linux distribution has gained enough respect and understanding to be the subject of an IPO. The operating system gets more positive media attention than any other. And most of that attention is being paid to the one distribution whose publishers do the most to market: RedHat.
So all of a sudden, RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux. Just because they've achieved significant media attention. Well, so what?
The problem that I see here is one of expectations. You wanted Linux to become a mainstream operating system, but you wanted it to remain open and free. You wanted corporations to embrace Linux over Windows, but you wanted it to remain unencumbered by corporate marketing.
You wanted the same Linux that you've always had to remain the same, even though the short history of the computing industry shows that corporations will not accept software that does not have some sort of traditional means of support and distribution.
You can't have it both ways. Linux will remain a hobbyist's toy and a specialist's tool if it must continue with its established paradigm. But if you want Linux to compete with Windows, then somebody has to adopt the characteristics of Microsoft. The industry reacts poorly to wholesale change, so for Linux to triumph, its advocates must select the best aspects of Microsoft's methods and apply those.
All assuming, of course, that what you really want from Linux is a Microsoft killer.
The update engine at setiathome has not been working correctly for at least a week. You'll find that individual totals don't come close to team totals. So, although Slashdot may be listed as number one, it's entirely possible that it is not.
Indeed, there are far more people participating than there is data to be processed. The site has already announced that they are re-sending data from a two or three day period to be processed again.
This is an interesting project, and I was involved early on with the Linux client. I don't believe that the organizers had any idea of how explosive the participation was going to be. I suppose that some people may perceive that as a bad thing (from a planning point of view), but I'm encouraged by it...besides, the Windows-based application has a cool looking screen saver!
RedHat's IPO announcement seems to have generated plenty of FUD here on Slashdot. I hate to add to it, but I have some questions:
What does RedHat offer that other distributions do not? Is it that RedHat is the dominant (in terms of installed base) distribution? If so, that seems like a fleeting position. I believe that whomever offers the best distribution at the lowest price will be a winner. Caldera's product certainly is no slouch in that regard.
What happens to RedHat if SuSE, Debian or Caldera decide that the easiest way to become the best is to offer their distribution for US$20 or $30 less than RedHat? Caldera is in CompUSA for $29 before rebate. As somebody already pointed out, what happens if a major contributor to Linux goes to another distributor?
I don't think that RedHat's past performance is any indication of their viability as a public company. The fact that they have lost money doesn't make them a bad investment...after all, they are shipping a product and have a physical customer base. This is not a Yahoo or Excite.
In RedHat's favor, the do have significant control over GNOME and appear intent upon it becoming the dominant environment. They also have significantly higher name recognition amongst Linux distributions. They also have the support of big "names" in the computer industry. It strikes me that if Intel is willing to put money into RedHat, that lends some validity to the company's presence in this industry.
Finally, just because a company elects to go public, we as Linux advocates should not view them as enemies. While a public company has a responsibility to their stockholders, they also have a mission and a philosophy that carries over from their time as a private company. The stockholders must invest with that in mind. I think that the S-1 filing clearly shows that. Because of the nature of an S-1, there is blunt language in there that may grate us somewhat, but it's part of the responsibility that RedHat has to its investors. Nothing about RedHat has changed, except that now they have to actually say the things that we've always quietly wondered.
Is the IPO a good thing? Who knows? The people who buy the stock will think so. Does RedHat "owe" something to the legions of Linux advocates who have supported them over time? Maybe, but when the rubber hits the road, RedHat, like every other Linux distributor, is a company and as such, must behave as one.
US West has no restrictions on the number of machines you can connect, although, of course, they will only support one system if you have problems.
No servers? How can they stop you? Guess what? If you have an IP, you can have a server because that machine will have a name. You just need to do a little extra work to find out what that name is.
If DSL is available in your area, then there is probably more than one ISP providing DSL service. Shop around...get the best deal.
In my case, DSL made the PERFECT home network...11 computers, I host two domains, and even though the IP addresses are assigned with dhcp, they are keyed to the MAC, so they never change.
I completely disagree that the ISP's make the pipe impossible to use. If you can't find an ISP who is willing to give you what I seem to be able to get from US West, then look at it from the point of getting an extremely fast connection for a reasonable amount of money...and if you want to be an ISP, then lease a T1 line and go into business!
$76.95 seems high? Really? For an operating system that competes against Windows NT Server? I don't suppose that you've priced that package lately. Oh, and check out the license...how many computers can you install that copy of NT on?
I bought RedHat 5.1 for $50. Ditto for 5.2. Yeah, it's a 50% increase in price, but I think that I'm still getting good value for my money.
$76.95 is the MOST that you'll pay for Red Hat. Or you can buy it for a couple of bucks from CheapBytes. Or you can download it for nothin' from that high speed ethernet connection at school.
Why do you suppose that RedHat charges what they do? Because it's not a slap-dash mix of whatever Linux-related stuff is out there. They do compatibility testing and fix what doesn't work. They paid the programmers to develop Gnome. And they pay a ton of money to have a call center to answer installation questions.
The thing that I find so remarkable is that they've added tremendous value to the product, yet you or I can download it for nothing on the Internet. With the source code. Nobody else does that.
And for what it's worth, pop over to your local computer store or out onto the 'net and see what Windows 98 full version sells for. Then decide who's charging too much money. As a hint...it ain't Red Hat!
There is at least one good reason to ship with UPS or some other *reliable* shipping company. UPS, et al, provides a tracking number that lets you see where the package went. They actually account for your package. USPS does not.
Also, the $8 (actually, it's $9.37) covers quite a bit more than shipping. UPS for a CD is only three or four bucks. So that "free" CD is actually somewhat more expensive.
Remember that great economics acronym: TANSTAAFL.
=h=
Wait...before we get all lathered up about hacker/cracker/script kiddie/whatever...
This article is nothing more than a string of quotes from security "experts". Let's not lambaste Wired just yet. In fact, perhaps they ought to be congratulated. They just associated names with some very odd uses of the term "hacker".
At this point, I'd be pretty embarassed to have my name show up in that article. I, for one, think that Wired's article wasn't so bad and may insidiously work to alter the hacker/cracker misconception.
These aren't electrostatic...I recall reading about the development of the "exciter" that they mention on the web site several months ago. In the press release, they claimed that they could make speakers of almost any size, so long as the transmitting medium was stiff enough.
I see a couple of problems with planar speakers, although they are more personal in nature than objective.
1. They are not a point source, so they are very poor performers in creating a spatial sound field, such as that generated by 3-D sound cards. Since the sound is radiated 360 degrees in a horizontal plane (or nearly so...there are "dead" areas at the sides of the speakers), there is no "focal point" or discernable origin of the sound.
2. Frequency response from planar speakers has always been problematical at best. Infinity probably made the best use of the characteristics of planar elements in their ribbon tweeters of 20 years ago or so. These speakers produce great mide and high range sound, but they are simply too large in area to move coherently over large distances to create any kind of substantial bass frequencies. You'll see that most fans of planar speakers are also fans of subwoofers for this very reason. That's also why these speakers come with a subwoofer.
As far as speaker tech goes, these are really more of a curiosity than anything else, I think. But there are other uses for the technology, such as panels built into walls or ceilings that can produce sound without the physical intrusiveness of a speaker box.
I suppose that a case can be made for the smaller footprint that these speakers have. And they do look very cool...and that's certainly worth something!
Hmmm...how many trips to Idaho? If you made any, then you must have been traveling with your eyes closed.
Let's see...technological wasteland that it is, Idaho is home to:
Micron Technology (corporate headquarters)
Micron Electronics (corporate headquarters)
Zilog (corporate headquarters)
Extended Systems (corporate headquarters)
Boise Cascade (corporate headquarters)
Morrison Knudesen (corporate headquarters)
Albertson's (corporate headquarters)
Hewlett Packard (largest single facility the company owns)
TCI/Primestar
MCI
Let's see...ADSL is available. Boise State University offers degrees in Engineering and Computer Science.
AND...snow and water skiing is 15 miles away. So is the forest. Like the desert? 15 miles the other way. Rivers? One goes through the middle of town...and you can swim in it 'cause it isn't polluted.
Maybe you couldn't screw up writing about these guys, but, on the other hand, they are screwed up enough that you took the line they gave you...and they reeled in a big one!
Let me agree. How about this:
I'm writing this from my PII450 which is just a small part of an 11 computer network (if you count the four system Beowulf cluster as four computers) connected to a 512K ADSL bridge (tweaked to 1088K outbound) that supports two different domains (fluidlight.com and nospin.org) and a grunch of mailing lists. At my house. And I'm a lightweight.
I work for a company that makes Linux-based networking products. I'm majoring in Electrical Engineering at Boise State University (not Idaho State...Katz needs to check his facts!)
Micron Technology is the largest memory maker in the US. Zilog is just down the road. Micron Electronics is number 10. Hewlett Packard's single largest facility is here.
Don't like tech? Albertson's, Boise-Cascade and Morrison-Knudsen have headquarters here.
Yeah, maybe Caldwell isn't the hip, high tech scene of a geek's desire, but if Katz's boys cared to drive down the road 30 miles, then his article would have had no meaning.
As usual, Katz has written an article that manages to show that yet again he can drag those old blinders out of the barn and see just what he wants to see. I hope that the money's good.
So this evening, like a lot of evenings, I turn on my computer, fire up the web browser and /. comes up because it's my default home page. And I take a look at the little graphic that comes with the web page. It goes something like this: Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
/.? This used to be a pretty hip place that collected a lot of good news that was really interesting, but lately it's turning into a place for tired old news to get a fresh spin before it goes back into the boneyard. It's a site to look over one more April Fool's joke page, a week into the month. It's where we can debate such important topics as how to moderate messages.
/.. Maybe it's that sad sort of decline that comes to an organization when it becomes so self absorbed that it forgets what its original purpose was. Or maybe it's that Rob is too busy doing other important things to keep an eye on the quality of the site. Whatever it is, I'm disappointed to see the road that we're traveling here.
/. serves a good purpose...it's like a giant distributed nerd made up of lots of little nerds. Let's make sure that the nerd doesn't get too wrapped up in himself and forget why he's here.
Then I see this article...obviously it's a joke, and it's a pretty clever one.
Then my brain engages. How is this "News for Nerds"? Exactly why is this "Stuff that matters"? The answer is...drum roll please...it's not.
What's going on with
In the meantime, I'm having a hard time seeing the news for all the noise. If I want to see junk on a web page, I can go over to CNN.
Something's wrong with
Maybe things will change. I hope so, because
=d=
Forgive me for straying from the topic, but you've hit a sore point with me.
The Internet was not created to withstand a nuclear attack. It was created because the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) couldn't afford to keep buying tremendously expensive mainframe computers for every organization that was performing research for them. To solve the problem, they contracted with several organizations, including BBN, University of California and University of Utah to join their existing mainframe computers together. Ultimately, that became the Internet of today, after mixing in a good dose of PARC, NSF and a phone company or two. But the defense department never had any intention of using ARPANet, NSFNet or the Internet for any strategic purpose.
OK, I'm done ranting.
Go to the web site...the offer is good "today only - April 1, 1999."
/.'ers.
Then use your head. Sheesh. I swear, April Fools' Day is lost on 99% of the world...and 95% of
That's an interesting idea, but I wonder if it could serve to silence a minority opinion? I mean, I'd like to think that if I didn't agree with an opinion, but it was well crafted that I'd upgrade it, but I wonder if, in reality I'd really do that? Multiply that by a few thousand.
As a case in point, say somebody writes a well thought out response that shows, point by point, why Windows NT is a superior OS when compared to Linux. No rhetoric, no flamethrowing, just a carefully reasoned comment. I certainly wouldn't agree with it. And I'll bet that not only would most of the readers not agree with it, but many would be vitriolic in their disagreement. Suddenly, this comment is relegated to the moderation basement, all because it's an unpopular position.
This is a long winded way of saying that a cadre of impartial, careful moderators can do a lot of good at weeding out the chaff, while protecting the voices of the minority. The new system seems like the right way to go.
That's not what it says on the page. It says that additional copies cannot be made from that device because it has no digital outputs.
Use that noggin! How could any digital recording device work if you couldn't record on it?
Uh...yeah, OK. By god, the whole industry went to hell after Henry Ford stopped making the Model T.
Sheesh. Get a grip. Maybe we ought to lower the speed limit to 20.
The devices aren't dangerous, it's the imbeciles who use them that are dangerous. Hey, that's it! We'll pass a law making imbecility a crime! Hmm...I wonder who we can throw in jail first?
=d=
I've done this on a couple of Micron systems with the M55Hi+ motherboard. It's got the integrated SB16. I just configured ISAPNP, then recompiled the kernel with the settings that came out of /etc/isapnp.conf and it worked fine. I haven't worked on a system with video down, but I don't see why that should be any different than video on a card, as long as it's a supported chipset. You can email me if you want to know more...me@adsl12.bois.uswest.net
Hey, wait, this has the germ of an idea!
Maybe we should attach the name of every single person or organization who has worked on Linux to the name of the operating system. Yeah, that's it! Then instead of wasting our time arguing over who should get credit for it, we can waste our time trying to pronounce it.
Good idea, Don!
=d=
Stallman claims that he's not seeking any glory for himself, but the quotes in the article say otherwise. Here is a man who is obviously very bitter that he hasn't gotten some large chunk of the Linux payoff.
I submit that he does not get acknowledged because his behaviour is so far out on the fringe of society that he himself could do more damage to the concept of free software simply by being who he is.
Personally, I think that we should all breath a sigh of relieve that Stallman is not too closely associated in people's minds with Linux.
There...I said it. Linux. Not GNU/Linux. I call BS on the idea that people are too lazy to say it...they call it by the name that it really is. Sheesh. Egos.