I think that you should dig a little deeper before making posts like the one above. The fact is that you can get ATI binary drivers for xfree 4.3.0 today right now. Check out the following URL for a download (GLX1_LINUX_X4.3.ZIP):
http://www.schneider-digital.de/html/download_at i. html
If you need more information on the driver - check out (may be slow due to slashdotting taking place):
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=872 f1 8f2e7271a06ab6fca8005df0028&threadid=33685530
Now that having been said I hope you'll feel the need to retract your statement regarding the lack of an ATI provided binary driver for xfree 4.3 systems. I also hope that anybody who modded up your statement here gets tagged in meta moderation as there isn't even the slightest grain of truth in your statement.
I have been concerned about using Windows 2xxx servers because of the tight integration. A change to the Java settings of the browser requires a restart. A change in DNS server or IP address of an interface, randomly, demands a reboot.
Complete and utter crap. It looks to me like you've never used any version of NT beyond NT4 if you are stilling spewing shit like that.
IMHO, Microsoft should work on making the OS easier to understand and administer for administrators. Point and click is only one way of making it easier. Unix/Linux scores over Windows because Administrators can see the insides and hence administer the systems more confidently. As an administrator, if I can't trust my OS, I wouldn't run critical apps on it.
If you are going to share - stop smoking the crack in front of us, okay? Are you actually going to stand here and tell me that Linux is easier to use and understand than Windows? I guess all those paper MCSEs out there don't mean a damn thing then do they? When it comes to the initial learning curve - a GUI based system will always be easier on the user than a CLI based system. However it stands to reason that the CLI based system can prove to be far more efficient than a GUI system once the user/administrator becomes more experienced. Either way - try to inject a little sanity into your next comment okay? It's not a sin to love or hate MS but it is a sin to remain so woefully ignorant about the very thing you criticize.
1) Prevents Microsoft from embracing (in the traditional sense, not in how we usually think of MS doing with this concept) the point that UNIX operating systems are tried and true technology, given that they HAVE been around for a very long time in computer years.
Ummmm... really? Ever heard of MS Xenix?
2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.
Hogwash. MS sells Frontpage server component modules for *nix versions of Apache. MS produced Xenix at one time. MS also produces Internet Explorer for OSX. Hell MS even produces a product called "MS Windows Services for UNIX" that allows users to seamlessly integrate Windows 2000+ servers into a *nix environment! I'm not even going to mention the fact that MS has released.NET tools (and the applicable source code) for both FreeBSD and OSX operating systems. You are nothing less than completely off base here.
3) Leaves Microsoft in a sacrificial lamb situation when businesses have to look at the bottom line in a tech solution where a competing *NIX product simply does the same task for less money or less complex or proprietary technologies and with less licensing hassles.
Newsflash: At some point Microsoft will have to compete against its competitors. They can't be everything to everybody. If a customer finds *nix to be a more cost effective solution then so be it. But lets not pretend that if MS offered all of their applications on *nix that they would be better for it. Call it vendor lock-in or whatever you will but its the combination of products that MS peddles rather than any particular product that keeps them on top of so many markets.
I got an even better one for you: Cyberdyne probably had off site backups of all the information they tried to destroy in T2. All the work Dyson did was still accessible because of this though forward progress was slowed due to the fact that Dyson was dead. This would also explain why "Judgement Day" is probably going to be occuring (this is raw assumption here) in our decade instead of in 1996 when it was originally supposed to happen.
This may also help to explain how another machine could make its way back into time. With the timeline shifted Skynet may have ended up having more time to attempt to send cybernetic assasins back through time.
At least thats my rationalization of the whole thing. I'm just damn glad the original ending for T2 wasn't actually included with the movie (you can read it in the original scripts or see it in the T2 Special Edition DVD). The original ending shows Sarah and John old together in some park playing with kids.
Thank god that ending wasn't used or T3 would be Highlander 2/3/4 all over again!
J
P.S. Anybody have any ideas how they are going to explain the absence of Linda Hamilton? Maybe she's already dead. And who is that other chick with Arnold in the trailer?
If you have a dual box I would recommend using "-j3" instead of "-j2". Typically "-j2" is the default for single CPU systems. Having make create one more thread than the number of processors you have allows you to make more efficient use of processor power. For example on my Dual Xeon with Hyperthreading turned on (looks like 4 cpus to linux and windows) I use "-j5" for maximum processor usage during the compilation process. When I turn off hyperthreading I typically use "-j3". I've found that these settings work very very well especially on Gentoo where you spend a lot of time compiling.
As usual, another completely uninformed opinion on slashdot.
Really? I guess the fact that you've provided next to nothing to back up your whimsical tale of MS contractors taking it up the tailpipe makes your opinion an informed one... doesn't it?
Microsoft forces a number of employees to switch to contract positions as a means of reducing cost of benefits. Essentially these people are forced into a paycut through a change in employment method. It is either accept this change in status or lose your job.
Even if this were true, guess what? Nobody was forcing these people to work at MS. There was no gun to the head. Besides being a contractor can be far better than being an employee depending on your prespective.
Microsoft continues to treat these former employees exactly how they were treated before their switch to contractor status. Except not pay them benefits. Same responsibilities, same employer-imposed restrictions.
Somebody call the wahbulance! You mean they were still expected to work? Oh NOES! So what if they had the same responsibilities as before? Does this have anything to do with the situation at hand? Nope. A change to contractor status is simply a change in (1) who your employeer actually is and (2) how you are compensated. Bottom line: You have no leg to stand on here as this point is largely useless. These people were no longer working for MS - they were working with MS. Do you understand the difference?
The IRS comes along and says, "these people do not satisfy the 20 questions rule [synergistech.com] for distinguishing between contractors and employees."
After reading through these 20 questions I'm forced to call bullshit. Each contracting position is different and there is no way to guarantee the existence of all or even most of those conditions. Certain conditions on the list should be universally applied yes but the majority of them are frivalous at best and dependent upon the environment. For example being able to set your own schedule really has nothing to do with whether you are a contractor or an employee. Certain contractors have to be at work at certain times and in other cases employees have access to benefits like flex time that provide them with a greater freedom. I could go on all day in regards to this point but I won't. You seem like a fairly intelligent guy who should be able to get the idea rather quickly.
The IRS says, since they are employees, Microsoft must now pay back-taxes on FICA and Medicare. This is double-dipping by the IRS because the contractors have already paid those taxes and they won't get them back, but that is the way the law works.
And MS are the crooks here? You've got to be kidding me. It sounds like the IRS, much like the contractors in this situation got a little bit greedy to me. The contractors were ticked that the employees were living it up on stock options and what not and the IRS was bothered because MS was getting millions upon millions of dollars in tax breaks as a result of their employee stock option compensation plans. Get the picture yet?
In particular, 401K and profit-sharing - the internet bubble was really starting to bulge and the money involved was enough to retire on for a lot of them. They go to court as the infamous permatemp lawsuit and they win a very clearcut case.
Clearcut how? The 20 questions are vague at best. The motivations of the involved parties are highly questionable. Not to mention the fact that NOTHING WAS STOPPING THESE CONTRACTORS from seeking alternative forms of employment during the internet boom that happened between 1998-2001. But of course that doesn't factor into the situation because MS was obviously enslaving these people and threatening the lives of their families and loved ones if they left to pursue other opportunities even though they didn't actually work for MS at all./sarcasm
So, all this grumbling about how the contractors screwed themselve
This wasn't the case before the lawsuit. These are standard practices at every big company ever since the MS permatemp lawsuit went through. The MS contractors that are complaining have nobody to blame but themselves. They complained that MS was treating them like fulltime employees without extending the benefits. Were they dumb enough to believe that MS upon losing many millions of dollars in this lawsuit would make them fulltime employees and forget about the whole thing?
Comeon now - bash MS all you want but this situation is clearly one in which they are in the right. The contractors pretty much got what was coming to them and made things worse for every other contractor in the country that worked for a large company (note: I speak from personal experience here).
So what do I say? Fuck em. Fuck em hard. These guys are getting what they deserve.
Look I've been a contractor for awhile with a very large company and let me give you a little bit of insight into the reality of this situation. Before the permatemp suit with MS, contractors everywhere who worked for big companies had it A LOT better than they do now. When I first started at my current position, there wasn't anybody worrying about the 365 day limit or whether or not they should invite a contractor to a company party.
When this suit went through - everything changed. 365 day employment limits came down like clamps and contractors became somewhat more alienated in the grand scheme of things. In the long run this doesn't bother me as I believe the pros of contracting still far outweigh the cons. Not to mention the fact that there are several loopholes which can be employed to keep contractors longer than a year (which incidently are currently keeping me employed here since I've been here close to 3 years).
Does this situation bother me? Not too much. Does the linked article bother me? Damn straight it does. These contractors that work for MS really have nobody to blame but themselves for the current set of restrictions they work under. Frankly I'm amazed that these people complained in the first place. As a contractor you are typically paid by the hour rather than salaried. This means that (A) you either work less than your fulltime coworkers or (B) are better compensated for your time spent at work or even (C) both. What truly boggles the mind is that these people sounded like they were getting some fulltime benefits such as product discounts, party invites, and a few other things. So I have to ask, what was the problem? The answer of course is that they got greedy.
Personally I have absolutely no urge to work fulltime for anybody again. Clamor on all you want about better benefits and other intangibles that come with being a fulltime slave but keep this in mind: A lot of contracting agencies provide a full benefits package (i.e. Mine) along with paying the actual employee more money and they still somehow manage to do this cheaper than their customers are able to. And to top it all off, in all of my three years in my current position I've only worked over 40 hours a week once. That leaves a lot of time for recreational and social activities that I otherwise would have to forego.
Bottom Line: The MS contractors made it worse for everybody else so I have nothing to say beyond "fuck you" when I hear them complaining about what has sprung from the seeds they have sown. I know a lot of you will view this story as an opportunity to bash MS but keep in mind that everything was fine and dandy right up until the contractors got a little too greedy for their own good.
Most of the people who have commented above have obviously never (a) taken the time to understand how to secure windows and (b) enjoy running their mouths endlessly about things they have no clue about. For starters no NT based OS that I know of neglects to present the user with the option to password protect the admin account during installation unlesss specifically instructed not to through the use of extended installation options. Next if any of you bothered to check out the links above you'll see that the fact that Windows XP allows for Admin level users to have blank passwords doesn't constitute a remote security hole at all. Why? Because Windows XP will not allow remote connections to be made to itself using an account whose password is blank.
Am I surprised at how many people here didn't know this? Nope. Am I surprised that a bazillion f-tards talking trash about this subject got modded up by people who are even more clueless than they are? Nope. I'll tell you what did surprise me though. Taco actually gave you people a straight up comment which pretty much hits the nail on the head here.
I never thought I would say this - but thanks a lot Taco. Maybe their is hope for ya afterall. I mean any professional NT admin who has at least one of his boxes infected with this needs to be escorted out of the building immediately. Take his paper MCSE and shove directly up his a*s because thats pretty much all it is going to be good for. Oh and be sure that the door doesnt hit his ass on the way out because it sure as hell wouldn't be worth the cleaning staffs time to have to clean that one up.
Moral of the story: Windows and Linux are just as easy to secure and require an equal amount of vigilance to keep secure. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a retard.
Really? I guess you weren't aware of the fact that XP will by default not allow the machine to be accessed through netbios remotely using an account which sports a blank password.
But then again your entire argument is constructed on pure and utter ignorance of the basic facts so I guess I shouldn't have expected anything otherwise... though a retraction on your part would be nice.
J
P.S. If a sys admin can't lock down his box without being provided a "I'm not a dumb user" checkbox - doesn't it seem like the problem may not in fact have anything to do with Microsoft at all?
Is why a revision point release of a browser is all that big of a deal. I understand this is/. and open source is pretty much the life blood around here - but is it that slow of a news day that the editors are digging for App BLAH has released Version ?.?.x...? Perhaps/. should do a story on the European Online hate speech ban or be so kind as to give us/. readers an update on the DMCA FatWallet scandal (which has become a lot more interesting IMHO)
Anyway I guess my point here is to say that I think that instead of relying 100% on submitted news items that/. editors may want to start doing a bit of poking around on their own (beyond the woefully overhyped Anime DVD releases that Taco raves on about). I think that the content of slashdot could be improved a great deal with very little effort on the part of the staff.
Afterall, isn't there more to "journalism" than reguritating content back to the viewers who told you about it in the first place? That seems logical enough to me. If you want a better browsing experience I suggest you take a trip to http://www.arstechnica.com - while they may not post as many stories - they are far more carefully choosen and presented in such a way that doesn't alienate 50% of viewers by the second sentence (Hint: Check out any Anti MS story here and then check out the browsing statistics for this site)
"The Hurd can only support partition sizes of up to approximately one gigabyte; anything much larger than this will not work. This limitation is a design decision that was made several years ago in which the file system server maps the entire partition into virtual memory."
As an example of the braindead design that went into the HURD: To configure the network here is the command you have to run:
Not to mention the fact that HURD has just gotten thread support. Give me a break. HURD was started long before Linux and it still hasn't made it to Linux Kernel 2.0 levels of compatibility. This is nothing less than pathetic. Why does the free software community continue to waste their time on these projects?
From http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq.en.html
Heres another Filesystem quote:
"The filesystem servers need to be changed to not map the whole store into memory, which is not too difficult. For large files, some interfaces need to be changed, which is a bit harder but still doable."
On the todo list http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/~checkout~/hurd/hurd/TODO?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/pla in
For nfs:
"Implement async I/O"
On FileSystem Support:
"Filesystem implementations (using libdiskfs) for other popular formats. Importantly, MSDOS FAT format."
So does anybody wish to tell me that all is good and well in the world of HURD? I've already been modded down into oblivion for this post which is sad considering just how bad off HURD really is. Just because its free or open source software doesn't make it good.
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/install.html#in st all
And I quote:
"The Hurd can only support partition sizes of up to approximately one gigabyte; anything much larger than this will not work. This limitation is a design decision that was made several years ago in which the file system server maps the entire partition into virtual memory."
Wow - what genius! Would anybody else like to mod me down for making inflammatory comments about a so-called Operating System that has yet to reach OS/2 levels of hardware compatibility?
Iraq develops the M16. Korea develops a Nuclear Power Plant. Various 3rd world countries have developed a concept known only by the cryptic name of "irragation".
Gimme a break. Tell me when HURD is able to access a harddrive or a partition greater than 500 megs in size (last I heard this was a real issue). Tell me when HURD can utilize both processors in my Dual P3 box. Tell me when HURD doesnt suck ass.
What I find sad about it is that its quite obvious that the people who edit this site don't bother to actually read it all that much. Now to give credit where it is due, most of the other/.ers haven't noticed the dupe as they are ranting and raving just as they were yesterday about it. I've only seen three comments mentioning this thus far.
What makes this really bad is the fact that it was CLEARLY pointed out yesterday that Ballmer and perhaps others were misquoted in the referenced article. On one hand you guys complain about the FUD Microsoft spews yet on the other you obviously have no problem doing the exact same thing yourselves. (Hint: Never take read anything from CNET or ZDNET literally - their articles are usually fluffed up).
Now on an ontopic note - MS' Developer community drawves the size of the Open Source community by at least a few hundred if not a thousand fold. They generally have a richer centralized repository of information and technical knowledge (MSDN) to draw from and their development tools are widely considered to be superior. They also sell a platform which offers the best chance for close to 100% market saturation.
Laugh all you want - but it sounds to me like the man has the right idea. Afterall its not like he said, "We are planning on leveraging the power of our preceived monoply to crush the oppositionary force known as Linux". No he actually said something along the lines of, "By continuing to foster a rich developer community as we have in the past we can make sure the bulk of the talent is writing code for Windows and not Linux".
Whine all you want but that sounds legal and fair in my book.
Can anybody here tell me what the difference is between the GPL and a EULA? It seems to me that both are very similar. In fact I find it somewhat amusing how people on/. claim EULAs are null and void yet do not realize that if EULAs are null and void that most likely means that the GPL license distributed with an OpenSource app is likely null and void.
1) You download app and uncompress 2) The app has an agreement which nobody ever reads (at least the EULA makes you click through it)
Really what is the difference between the two? It seems to me that they are one and the same. This of course means that neither will stand up in a court of law. AFAIK the GPL has never actually been tested in court, since I believe all cases involving GPL violations have been settled out of court. Can anybody provide any examples of the GPL and/or EULAs being tested and determined to be legally binding in a court of law?
The Washington, D.C.-based trade group, which is partially funded by Netscape Communications, Sun Microsystems and other Microsoft competitors, argued that Microsoft's distribution mechanism for the service pack is the first violation of the pending settlement.
You've got to be kidding me. Everybody under the sun cries foul when some benchmark or study comes out of some firm which receives any funding from Microsoft - yet this shit is okay even though this group clearly isn't looking to have their funding cut off? Come on now - at least be consistent...
Aside from this... most of Procomp's complaints are complete and utter BS. They whine that Microsoft wants to charge you 10 bucks to get the service pack on the CD, yet they also want to whine about how long it takes to download the minimum install of 30 megs. Then they complain that Microsoft may potentially make tens of millions of dollars on the CD distribution yet neglect to mention that you can legally download it from their own site for FREE.
Nor do they mention how Apple or other MS competitors dont even allow you to download larger OS/APplication updates for free and require that you purchase a CD (for clarification Im reffering to OS 10.1 not 10.2). They also continue to whine about how links to the Middleware control panel are not included on the Start Menu and Desktop. This is beyond stupid. Control panels BELONG IN THE DAMN CONTROL PANEL!
I can't believe the lusers editing/. let this one slide through. It really does reek of baseless Anti MS sentiment like so much other material published on this site. There are plently of legitimate things to bash MS for yet the/. community seems to perfer focusing on the misunderstood and irrelevant bitches and moans rather than approaching things in a constructive manner.
Oh well whatever. Im guessing we will soon see an article lamenting RedHat's decision to make Mozilla the default browser in their upcoming Redhat 8.0 release. Yeah Redhat does linux but since they actually have a head on their shoulders and actually want to make money instead of going out of business - we are supposed to hate them right?
Yes but I can assure you that a succesful Exchange competitor will NOT be developed in the measly span of two and a half months. I think you are right and that there IS demand for such a product. However I think that whatever they manage to create in two and a half months time is going to do nothing more than make Exchange look like an even better product compared to the limited amount of competition that exists.
But thats the biggest problem sir. Why do you think people keep running back to MS and Apple for their desktop computing needs despite all the free shit the open source community puts out?
One word: integration. Every Open Source app or linux distribution which "utilizes existing projects" to make something new ends up coming off as a hodge podge of different programs strung together with rolls of duct tape. Granted RedHat is attempting to deal with this issue in their upcoming 8.0 release much to the dismay of the KDE developers - but the open source community is still quite a long way from understanding THE TRUE benefits of tight OS/Application integration and truely reusable components.
I can assure you that if KroupWare (what a moronic name) just strings together a bunch of preexisting components into a larger app - then it will come off as some hackjob POS and won't be accepted by market in general. Not to mention the fact that we have government contractors responsible for this....
Perhaps the German Government should allocate just a wee bit more time for the development of a FULL Groupware Suite?!?!?!? I honestly don't think that in two and a half months you are going to have anything that is either the functional or quality equivalent of the MS Exchange Server and the Outlook Client.
Whats sad is all the comments above rooting for these people and talking about how MS employee's just spat gallons of coffee onto their monitors when reading this. How clueless can you be? If I was working for MS I would need somebody to sedate me to keep myself from laughing to death. In two and a half months they will probably have something that looks quite similar to PINE and FETCHMAIL being strung together through use of a questionable shell script written in some "community developed" ass backward language that nobody gives a flying fuck about.
This will do nothing but bolster Microsoft's grasp on their marketshare as the CIOs of big companies will evaluate this open source "groupware" suite after the whores at ZDNET make a big stink over it in January of next year. If they evaluate a piece of groupware software that was developed in two months I can assue you that they will NOT be impressed when it comes across as something a couple teenagers jerking off in their garage (e.g. Beavis and Butthead) could've developed.
Mozilla will become feature complete when compared to IE6 sometime in the beginning of next year:-) It's good to see the Moz boys picking up the pace when it comes to implementing some of the more convienent features we've gotten used to in IE on Windows and the Mac. While I wouldn't mind IE stealing the wonderful idea of tabbed browsing Im seriously beginning to wonder just what kind of "end user" enhancements will be released with IE 7.0.
Seriously beyond the commonplace protocol upgrades and reworks I think that IE 7.0 will end up being quite the hard sell for the typical Windows User. This may present an opportunity for Mozilla/Netscape to steal a bit of marketshare if things go right. This will happen anyway as AOL is planning to move their browser engine over to Moz (already been done for the MacOSX version I believe) and the Gecko AOL betas run quite well.
They are similar because they are one in the same. Go check out http://www.upnp.org for more information on this. Zeroconf is actually a smaller part of the Rendezvous/uPNP pie. Zeroconf is essentially a standard for a serverless DHCP hybrid. I think its great Apple implemented this - but since its been present in one form or another since Windows 98 as I recall, I dont think Apple has enough marketing muscle to push it assuming Microsoft could not.
Perhaps MS just implemented it because they thought it was a good idea and didn't actually try to push it in the marketplace. Either way - I think its nice that uPNP/Rendezvous is starting to look like a level playing field for all applicable platforms.
I would like to thank you for pointing this out. Like everybody else on here I was getting ready to make a mess in my pants - but after reading your statement it suddenly dawned on me:
If this idea really had nothing to do with the company's business and couldn't be applied to anything they were doing - why in the heck did this guy try to sell his idea back to them?
I've had discussions along these lines before - but I have to admit my sympathy for the guy disappeared when I realized that he was trying to sell an idea back to a company that he admittedly finalized while working for them. While he may be innocent of any intentional "wrongdoing" he's still guilty of being an idiot.
Personally I still think this story is interesting based on the fact that the court ordered him to pay the companies legal fees. I believe this is practiced in Europe (at least as far as civil court is concerned) and I've long supported its use here. This says to me the court/judge seemed to feel that went beyond a mere misunderstanding into the "gross negligence" category of dispute.
And considering the circumstances in a fair and rational manner - I would have to say I agree with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that you should dig a little deeper before making posts like the one above. The fact is that you can get ATI binary drivers for xfree 4.3.0 today right now. Check out the following URL for a download (GLX1_LINUX_X4.3.ZIP):
t i. html
2 f1 8f2e7271a06ab6fca8005df0028&threadid=33685530
http://www.schneider-digital.de/html/download_a
If you need more information on the driver - check out (may be slow due to slashdotting taking place):
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=87
Now that having been said I hope you'll feel the need to retract your statement regarding the lack of an ATI provided binary driver for xfree 4.3 systems. I also hope that anybody who modded up your statement here gets tagged in meta moderation as there isn't even the slightest grain of truth in your statement.
J
You sir are an idiot. Please try to choose a respectable site when comparing CPU prices. For instance check out Sharkys Extreme:
e .p hp/10705_2196091__3
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/WCPG/articl
P4 3.06 ghz 533mhz/478 pin = $390
Athlon XP 3000+ = $324
So would you like to retract your statement or would you like me continue kicking that dumb ass of yours?
J
J
Ummmm... really? Ever heard of MS Xenix?
Hogwash. MS sells Frontpage server component modules for *nix versions of Apache. MS produced Xenix at one time. MS also produces Internet Explorer for OSX. Hell MS even produces a product called "MS Windows Services for UNIX" that allows users to seamlessly integrate Windows 2000+ servers into a *nix environment! I'm not even going to mention the fact that MS has released
Newsflash: At some point Microsoft will have to compete against its competitors. They can't be everything to everybody. If a customer finds *nix to be a more cost effective solution then so be it. But lets not pretend that if MS offered all of their applications on *nix that they would be better for it. Call it vendor lock-in or whatever you will but its the combination of products that MS peddles rather than any particular product that keeps them on top of so many markets.
J
I got an even better one for you: Cyberdyne probably had off site backups of all the information they tried to destroy in T2. All the work Dyson did was still accessible because of this though forward progress was slowed due to the fact that Dyson was dead. This would also explain why "Judgement Day" is probably going to be occuring (this is raw assumption here) in our decade instead of in 1996 when it was originally supposed to happen.
This may also help to explain how another machine could make its way back into time. With the timeline shifted Skynet may have ended up having more time to attempt to send cybernetic assasins back through time.
At least thats my rationalization of the whole thing. I'm just damn glad the original ending for T2 wasn't actually included with the movie (you can read it in the original scripts or see it in the T2 Special Edition DVD). The original ending shows Sarah and John old together in some park playing with kids.
Thank god that ending wasn't used or T3 would be Highlander 2/3/4 all over again!
J
P.S. Anybody have any ideas how they are going to explain the absence of Linda Hamilton? Maybe she's already dead. And who is that other chick with Arnold in the trailer?
If you have a dual box I would recommend using "-j3" instead of "-j2". Typically "-j2" is the default for single CPU systems. Having make create one more thread than the number of processors you have allows you to make more efficient use of processor power. For example on my Dual Xeon with Hyperthreading turned on (looks like 4 cpus to linux and windows) I use "-j5" for maximum processor usage during the compilation process. When I turn off hyperthreading I typically use "-j3". I've found that these settings work very very well especially on Gentoo where you spend a lot of time compiling.
Cheers,
J
As usual, another completely uninformed opinion on slashdot.
/sarcasm
Really? I guess the fact that you've provided next to nothing to back up your whimsical tale of MS contractors taking it up the tailpipe makes your opinion an informed one... doesn't it?
Microsoft forces a number of employees to switch to contract positions as a means of reducing cost of benefits. Essentially these people are forced into a paycut through a change in employment method. It is either accept this change in status or lose your job.
Even if this were true, guess what? Nobody was forcing these people to work at MS. There was no gun to the head. Besides being a contractor can be far better than being an employee depending on your prespective.
Microsoft continues to treat these former employees exactly how they were treated before their switch to contractor status. Except not pay them benefits. Same responsibilities, same employer-imposed restrictions.
Somebody call the wahbulance! You mean they were still expected to work? Oh NOES! So what if they had the same responsibilities as before? Does this have anything to do with the situation at hand? Nope. A change to contractor status is simply a change in (1) who your employeer actually is and (2) how you are compensated. Bottom line: You have no leg to stand on here as this point is largely useless. These people were no longer working for MS - they were working with MS. Do you understand the difference?
The IRS comes along and says, "these people do not satisfy the 20 questions rule [synergistech.com] for distinguishing between contractors and employees."
After reading through these 20 questions I'm forced to call bullshit. Each contracting position is different and there is no way to guarantee the existence of all or even most of those conditions. Certain conditions on the list should be universally applied yes but the majority of them are frivalous at best and dependent upon the environment. For example being able to set your own schedule really has nothing to do with whether you are a contractor or an employee. Certain contractors have to be at work at certain times and in other cases employees have access to benefits like flex time that provide them with a greater freedom. I could go on all day in regards to this point but I won't. You seem like a fairly intelligent guy who should be able to get the idea rather quickly.
The IRS says, since they are employees, Microsoft must now pay back-taxes on FICA and Medicare. This is double-dipping by the IRS because the contractors have already paid those taxes and they won't get them back, but that is the way the law works.
And MS are the crooks here? You've got to be kidding me. It sounds like the IRS, much like the contractors in this situation got a little bit greedy to me. The contractors were ticked that the employees were living it up on stock options and what not and the IRS was bothered because MS was getting millions upon millions of dollars in tax breaks as a result of their employee stock option compensation plans. Get the picture yet?
In particular, 401K and profit-sharing - the internet bubble was really starting to bulge and the money involved was enough to retire on for a lot of them. They go to court as the infamous permatemp lawsuit and they win a very clearcut case.
Clearcut how? The 20 questions are vague at best. The motivations of the involved parties are highly questionable. Not to mention the fact that NOTHING WAS STOPPING THESE CONTRACTORS from seeking alternative forms of employment during the internet boom that happened between 1998-2001. But of course that doesn't factor into the situation because MS was obviously enslaving these people and threatening the lives of their families and loved ones if they left to pursue other opportunities even though they didn't actually work for MS at all.
So, all this grumbling about how the contractors screwed themselve
This wasn't the case before the lawsuit. These are standard practices at every big company ever since the MS permatemp lawsuit went through. The MS contractors that are complaining have nobody to blame but themselves. They complained that MS was treating them like fulltime employees without extending the benefits. Were they dumb enough to believe that MS upon losing many millions of dollars in this lawsuit would make them fulltime employees and forget about the whole thing?
Comeon now - bash MS all you want but this situation is clearly one in which they are in the right. The contractors pretty much got what was coming to them and made things worse for every other contractor in the country that worked for a large company (note: I speak from personal experience here).
So what do I say? Fuck em. Fuck em hard. These guys are getting what they deserve.
J
Look I've been a contractor for awhile with a very large company and let me give you a little bit of insight into the reality of this situation. Before the permatemp suit with MS, contractors everywhere who worked for big companies had it A LOT better than they do now. When I first started at my current position, there wasn't anybody worrying about the 365 day limit or whether or not they should invite a contractor to a company party.
When this suit went through - everything changed. 365 day employment limits came down like clamps and contractors became somewhat more alienated in the grand scheme of things. In the long run this doesn't bother me as I believe the pros of contracting still far outweigh the cons. Not to mention the fact that there are several loopholes which can be employed to keep contractors longer than a year (which incidently are currently keeping me employed here since I've been here close to 3 years).
Does this situation bother me? Not too much. Does the linked article bother me? Damn straight it does. These contractors that work for MS really have nobody to blame but themselves for the current set of restrictions they work under. Frankly I'm amazed that these people complained in the first place. As a contractor you are typically paid by the hour rather than salaried. This means that (A) you either work less than your fulltime coworkers or (B) are better compensated for your time spent at work or even (C) both. What truly boggles the mind is that these people sounded like they were getting some fulltime benefits such as product discounts, party invites, and a few other things. So I have to ask, what was the problem? The answer of course is that they got greedy.
Personally I have absolutely no urge to work fulltime for anybody again. Clamor on all you want about better benefits and other intangibles that come with being a fulltime slave but keep this in mind: A lot of contracting agencies provide a full benefits package (i.e. Mine) along with paying the actual employee more money and they still somehow manage to do this cheaper than their customers are able to. And to top it all off, in all of my three years in my current position I've only worked over 40 hours a week once. That leaves a lot of time for recreational and social activities that I otherwise would have to forego.
Bottom Line: The MS contractors made it worse for everybody else so I have nothing to say beyond "fuck you" when I hear them complaining about what has sprung from the seeds they have sown. I know a lot of you will view this story as an opportunity to bash MS but keep in mind that everything was fine and dandy right up until the contractors got a little too greedy for their own good.
J
Here are at least two reasons 99% of the comments on this story are a complete and utter waste of internet bandwith:
k _access.htm
. asp?url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prdp_ log_oeec.asp
1) http://www.theeldergeek.com/blank_password_networ
2) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
Most of the people who have commented above have obviously never (a) taken the time to understand how to secure windows and (b) enjoy running their mouths endlessly about things they have no clue about. For starters no NT based OS that I know of neglects to present the user with the option to password protect the admin account during installation unlesss specifically instructed not to through the use of extended installation options. Next if any of you bothered to check out the links above you'll see that the fact that Windows XP allows for Admin level users to have blank passwords doesn't constitute a remote security hole at all. Why? Because Windows XP will not allow remote connections to be made to itself using an account whose password is blank.
Am I surprised at how many people here didn't know this? Nope. Am I surprised that a bazillion f-tards talking trash about this subject got modded up by people who are even more clueless than they are? Nope. I'll tell you what did surprise me though. Taco actually gave you people a straight up comment which pretty much hits the nail on the head here.
I never thought I would say this - but thanks a lot Taco. Maybe their is hope for ya afterall. I mean any professional NT admin who has at least one of his boxes infected with this needs to be escorted out of the building immediately. Take his paper MCSE and shove directly up his a*s because thats pretty much all it is going to be good for. Oh and be sure that the door doesnt hit his ass on the way out because it sure as hell wouldn't be worth the cleaning staffs time to have to clean that one up.
Moral of the story: Windows and Linux are just as easy to secure and require an equal amount of vigilance to keep secure. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a retard.
J
Really? I guess you weren't aware of the fact that XP will by default not allow the machine to be accessed through netbios remotely using an account which sports a blank password.
But then again your entire argument is constructed on pure and utter ignorance of the basic facts so I guess I shouldn't have expected anything otherwise... though a retraction on your part would be nice.
J
P.S. If a sys admin can't lock down his box without being provided a "I'm not a dumb user" checkbox - doesn't it seem like the problem may not in fact have anything to do with Microsoft at all?
Is why a revision point release of a browser is all that big of a deal. I understand this is /. and open source is pretty much the life blood around here - but is it that slow of a news day that the editors are digging for App BLAH has released Version ?.?.x ...? Perhaps /. should do a story on the European Online hate speech ban or be so kind as to give us /. readers an update on the DMCA FatWallet scandal (which has become a lot more interesting IMHO)
/. editors may want to start doing a bit of poking around on their own (beyond the woefully overhyped Anime DVD releases that Taco raves on about). I think that the content of slashdot could be improved a great deal with very little effort on the part of the staff.
Anyway I guess my point here is to say that I think that instead of relying 100% on submitted news items that
Afterall, isn't there more to "journalism" than reguritating content back to the viewers who told you about it in the first place? That seems logical enough to me. If you want a better browsing experience I suggest you take a trip to http://www.arstechnica.com - while they may not post as many stories - they are far more carefully choosen and presented in such a way that doesn't alienate 50% of viewers by the second sentence (Hint: Check out any Anti MS story here and then check out the browsing statistics for this site)
Thanks for your time,
J
With 128 GB+ disks becoming widely available I would have to say:
YES IT MAKES A VERY BIG FSCKING DIFFERENCE!!!
Reality calling Wolfgang, please come in... over...
J
Check this one out:
n -g uide/english/hurd-install-guide.html
/servers/socket/2 /hurd/pfinet -i eth0 \
~ /hurd/hurd/TODO?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/pla in
http://web.walfield.org/papers/hurd-installatio
"The Hurd can only support partition sizes of up to approximately one gigabyte; anything much larger than this will not work. This limitation is a design decision that was made several years ago in which the file system server maps the entire partition into virtual memory."
As an example of the braindead design that went into the HURD: To configure the network here is the command you have to run:
"# settrans -fgap
-a a.b.c.d -g e.f.g.h -m i.j.k.l"
Not to mention the fact that HURD has just gotten thread support. Give me a break. HURD was started long before Linux and it still hasn't made it to Linux Kernel 2.0 levels of compatibility. This is nothing less than pathetic. Why does the free software community continue to waste their time on these projects?
From http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/faq.en.html
Heres another Filesystem quote:
"The filesystem servers need to be changed to not map the whole store into memory, which is not too difficult. For large files, some interfaces need to be changed, which is a bit harder but still doable."
On the todo list http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/~checkout
For nfs:
"Implement async I/O"
On FileSystem Support:
"Filesystem implementations (using libdiskfs) for other popular formats. Importantly, MSDOS FAT format."
So does anybody wish to tell me that all is good and well in the world of HURD? I've already been modded down into oblivion for this post which is sad considering just how bad off HURD really is. Just because its free or open source software doesn't make it good.
J
Well either you are full of it or the official hurd site is SEVERELY out of date:
n -g uide/english/hurd-install-guide.html
n st all
http://web.walfield.org/papers/hurd-installatio
This was linked directly from:
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/install.html#i
And I quote:
"The Hurd can only support partition sizes of up to approximately one gigabyte; anything much larger than this will not work. This limitation is a design decision that was made several years ago in which the file system server maps the entire partition into virtual memory."
Wow - what genius! Would anybody else like to mod me down for making inflammatory comments about a so-called Operating System that has yet to reach OS/2 levels of hardware compatibility?
J
Iraq develops the M16. Korea develops a Nuclear Power Plant. Various 3rd world countries have developed a concept known only by the cryptic name of "irragation".
Gimme a break. Tell me when HURD is able to access a harddrive or a partition greater than 500 megs in size (last I heard this was a real issue). Tell me when HURD can utilize both processors in my Dual P3 box. Tell me when HURD doesnt suck ass.
J
What I find sad about it is that its quite obvious that the people who edit this site don't bother to actually read it all that much. Now to give credit where it is due, most of the other /.ers haven't noticed the dupe as they are ranting and raving just as they were yesterday about it. I've only seen three comments mentioning this thus far.
What makes this really bad is the fact that it was CLEARLY pointed out yesterday that Ballmer and perhaps others were misquoted in the referenced article. On one hand you guys complain about the FUD Microsoft spews yet on the other you obviously have no problem doing the exact same thing yourselves. (Hint: Never take read anything from CNET or ZDNET literally - their articles are usually fluffed up).
Now on an ontopic note - MS' Developer community drawves the size of the Open Source community by at least a few hundred if not a thousand fold. They generally have a richer centralized repository of information and technical knowledge (MSDN) to draw from and their development tools are widely considered to be superior. They also sell a platform which offers the best chance for close to 100% market saturation.
Laugh all you want - but it sounds to me like the man has the right idea. Afterall its not like he said, "We are planning on leveraging the power of our preceived monoply to crush the oppositionary force known as Linux". No he actually said something along the lines of, "By continuing to foster a rich developer community as we have in the past we can make sure the bulk of the talent is writing code for Windows and not Linux".
Whine all you want but that sounds legal and fair in my book.
J
Can anybody here tell me what the difference is between the GPL and a EULA? It seems to me that both are very similar. In fact I find it somewhat amusing how people on /. claim EULAs are null and void yet do not realize that if EULAs are null and void that most likely means that the GPL license distributed with an OpenSource app is likely null and void.
1) You download app and uncompress
2) The app has an agreement which nobody ever reads (at least the EULA makes you click through it)
Really what is the difference between the two? It seems to me that they are one and the same. This of course means that neither will stand up in a court of law. AFAIK the GPL has never actually been tested in court, since I believe all cases involving GPL violations have been settled out of court. Can anybody provide any examples of the GPL and/or EULAs being tested and determined to be legally binding in a court of law?
J
Aside from this... most of Procomp's complaints are complete and utter BS. They whine that Microsoft wants to charge you 10 bucks to get the service pack on the CD, yet they also want to whine about how long it takes to download the minimum install of 30 megs. Then they complain that Microsoft may potentially make tens of millions of dollars on the CD distribution yet neglect to mention that you can legally download it from their own site for FREE.
Nor do they mention how Apple or other MS competitors dont even allow you to download larger OS/APplication updates for free and require that you purchase a CD (for clarification Im reffering to OS 10.1 not 10.2). They also continue to whine about how links to the Middleware control panel are not included on the Start Menu and Desktop. This is beyond stupid. Control panels BELONG IN THE DAMN CONTROL PANEL!
I can't believe the lusers editing
Oh well whatever. Im guessing we will soon see an article lamenting RedHat's decision to make Mozilla the default browser in their upcoming Redhat 8.0 release. Yeah Redhat does linux but since they actually have a head on their shoulders and actually want to make money instead of going out of business - we are supposed to hate them right?
So so so stupid...
J
Yes but I can assure you that a succesful Exchange competitor will NOT be developed in the measly span of two and a half months. I think you are right and that there IS demand for such a product. However I think that whatever they manage to create in two and a half months time is going to do nothing more than make Exchange look like an even better product compared to the limited amount of competition that exists.
J
But thats the biggest problem sir. Why do you think people keep running back to MS and Apple for their desktop computing needs despite all the free shit the open source community puts out?
One word: integration. Every Open Source app or linux distribution which "utilizes existing projects" to make something new ends up coming off as a hodge podge of different programs strung together with rolls of duct tape. Granted RedHat is attempting to deal with this issue in their upcoming 8.0 release much to the dismay of the KDE developers - but the open source community is still quite a long way from understanding THE TRUE benefits of tight OS/Application integration and truely reusable components.
I can assure you that if KroupWare (what a moronic name) just strings together a bunch of preexisting components into a larger app - then it will come off as some hackjob POS and won't be accepted by market in general. Not to mention the fact that we have government contractors responsible for this....
J
Perhaps the German Government should allocate just a wee bit more time for the development of a FULL Groupware Suite?!?!?!? I honestly don't think that in two and a half months you are going to have anything that is either the functional or quality equivalent of the MS Exchange Server and the Outlook Client.
Whats sad is all the comments above rooting for these people and talking about how MS employee's just spat gallons of coffee onto their monitors when reading this. How clueless can you be? If I was working for MS I would need somebody to sedate me to keep myself from laughing to death. In two and a half months they will probably have something that looks quite similar to PINE and FETCHMAIL being strung together through use of a questionable shell script written in some "community developed" ass backward language that nobody gives a flying fuck about.
This will do nothing but bolster Microsoft's grasp on their marketshare as the CIOs of big companies will evaluate this open source "groupware" suite after the whores at ZDNET make a big stink over it in January of next year. If they evaluate a piece of groupware software that was developed in two months I can assue you that they will NOT be impressed when it comes across as something a couple teenagers jerking off in their garage (e.g. Beavis and Butthead) could've developed.
J
Mozilla will become feature complete when compared to IE6 sometime in the beginning of next year :-) It's good to see the Moz boys picking up the pace when it comes to implementing some of the more convienent features we've gotten used to in IE on Windows and the Mac. While I wouldn't mind IE stealing the wonderful idea of tabbed browsing Im seriously beginning to wonder just what kind of "end user" enhancements will be released with IE 7.0.
Seriously beyond the commonplace protocol upgrades and reworks I think that IE 7.0 will end up being quite the hard sell for the typical Windows User. This may present an opportunity for Mozilla/Netscape to steal a bit of marketshare if things go right. This will happen anyway as AOL is planning to move their browser engine over to Moz (already been done for the MacOSX version I believe) and the Gecko AOL betas run quite well.
J
They are similar because they are one in the same. Go check out http://www.upnp.org for more information on this. Zeroconf is actually a smaller part of the Rendezvous/uPNP pie. Zeroconf is essentially a standard for a serverless DHCP hybrid. I think its great Apple implemented this - but since its been present in one form or another since Windows 98 as I recall, I dont think Apple has enough marketing muscle to push it assuming Microsoft could not.
Perhaps MS just implemented it because they thought it was a good idea and didn't actually try to push it in the marketplace. Either way - I think its nice that uPNP/Rendezvous is starting to look like a level playing field for all applicable platforms.
J
I would like to thank you for pointing this out. Like everybody else on here I was getting ready to make a mess in my pants - but after reading your statement it suddenly dawned on me:
If this idea really had nothing to do with the company's business and couldn't be applied to anything they were doing - why in the heck did this guy try to sell his idea back to them?
I've had discussions along these lines before - but I have to admit my sympathy for the guy disappeared when I realized that he was trying to sell an idea back to a company that he admittedly finalized while working for them. While he may be innocent of any intentional "wrongdoing" he's still guilty of being an idiot.
Personally I still think this story is interesting based on the fact that the court ordered him to pay the companies legal fees. I believe this is practiced in Europe (at least as far as civil court is concerned) and I've long supported its use here. This says to me the court/judge seemed to feel that went beyond a mere misunderstanding into the "gross negligence" category of dispute.
And considering the circumstances in a fair and rational manner - I would have to say I agree with them.
J