it means a little user training to explain that they should send EXEs in a zip archive
The moment this becomes widespread, e-mail programs will automatically unarchive files for you, viruses will pop up that send themselves compressed in.zip archives. If that constitutes security, we're screwed.
Is IBM and all their allies a big enough set of companies for you to take notice? Despite the popular opinion on/. that every company is out to trounce Linux and is in love with Microsoft, it's simply not true. Although some companies will roll over, the tech companies -- the ones that matter -- have a lot of interest in not having computers locked into running Windows. (Even if their interest just goes as far as not wanting MS to get ahead.)
I guarantee you those worms existed before the patches were released.. common sense right?
Urm... common sense, maybe, but wrong. The worms relied on the fact that, though the patches had been released, nobody installed them. If you had kept your system up to date, you have had nothing to fear from the recent worms.
Just out of curiosity, how do you handle people who build their own system? Do you add a recycling surcharge onto each component? Attach the $37 fee to every new CPU? Require that they take care of paying the charge themselves? Or do you just assume that the number of people building their own is small enough that it doesn't matter?
making office appear faster by loading tons of libs into memory...
You're wrong on this count. You're not making it appear faster; you really are making it faster. As I pointed out in my last post, preloading means less wasted time for the user. If you've got a "non-hack" way of making it faster, I'm all ears, but if program design detracts from the experience of the user, the design is flawed. A 30-second startup time is simply unacceptable.
eys, some you ahve to preload, especially system libs. but for an office suite? please.
If you haven't noticed, the word processor is the most-used application on many people's computers, and is certainly among the most complex pieces of software that the average person uses on a regular basis. I really can't think of many better candidates for preloading than office software.
Well, don't worry because I installed Openoffice 1.1 rc5 yesterday (oops) and IIRC it offers preload.
I'm not worried; I finally swore off traditional word processors in favor of LyX anyway:)
The thing I was taking exception to was the OP's statement that "It's OK for OO to take 20 seconds to load, as long as it's not a hack." IMO, a hack that works is far better than an elegant way that doesn't. Given the choice between a hack and a non-hack that both work, however, I certainly agree that a hack is not the way to go.
If you don't even think that the games are worth two dollars, then why are you complaining? If they're really only worth a quarter apiece to you, then you ought to find something that you actually enjoy doing rather than playing video games that you obviously don't.
since cheap hacks like preloads are not the linux way, for the size of the app, the speed is sufficient.
How is making something faster a "cheap hack?" It sounds like intelligent design to me. When I turn on the computer, the difference between 60 and 80 seconds of boot time is fairly irrelevant -- I'm doing something else anyway. When I start up an application, the difference between 5 and 25 seconds until I can start using it is immense.
If we're reduced to saying, "well, yeah, it's better... but it's a hack!" we might as well just admit defeat. Productivity can't be subservient to "elegance."
Either case, a corporation is trying to sell you something.
This isn't true. Not every commercial business or venture is a corporation. Your statement that you want to "de-classify corporations as individuals" implies very strongly that you're not talking about a "commercial speech" law, you're talking about "corporate speech." (If that's not true, then wanting to get rid of "corporate personhood" is irrelevant.)
More importantly, I completely disagree with the statement that somebody should be allowed to spam my telephone just because he doesn't work for a corporation. That's just stupid. I don't want anyone calling me trying to sell me stuff; I don't care about the legal status of his business.
Why do people keep on bringing up "corporate speech" in relation to this, as if it was relevant? Do you really think that we want to have Bob from the used car lot calling us any more than Harry from Wal-Mart? Whether speech is "corporate" or not is irrelevant to this matter. "Commercial," maybe, but not "corporate."
Although he talks about his ideology, the focus of his post is on the software. When I read about anything he's said in the last few years, it's always ideology, with a little bit about the software thrown in. Might the GNU project be better served if their leaders would stop worrying about whether it should be called GNU/Linux and get back to the technical side of things?
It's readily apparent from your second comment that you're a troll; you're not making any attempt to actually understand what I said. Reread my last comment; you're so convinced that you're right that you're not paying attention to what I wrote.
When did I say that I support telemarketers? I don't. I signed up for the do not call list the day it went up.
If you are acting on the behalf of a corporation you arent acting as an individual anymore.
No way. As an individual, I can exersize my rights to benefit anyone I want. They're rights, and you can't take them away just because you don't like the group I'm helping out. What's the difference between me taking my fat paycheck from XYZ corporation and giving it to politician A, and XYZ corporation donating directly to politician A? None. That's why I say that those who blame the idea of corporate personhood for social ills are barking up the wrong tree. It's a convenient sound bite for the anticorporate, but when you get down to it, abolishing the idea doesn't change anything.
... and corporations are made out of lots of people, who all have rights. Those who claim that all problems are caused by the "corporate personhood" silliness are ignoring the fact that the exact same things would happen with individual people excersizing their rights on the behalf of corporations.
Computers don't really give off enough heat to cause climate changes -- one system is only the equivalent of a few 100-watt light bulbs, and there are many pieces of equipment that generate a lot more heat (air conditioners, cooking equipment, cars...) Moreover, those sources are all practically negligible compared with the amount of heat coming in from the sun.
1) a trust authenticator, which is a central organization which can be shut down using DDOS and invalidated...
But the difference is that the trust authenticator no longer needs to distribute every copy of the RBL; just to a few nodes. That's going to be a lot more difficult to DOS. (Think: the organization e-mails the signed RBL to a hundred seed nodes. Can you DOS all of them?)
Slashdot Mirror
it means a little user training to explain that they should send EXEs in a zip archive
.zip archives. If that constitutes security, we're screwed.
The moment this becomes widespread, e-mail programs will automatically unarchive files for you, viruses will pop up that send themselves compressed in
3 megs for a full record?
..."
It's a new lossy compression method. You rip one track, and include a text file that says, "... And a lot more of the same
You could say that while Linux is the "Unix workalike," OS X is the "Unix workaround."
That means that we're going to have a bigger, badder SiteFinder pretty soon, right?
Is IBM and all their allies a big enough set of companies for you to take notice? Despite the popular opinion on /. that every company is out to trounce Linux and is in love with Microsoft, it's simply not true. Although some companies will roll over, the tech companies -- the ones that matter -- have a lot of interest in not having computers locked into running Windows. (Even if their interest just goes as far as not wanting MS to get ahead.)
I guarantee you those worms existed before the patches were released.. common sense right?
... common sense, maybe, but wrong. The worms relied on the fact that, though the patches had been released, nobody installed them. If you had kept your system up to date, you have had nothing to fear from the recent worms.
Urm
The scary truth is that until enough harm is done with this exploit it will go undiscovered and unpatched
... oh, right, they did.
Yeah! Just like all the worms recently; until they showed up, Microsoft didn't release
Just out of curiosity, how do you handle people who build their own system? Do you add a recycling surcharge onto each component? Attach the $37 fee to every new CPU? Require that they take care of paying the charge themselves? Or do you just assume that the number of people building their own is small enough that it doesn't matter?
making office appear faster by loading tons of libs into memory...
You're wrong on this count. You're not making it appear faster; you really are making it faster. As I pointed out in my last post, preloading means less wasted time for the user. If you've got a "non-hack" way of making it faster, I'm all ears, but if program design detracts from the experience of the user, the design is flawed. A 30-second startup time is simply unacceptable.
eys, some you ahve to preload, especially system libs. but for an office suite? please.
If you haven't noticed, the word processor is the most-used application on many people's computers, and is certainly among the most complex pieces of software that the average person uses on a regular basis. I really can't think of many better candidates for preloading than office software.
Well, don't worry because I installed Openoffice 1.1 rc5 yesterday (oops) and IIRC it offers preload.
:)
I'm not worried; I finally swore off traditional word processors in favor of LyX anyway
The thing I was taking exception to was the OP's statement that "It's OK for OO to take 20 seconds to load, as long as it's not a hack." IMO, a hack that works is far better than an elegant way that doesn't. Given the choice between a hack and a non-hack that both work, however, I certainly agree that a hack is not the way to go.
If you don't even think that the games are worth two dollars, then why are you complaining? If they're really only worth a quarter apiece to you, then you ought to find something that you actually enjoy doing rather than playing video games that you obviously don't.
since cheap hacks like preloads are not the linux way, for the size of the app, the speed is sufficient.
... but it's a hack!" we might as well just admit defeat. Productivity can't be subservient to "elegance."
How is making something faster a "cheap hack?" It sounds like intelligent design to me. When I turn on the computer, the difference between 60 and 80 seconds of boot time is fairly irrelevant -- I'm doing something else anyway. When I start up an application, the difference between 5 and 25 seconds until I can start using it is immense.
If we're reduced to saying, "well, yeah, it's better
...the more rational of us can look at this and move on.
Yeah; both of you who are on slashdot.
Either case, a corporation is trying to sell you something.
This isn't true. Not every commercial business or venture is a corporation. Your statement that you want to "de-classify corporations as individuals" implies very strongly that you're not talking about a "commercial speech" law, you're talking about "corporate speech." (If that's not true, then wanting to get rid of "corporate personhood" is irrelevant.)
More importantly, I completely disagree with the statement that somebody should be allowed to spam my telephone just because he doesn't work for a corporation. That's just stupid. I don't want anyone calling me trying to sell me stuff; I don't care about the legal status of his business.
Why do people keep on bringing up "corporate speech" in relation to this, as if it was relevant? Do you really think that we want to have Bob from the used car lot calling us any more than Harry from Wal-Mart? Whether speech is "corporate" or not is irrelevant to this matter. "Commercial," maybe, but not "corporate."
-- /usr/local/bin/uptime --
#!/bin/sh
echo "42 years!"
There ya go.
It starts out, "ALL YOUR BA--"
I'll finish up translating the rest tomorrow.
Although he talks about his ideology, the focus of his post is on the software. When I read about anything he's said in the last few years, it's always ideology, with a little bit about the software thrown in. Might the GNU project be better served if their leaders would stop worrying about whether it should be called GNU/Linux and get back to the technical side of things?
It's readily apparent from your second comment that you're a troll; you're not making any attempt to actually understand what I said. Reread my last comment; you're so convinced that you're right that you're not paying attention to what I wrote.
When did I say that I support telemarketers? I don't. I signed up for the do not call list the day it went up.
If you are acting on the behalf of a corporation you arent acting as an individual anymore.
No way. As an individual, I can exersize my rights to benefit anyone I want. They're rights, and you can't take them away just because you don't like the group I'm helping out. What's the difference between me taking my fat paycheck from XYZ corporation and giving it to politician A, and XYZ corporation donating directly to politician A? None. That's why I say that those who blame the idea of corporate personhood for social ills are barking up the wrong tree. It's a convenient sound bite for the anticorporate, but when you get down to it, abolishing the idea doesn't change anything.
... and corporations are made out of lots of people, who all have rights. Those who claim that all problems are caused by the "corporate personhood" silliness are ignoring the fact that the exact same things would happen with individual people excersizing their rights on the behalf of corporations.
This is caving in to the telemarketers. Why should idiots trying to sell things be able to make my telephone worthless?
Computers don't really give off enough heat to cause climate changes -- one system is only the equivalent of a few 100-watt light bulbs, and there are many pieces of equipment that generate a lot more heat (air conditioners, cooking equipment, cars...) Moreover, those sources are all practically negligible compared with the amount of heat coming in from the sun.
You got it. As a card-carrying Republican, I'm going to go eat some babies tonight.
1) a trust authenticator, which is a central organization which can be shut down using DDOS and invalidated...
But the difference is that the trust authenticator no longer needs to distribute every copy of the RBL; just to a few nodes. That's going to be a lot more difficult to DOS. (Think: the organization e-mails the signed RBL to a hundred seed nodes. Can you DOS all of them?)