The scarcity is still just "approaching"
on
IP Address Shortage
·
· Score: 1
IPv6 is a nice thing to overcome this limitation, but it's a different protocol, and hard to implement at places; IPv4 and the rest of the infrastructure layered on it is almost fatally entrenched. I'm still not sure whether switching to IPv6 is easier than to come up with a funky (but simple!) multi-level proxy system. I better hurry to come up with it:)
On the other hand, the hording of IP ranges is really enormous, I think no company of any size (well, except those who provide access for end-users) should use anything more than a handful externally visible IP addresses, 256 (a class C) at most. Not just the grandfathered class A owners mentioned in the article are grossly unused, there are many class C and even class B ranges which are unreachable except for a router. Big corporate networks don't want you to reach them, you know...
But unless everything is at least as accessable as today, no proxy systems should be forced to the customers, IMHO.
Isn't that just the part connected to the physical wires of the network? The core chipset doing DMA and other things still could inflate this 75 buck just to todays' level:)
...eliminating copyright law doesn't do anything...
The point is not that how could life go on unchanged irrespective of copyrights, the more interesting question is what useful could happen if this (or any) form of the intellectual property wouldn't exist?
Imagine another revolution similar to the Linux phenomenon; maybe if forcing to appear that the works are still copyrighted is much more effort than simply letting the "works" live their own life? Just like now, you download Debian, you like it, and you will purchase the next version on CD, or send donation to the FSF to help matters. Hard-copying a book is still not easy, but getting all paper information electronically stored, analyzed without caring for artificial "rights" could open unprecended possibilities. You still could fund your favourite writer/poet/programmer in several ways; abusers would still look bad.
When complete libraries can be stored on a device worth a few bucks, life would be much better if the price wouldn't be inflated thousand-fold; life (mine, yours, everyone's) could be easier, things could be more reachable. Maybe school-like education institutions could prove useless too.
Hmm.. another smell of the revolution of the coming years:)
To not be moderated down, you just need to have *something* to say. I.e. anything that's not nothing:)
And, don't mention moderators in a topic which doesn't involve them, you know, it's offtopic. So, the "fuck moderators" are not being moderated out of existence because it offends moderators, but because it's totally off-topic, and adds nothing to the discussion (i.e. everyone knows there are people who hate being moderated at all, repeating it five times in each topic is something noone cares about.)
OTOH, I don't know who and why moderated down the 'fun begins' post, it's perfectly describing how a kernel addict feels about opening the 2.3 tree...
Re:hmmm... Now where have I seen this test before?
on
NOS Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
Yep, weirdly similar setup, which has been proven to work well with NT; and they also echo the "no central repository for performance tuning information". They had to put out this test quickly before this gets outdated:)
But I don't really care anymore. They are free to do that, and are also free to ignore that no benchmark for Linux will be valid longer than a few days. They were using a much later kernel, 2.2.7-pre-something (exact version not shown, at least where I looked), than the Mindcraft case (look, they try to be honest by using current software); but the kernel development is still in progress to fix all parts of the aching spots after the Mindcraft fiasco. A few things has been done, but still, they must hurry to test it before it's all getting better than their ad-cash-cows...
As much as I'm ignorant to the BSD stuff (my bad, agreed), it would be really interesting to see how different is it from Linux, i.e. how the Unix architecture is coping in general with these kind of benchmarks on the exact same hardware. It would tremendously help to find the spots where Linux could be easily tuned to match another open-source system.
Well, read RMS sometimes:) Ok, sorry, it's for real. I turned to Linux early, and I always seem to find a deep problem in every commercial program, and suffer from each of them. I abhor them. There are cool ones, but I can't depend on them because of bugs I can't fix. And that's not just a two-day hard bug-finding session, you also have to wait (possibly months) for the vendor to actually ship a fixed product, even if you spared a great deal of job from them to find the bug. I did this for both commercial and GPL programs, and it's unbelievably cool to get rid of an irksome problem in the free one, and it's highly depressing to pass the torch to the nameless corporation to get it fixed.
Otherwise, you could argue that in the case of a sufficiently Unix-like system, like MacOS X, or BeOS (i.e. where you can make most of the GNU programs run), you have *more* than me, since you can also run the "native" applications. Still binary-only programs always leave a bad aftertaste in my mouth, really. But maybe it could be turned around, and we'll see BeOS emulators if someone really needs that environment. Oh, and indeed, it's not about being enslaved, but being limited. Like working in a 4 sqft cubicle, that's how I feel when working with binary-only software. Bumping into something at each sudden movement.
Well, I haven't seen BeOS, my bad. But I'm not the kind of guy who likes to play with OS'es, I even hasn't all the time I need to tweak with Linux:)
But, BeOS still might be an excellent, comfortable, inexpensive, great commercial OS. That's OK. But it's still proprietary. Why do one needs to be enslaved to another company?
I didn't think I'm freedom-addicted to GPL, but I start to think if anything's going to be a big success for a long time, it won't be "another one", be it just another audio codec, another TV format, another commercial OS.
I want a paradigm shift. Like, the internet; like Linux. Like, throwing out the marketing business and have no ads. (Use the search engines.)
The world is really changing, and you can't build the unknown future on todays' commercially available material.
(I really fail to see how any commercial OS'es could take new followers if not based on a really different idea: freedom). Nevertheless, BeOS might be a big success -- for a while --, but then *we* will come:)
Well, the problem might be, that many of us is a loud Linux advocate, can smell the dirty tricks of MS from tousands feet below, but can't get a grip on politics/CIO/CEO/C*O business world.
I, for one, have never ever heard about Kleiner Perkins, but that might be because I'm living over the big pond:)
...I found out that the design of DES was optimized against a technique (differential cryptanalysis, I think) that wasn't "discovered" by the public academic community for another 20 years!
This was allegedly the reason why "they" didn't want to allow IBM to release how they designed and verified Lucifer (DES' precursor) and DES itself. They incidentally got this clue, and the "big guys" were afraid that someone else might get another clue how to break/analyse other crypto-systems (and find their weak points) easier. This is really long known.
"Well", says he, "you'd be counted as three people..."
You are certainly right, but as usual, it's pretty different with Linux.:) Just try to count someone who bought ten CD's and made five of his friends use Linux; also those who bought 3 different Red Hat distributions, and installed it on 50 PC's in a student lab, and made 50 more to netboot from one server; and someone who didn't even buy a single CD since a few years, only downloads updates/different packages, and installed a bunch of Linux webservers throughout the country.
Cachedot, for the intended readeder (i.e. registered slashdotters) just did nothing. Cookie'd accesses are noncacheable, images/logos on slashdot are cached well even with Netscape disk cache too. So, in fact, using cachedot made the poor provider pay for twice the bandwidth, once for getting it from the real slashdot, then sending it your way.
At least, that's how I always thought, but might be a bit different from the real story.
What for? Java is still a flashy thing, but it's stalling thanks to Sun. Also, Linus doesn't really respect Java, he believes much more in the i386 code as an "universal byte code". Adding to this that Transmeta wanted to come out with their secret chip at least one time, but they were delayed, and that Linus reportedly changed what do they should think of that chip, furthermore that Transmeta workers are allowed to say one thing: "it's a cool thing, I think you will want one too".
So it's probably started as a mobile i386 clone, just like IDT's, or Winchip's CPU with a few extra twist, but Linus' mindset made them look much further. What would that be? For example, "don't add anything to the fast path". So, make a simplified ix86 chip, make it able to be optimized at several levels; maybe in several levels of micro/nano/millicode. Hardware is much harder to change, so let the software adapt to the needs by emulating very timing-critical parts of the application closer to the hardware; and the not-critical areas might be handled something like PAL code in the alphas, and do/emulate even more unneeded things via plain software exceptions.
What you'll get? A chip+software synthesis (remember, "Transmeta"?) which is able to provide ultra-quick floating point to compute quake frames, when needed. Or heavy bit-shuffling operations for near-hw DES/other encryptions. Or just the timing critical parts of a Java VM.
Nothing will run "native", but everything can run unbelievably effective. You say, MMX? Easy. m68k emulation? Easy. Not native, but damned quick. A few critical 3DNow! operations to speed up Quake3? Easy. An emulator's wet dream. Do you see why you'll want one too? It can run all your programs faster. Not just quake, but a PPC, a m68k, a Java application, and maybe close to all CPU's software at the same time. Add a bit higher level emulation, the VMWare Next Generation, effectively, and run really everything. On your wristwatch.
Of course, I was exaggareting. With the wristwatch part:) And that's not my creature either.:)
(Quotes are not literary, just from my foggy memory.)
Isn't it a twing ironic that the Gnome component model is based upon OLE2?
...
Intead of starting with OLE2, wouldn't it have been better to start from "what is needed", and then pick & choose from what OLE2, OpenDoc, OS/2 SOM, etc. did well?
Huh? Why are you thinking GNOME is cloning OLE2? AFAICS, it's exactly following the process you wanted to see, i.e. comb the best out of all object models, while keeping in mind that GNOME wants to be cross-platform, based on CORBA, etc.
On the other hand, there is the XPCOM project going on heavily at Mozilla, which might even provide something really close to MS things, ignoring how valuable is that:) Of course, licensing issues between GPL/LGPL/MPL/NPL are to be sorted out by the project that wants to use both...
..."they only need to meet the OSI definition of Open Source if they want to call it "Open Source(sm)" instead of "open source"."
Please... IANAL, (well, in fact, not even an American), but would you think I am free to name my software Windows if I don't call it Windows(TM)?? Of course not.
Talking about "open source", with whatever capitalization, and attribution, in connection to a software distribution/development style, they are obviously talking about Open Source(sm)/(tm)/(whatever); and if they insist they are open source, when they are not, it's clearly a violation of the trade (whatever) mark. I can clearly see the intention to make the expression a bit muddy, and that's why it needs to be protected.
Also, why should SPI/whatever wait until they get the mark itself? It just gives more time for this shoddy corporation to misuse the mark, and damage the value of it; certainly it's urgent to act immediately. Or, would you suggest I'm free to capitalize on "patent pending" patents, and turn down the claims later?
Don't... over-democratize the process -- that way lies chaos!
At least, that's how the traditional wisdom goes. But I don't agree. I just have the weird feeling, and I am more and more certain that we live in interesting times, and something really extraordinary will grow out this whole "thing".
I guess, the silent software revolution around Linux, Open Source, Slashdot, Communities (not the way the current "media" buzzwords for it) are just the innocent seeds of something really-really better. Even "Open Source" was an interesting, but failed and tried method in the eyes of outside observers a few months ago. (I mean, it's alive since a very long time, and Gates has "proved" that the other way is better, eh?).
I'd tell don't be afraid to try old things, if they sound right, and their failure is not fully reasonable. This is a new world we are building.
You have an obsolete libdb, which has an incorrect implementation of snprintf, which masks the correct one in libc. Upgrade it; most distributions should have a fixed one out (even slackware), since it's also causing a security hole in sendmail, or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, the hording of IP ranges is really enormous, I think no company of any size (well, except those who provide access for end-users) should use anything more than a handful externally visible IP addresses, 256 (a class C) at most. Not just the grandfathered class A owners mentioned in the article are grossly unused, there are many class C and even class B ranges which are unreachable except for a router. Big corporate networks don't want you to reach them, you know...
But unless everything is at least as accessable as today, no proxy systems should be forced to the customers, IMHO.
Isn't that just the part connected to the physical wires of the network? The core chipset doing DMA and other things still could inflate this 75 buck just to todays' level :)
The point is not that how could life go on unchanged irrespective of copyrights, the more interesting question is what useful could happen if this (or any) form of the intellectual property wouldn't exist?
Imagine another revolution similar to the Linux phenomenon; maybe if forcing to appear that the works are still copyrighted is much more effort than simply letting the "works" live their own life? Just like now, you download Debian, you like it, and you will purchase the next version on CD, or send donation to the FSF to help matters. Hard-copying a book is still not easy, but getting all paper information electronically stored, analyzed without caring for artificial "rights" could open unprecended possibilities. You still could fund your favourite writer/poet/programmer in several ways; abusers would still look bad.
When complete libraries can be stored on a device worth a few bucks, life would be much better if the price wouldn't be inflated thousand-fold; life (mine, yours, everyone's) could be easier, things could be more reachable. Maybe school-like education institutions could prove useless too.
Hmm.. another smell of the revolution of the coming years :)
And, don't mention moderators in a topic which doesn't involve them, you know, it's offtopic. So, the "fuck moderators" are not being moderated out of existence because it offends moderators, but because it's totally off-topic, and adds nothing to the discussion (i.e. everyone knows there are people who hate being moderated at all, repeating it five times in each topic is something noone cares about.)
OTOH, I don't know who and why moderated down the 'fun begins' post, it's perfectly describing how a kernel addict feels about opening the 2.3 tree...
But I don't really care anymore. They are free to do that, and are also free to ignore that no benchmark for Linux will be valid longer than a few days. They were using a much later kernel, 2.2.7-pre-something (exact version not shown, at least where I looked), than the Mindcraft case (look, they try to be honest by using current software); but the kernel development is still in progress to fix all parts of the aching spots after the Mindcraft fiasco. A few things has been done, but still, they must hurry to test it before it's all getting better than their ad-cash-cows...
As much as I'm ignorant to the BSD stuff (my bad, agreed), it would be really interesting to see how different is it from Linux, i.e. how the Unix architecture is coping in general with these kind of benchmarks on the exact same hardware. It would tremendously help to find the spots where Linux could be easily tuned to match another open-source system.
Well, read RMS sometimes :) Ok, sorry, it's for real. I turned to Linux early, and I always seem to find a deep problem in every commercial program, and suffer from each of them. I abhor them. There are cool ones, but I can't depend on them because of bugs I can't fix. And that's not just a two-day hard bug-finding session, you also have to wait (possibly months) for the vendor to actually ship a fixed product, even if you spared a great deal of job from them to find the bug. I did this for both commercial and GPL programs, and it's unbelievably cool to get rid of an irksome problem in the free one, and it's highly depressing to pass the torch to the nameless corporation to get it fixed.
Otherwise, you could argue that in the case of a sufficiently Unix-like system, like MacOS X, or BeOS (i.e. where you can make most of the GNU programs run), you have *more* than me, since you can also run the "native" applications. Still binary-only programs always leave a bad aftertaste in my mouth, really. But maybe it could be turned around, and we'll see BeOS emulators if someone really needs that environment. Oh, and indeed, it's not about being enslaved, but being limited. Like working in a 4 sqft cubicle, that's how I feel when working with binary-only software. Bumping into something at each sudden movement.
But, BeOS still might be an excellent, comfortable, inexpensive, great commercial OS. That's OK. But it's still proprietary. Why do one needs to be enslaved to another company?
I didn't think I'm freedom-addicted to GPL, but I start to think if anything's going to be a big success for a long time, it won't be "another one", be it just another audio codec, another TV format, another commercial OS.
I want a paradigm shift. Like, the internet; like Linux. Like, throwing out the marketing business and have no ads. (Use the search engines.)
The world is really changing, and you can't build the unknown future on todays' commercially available material.
(I really fail to see how any commercial OS'es could take new followers if not based on a really different idea: freedom). Nevertheless, BeOS might be a big success -- for a while --, but then *we* will come :)
Well, the problem might be, that many of us is a loud Linux advocate, can smell the dirty tricks of MS from tousands feet below, but can't get a grip on politics/CIO/CEO/C*O business world.
I, for one, have never ever heard about Kleiner Perkins, but that might be because I'm living over the big pond :)
This was allegedly the reason why "they" didn't want to allow IBM to release how they designed and verified Lucifer (DES' precursor) and DES itself. They incidentally got this clue, and the "big guys" were afraid that someone else might get another clue how to break/analyse other crypto-systems (and find their weak points) easier. This is really long known.
You are certainly right, but as usual, it's pretty different with Linux. :) Just try to count someone who bought ten CD's and made five of his friends use Linux; also those who bought 3 different Red Hat distributions, and installed it on 50 PC's in a student lab, and made 50 more to netboot from one server; and someone who didn't even buy a single CD since a few years, only downloads updates/different packages, and installed a bunch of Linux webservers throughout the country.
Cachedot, for the intended readeder (i.e. registered slashdotters) just did nothing. Cookie'd accesses are noncacheable, images/logos on slashdot are cached well even with Netscape disk cache too. So, in fact, using cachedot made the poor provider pay for twice the bandwidth, once for getting it from the real slashdot, then sending it your way.
At least, that's how I always thought, but might be a bit different from the real story.
Java Screamer???
What for? Java is still a flashy thing, but it's stalling thanks to Sun. Also, Linus doesn't really respect Java, he believes much more in the i386 code as an "universal byte code". Adding to this that Transmeta wanted to come out with their secret chip at least one time, but they were delayed, and that Linus reportedly changed what do they should think of that chip, furthermore that Transmeta workers are allowed to say one thing: "it's a cool thing, I think you will want one too".
So it's probably started as a mobile i386 clone, just like IDT's, or Winchip's CPU with a few extra twist, but Linus' mindset made them look much further. What would that be? For example, "don't add anything to the fast path". So, make a simplified ix86 chip, make it able to be optimized at several levels; maybe in several levels of micro/nano/millicode. Hardware is much harder to change, so let the software adapt to the needs by emulating very timing-critical parts of the application closer to the hardware; and the not-critical areas might be handled something like PAL code in the alphas, and do/emulate even more unneeded things via plain software exceptions.
What you'll get? A chip+software synthesis (remember, "Transmeta"?) which is able to provide ultra-quick floating point to compute quake frames, when needed. Or heavy bit-shuffling operations for near-hw DES/other encryptions. Or just the timing critical parts of a Java VM.
Nothing will run "native", but everything can run unbelievably effective. You say, MMX? Easy. m68k emulation? Easy. Not native, but damned quick. A few critical 3DNow! operations to speed up Quake3? Easy. An emulator's wet dream. Do you see why you'll want one too? It can run all your programs faster. Not just quake, but a PPC, a m68k, a Java application, and maybe close to all CPU's software at the same time. Add a bit higher level emulation, the VMWare Next Generation, effectively, and run really everything. On your wristwatch.
Of course, I was exaggareting. With the wristwatch part :) And that's not my creature either. :)
(Quotes are not literary, just from my foggy memory.)
Huh? Why are you thinking GNOME is cloning OLE2? AFAICS, it's exactly following the process you wanted to see, i.e. comb the best out of all object models, while keeping in mind that GNOME wants to be cross-platform, based on CORBA, etc.
On the other hand, there is the XPCOM project going on heavily at Mozilla, which might even provide something really close to MS things, ignoring how valuable is that :) Of course, licensing issues between GPL/LGPL/MPL/NPL are to be sorted out by the project that wants to use both...
Please... IANAL, (well, in fact, not even an American), but would you think I am free to name my software Windows if I don't call it Windows(TM)?? Of course not.
Talking about "open source", with whatever capitalization, and attribution, in connection to a software distribution/development style, they are obviously talking about Open Source(sm)/(tm)/(whatever); and if they insist they are open source, when they are not, it's clearly a violation of the trade (whatever) mark. I can clearly see the intention to make the expression a bit muddy, and that's why it needs to be protected.
Also, why should SPI/whatever wait until they get the mark itself? It just gives more time for this shoddy corporation to misuse the mark, and damage the value of it; certainly it's urgent to act immediately. Or, would you suggest I'm free to capitalize on "patent pending" patents, and turn down the claims later?
At least, that's how the traditional wisdom goes. But I don't agree. I just have the weird feeling, and I am more and more certain that we live in interesting times, and something really extraordinary will grow out this whole "thing".
I guess, the silent software revolution around Linux, Open Source, Slashdot, Communities (not the way the current "media" buzzwords for it) are just the innocent seeds of something really-really better. Even "Open Source" was an interesting, but failed and tried method in the eyes of outside observers a few months ago. (I mean, it's alive since a very long time, and Gates has "proved" that the other way is better, eh?).
I'd tell don't be afraid to try old things, if they sound right, and their failure is not fully reasonable. This is a new world we are building.
You have an obsolete libdb, which has an incorrect implementation of snprintf, which masks the correct one in libc. Upgrade it; most distributions should have a fixed one out (even slackware), since it's also causing a security hole in sendmail, or something like that.