Can someone confirm this, but my understanding is that the Linux name really is just a hacked version of Unix, based on Linus Torvalds' name. It wasn't even chosen by Linus himself, but rather by a friend who I believe was maintaining one of the original ftp sites distributing Linux in its early days. ----------
"... you can't beat them [Linux on Intel] in the bangs for your buck department. It blows Sun out of the water..."
Could you elaborate on how Linux compares to Solaris? Did you mean that Linux blows Sun out of the water in terms of price/performance (which is obvious since Linux is free), or just in general for your particular needs?
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Linux vs. Solaris, not just in terms of price, but overall performance, reliability, maintainability, and ease of use. As a developer, I'm seeing Linux considered as an alternative to Solaris in many places, but there's little factual (or even anecdotal) information comparing the two. ----------
I very strongly believe this is happening for the same reason OEMs started shipping Linux on their PCs: the DOJ trial against Microsoft.
The trial showed how Microsoft had OEMs, even Intel, on a tight leash. With the trial in progress, I believe Microsoft has had to restrain itself and let the OEMs do things Microsoft wouldn't want them to do, like install Linux or ship PCs without Windows.
I've always felt that even if Microsoft is acquitted or is not slammed as hard as it deserves, if the trial goes on long enough---and I think we're almost at that point---the end result will be victory, simply because even just restraining Microsoft indirectly has been enough to allow market forces to work the way they are supposed to work: without the undue influence of monopoly power. ----------
... and already we're starting to get stories of Christmas? Ugh.
I love Christmas the family time, but I hate Christmas the overcommercialized holiday. I could probably attempt to write a lengthy diatribe about how America is too commercialized, the forgetting of the genuine meaning behind important holidays, materialism, and public gullibility, but I should probably start making my shopping list... ----------
First, whether the DOJ's actions impact the hacker mentality (undesirable) as opposed to just the cracker mentality (desirable) depends entirely on how the DOJ implements the program. The program should focus on ethics without hindering curiosity. I'm not sure how possible that is, or if the DOJ can be trusted with that task. (I'm sure most here at/. will not.)
Second, my original post has nothing to do with whether the DOJ program is effective or desirable. It has to do with the slashdot summary of the article being misguided in saying that the DOJ attack against crackers is an attack against the foundation of the current computer prosperity (i.e. hackers). These are two different things. ----------
I only needed to clarify the hacker vs. cracker thing because the slashdot summary confused the two terms by saying that hackers are responsible for the current prosperity in computers... implying that the DOJ was going against hackers. The DOJ is going against crackers, not hackers, and it is hackers, not crackers, that are responsible for the current computer age.
Yes, it is a play on words, but my point is not the play on words itself; only that to criticize the DOJ program as attacking the foundation of the current computer boom is misguided and a confusion as to what those two terms mean.
Personally, I don't really care about the whole cracker/hacker thing. This is one particular case however where confusion about the two has led to misunderstanding a fundamental issue. ----------
Ok, I thought this whole cracker vs. hacker thing was all straightened out by now by at least the more enlightened in the slashdot community. Hackers, not necessarily crackers, are the ones responsible for the current prosperity in the computer world. Hackers are those who love and investigate technology for its own sake; crackers are a narrow subset of hackers who have malicious intent. It is *hackers* that have truly advanced computers; crackers have merely made them more annoying and dangerous to use by the average person.
Yes, I realize crackers do advance the state of the art in security. But that is only one aspect of computers---albeit a critical one---and cracker's methods can and frequently are highly questionable, when other methods of achieving security are perhaps as effective or more so. This actually opens up an intereseting debate: which is actually better for security, open source methodology for peer review or crackers forcing corporations to take security seriously? Can crackers use their skills in better ways that are not destructive? This question of course refers to crackers that actually want to advance security, not the purely malicious idiots that are only interested in destruction. (Political crackers are another category altogether.)
Regardless, criticizing the DOJ's move as anti-hacking is extremely misguided. The DOJ's move is anti-*cracking*, not anti-hacking. Our current prosperity is indeed in large part due to a generation of kids hacking... but not cracking.
Actually, there is one more interesting point to consider. All of us Gen X geek kid types, at the time, how many of us were really cracking anyway? Personal computers weren't really networked; did viruses even exist? I was definitely a young hacker, but now that I think about it, could I have been a cracker even if I wanted to? Until being exposed to the Internet at MIT in 1987, I don't think I could have been, or even really known what that was. ----------
I use Fortify, it works beautifully. It actually also works better than the 128 bit domestic grade version, in terms of providing better SSL security; go to the Fortify web site and read up on it. ----------
The main reasons are skip protection and size. It is very hard to get a minidisc player to skip; you can shake it as hard as you can, and it'll be fine. They are also much smaller than CD players, and therefore much more portable, especially when you combine them with the added skip protection... ----------
Excellent point... though you might be able to argue that "Think different" is correct gramatically. For example, don't think of "Think different" as an incorrect way of saying "Think differently". Think of it as saying "Think of the word `different' and what it means." In that context, I believe "Think different" is correct. Gramatically speaking, "different" becomes a noun, and is the object of the verb "think", i.e. what you're thinking of.
I'm still waiting for the 'I wanna patent my daughter's virginity' lawsuit. Hillbillies of the world don't let me down!
Your daughter's virginity is a state of affairs, so you can't patent that. You might be able to patent how she loses her virginity though.;) ----------
First, the fact that it's been used by postal carriers before AOL existed is part of what I mean when I say it such a common phrase that it surprises me AOL could trademark it in the first place.
Second, postal carriers stamping it on mail is very different; that's not really a commercial branding use, it's just a label to inform the customer. It's not being used as advertising or as the name of a product. I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that means AOL has no basis for a lawsuit there, or in any other similar context where the phrase isn't being used in a true commercial or advertising sense.
Third, the problem with this woman is that she is relying on association of "You've got mail" with AOL to get recognition for her book. The postal service is not relying on AOL for anything; they're just telling you that you have mail. There's a huge difference. This woman is clearly trying to piggy ride off of AOL's brand association with that phrase; hence the lawsuit. ----------
The concept of AOL suing someone over use of a trademark is not stupid. They have every right to do that. And yes, this includes something that closely resembles their trademark. In this case, the woman is purposefully using the phrase's association with AOL to sell her book, so from that point of view the lawsuit is completely with merit.
What is stupid is the trademark over the phrase "You've got mail". That's such a common phrase---or at least close enough to the grammatically correct version---that it's amazing that AOL can have a trademark on it. Gee, why don't I just trademark "what's up" or "see you later"? Anyone more familiar with trademark law know about any possible restrictions on trademarking common terms?
And oh yeah, how AOL can be so high on itself about protecting a phrase that is so grammatically incorrect is beyond me. We all make mistakes, but a company with AOL's millions should at least be able to have the grammar capacity of a ten year old. ----------
Telephone # problems similar to IP address issue
on
CNN On IPv6
·
· Score: 1
There is indeed a growing problem of running out of telephone numbers. Here in Massachusetts they've already had to create several new area codes recently, and they're talking about doing it again.
However, the problem isn't really cell phones, pagers, and finding new phone numbers for them, in the same way that the IP address problem is not about exactly about new computers needing IP addresses. The problem is inefficient allocation; IP addresses, like phone numbers, are allocated to the people that need them blocks at a time. Unfortunately those blocks are not granular enough, and lots of numbers end up getting wasted.
IP example: many companies need only slightly more than a class C address space (255 IPs), but nowhere near a class B address space (65536). So they get a class B IP, but end up wasting thousands of IPs. Now imagine this with class A vs. class B addresses, where you are potentially wasting millions of addresses.
Telephone example: with all the new local telephone companies offering service, they are assigned phone number blocks they can distribute by exchange (i.e. first three digits of a seven digit local number). You now basically have potentially thousands of wasted numbers depending on how successful they are in signing up customers.
In any case, I am sure I'm off on a few technical details on the above, but the gist of it I'm pretty sure is correct. ----------
Here's the version I have posted above my computer:
ACHTUNG!
Alles Touristen und Non-Technischen Lookenspeepers!
Das Machine Kontrol Ist Nicht Fur Gefingerpoken Und Mittengrabben. Oderwise Is Easy Schnappen Der Springenwerk, Blowenfusen, und Poppencorken Mit Spitzensparken. Der Machine Ist Diggen Bei Experten Only. Is Nicht Fur Gewerken By Das Dumkopfen. Das Rubberneken Sightseeren Keepen Das Kottenpicken Hands In Das Pockets, Relaxen, Und Watschen Das Lights Geblinken!
----------
New distro vs. install option?
on
Linux Lite?
·
· Score: 2
I wonder if it would be better for the existing distros to have a "secure" install option rather than just creating a separate distro altogether. (RedHat for example has "workstation" and "install" options; it should a "secure" option too.)
Then again, a good separate commercial distro might be very good. There's probably enough security issues to merit a company just focusing on that, not to mention if they do it right they'll be proactive about finding security problems in Linux and feeding them back to the community.
Personally I think it'd be nice if Linux took OpenBSD's path of concentrating on security, for example by auditing all code for security problems. But that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon. ----------
I must admit my first reaction was "you've got to be kidding; a Mac a better choice than Linux, OpenBSD, or something like Solaris???" But I realize that's just my bigoted reaction, I really don't know much about Macs as web servers. I do suffer from the perception that Macs, for servers, aren't really acceptable because they are more toy or desktop machines.
So any knowledgable hackers want to enlighten the ignorant among us as to the virtues of Mac web servers? I'd be really interested how they stack up to the favorite Slashdot choices such as Linux, OpenBSD (I mention it over other *BSDs because of its emphasis on security, but obviously hearing about {Free,Net,*}BSD would be cool too), and even commercial Unices like Solaris. Any takers? ----------
This is actually a good point. And there are companies that have called me recently offering salary and benefits that would come very close to what I make as a contractor. My experience is still that mostly you will make out much better as a contractor with most companies.
In any case, the original argument that a contractor who sacrifices long term money with short term gain is questionable still isn't very valid. IPOs and the exceptions of companies who can give strong incentives to their full-time employees, as a pretty solid general rule, you will make more money over the long term as a contractor. And this doesn't go into all the other benefits of contracting, like freedom, unlimited vacation time, and ability to stay on top of technology. Contracting is definitely not for everyone; but it has some definite strong points that shouldn't be written off as just short-sightedness or "just caring about money". ----------
Unless you really are netting $100K+/year contracting, and have been doing it for awhile, and have all your paper work
If you are contracting, then you will be netting well over $100k/year. If you are incorporated or have your own company as a contractor, which is what you should do, then you are not seen as changing jobs every few months; you are seen as working for your own company for however many years you have been contracting. However, this can be a downside, because you will be approached with skepticism if your company is less than three years old. This can be overcome with a good enough downpayment. As an example, I bought a house last November, after about three years of being self-employed as a contractor. I had no problems getting a loan, and a good rate at that, whatsoever. ----------
Then you need to fire the person that hires them. The problem isn't contractors, the problem is somebody in your company doesn't know how to hire good people. This is a very common problem. ----------
FYI: I've worked full-time for two companies, and have been contracting for the last 3.5 years.
I would question that you get the best and brightest of people.
In my experience, there are just as many bad full-time employees as there are bad contractors.
I think that you get individuals who are seeking a lot of money...
Damn straight. But I haven't worked with a single contractor who isn't equally concerned with the quality of their work.
but they are also giving up security, important benefits and entangling themselves in a potential tax nightmare.
This is pure FUD. It is very common and understandable, but it is not valid.
These are the 90s. There is no such thing as job security in high tech. Contractors have more job security than full-time people, because they expect to move around, and when they eventually have to, they are not affected by it; it is simply routine. If I get fired or layed off, I don't care; I just find another contract within two weeks time. As a full-time employee, you are much more likely to be affected emotionally by this, which will delay you finding work again. And if you are a smart contractor, you will not have any pauses between contracts.
Benefits are not worth staying a full-time employee. You can get double your annual salary as a contractor. Plus unlimited vacation time. I hardly imagine most companies can match those benefits.
As far as taxes, this is an understandable concern, but just get yourself a smart accountant, and it is just fine. Really. I barely have to worry about it, my accountant just takes care of everything.
but when all is said and done, chances are very good that they have forgone a substantial long-term financial gain for some short term money.
That statement only makes sense when you are talking about contracting for a startup which might IPO. For any company that has already gone public, I don't see what they can do to make you big money long term.
Thing is, with any startup, chances are incredibly slim that it will take off in an IPO. For that small chance, you sacrifice your life working like a dog. I prefer to enjoy my life. For me, it is simply a quality of life issue. I have worked the 80 hour weeks. It was not worth it. ----------
What tax penalty? If you incorporate and have a smart accountant, you should be just fine with taxes, maybe even better than working full-time. What you really want to avoid is working as a W2 and declaring yourself a sole proprietor. Then you really get reamed with self-employment taxes. ----------
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, they mention the release of Netscape on Linux, without mentioning the release of Linux itself...
----------
Can someone confirm this, but my understanding is that the Linux name really is just a hacked version of Unix, based on Linus Torvalds' name. It wasn't even chosen by Linus himself, but rather by a friend who I believe was maintaining one of the original ftp sites distributing Linux in its early days.
----------
Are you kidding? Gigahertz speeds are essential to seeing Netscape crash faster than ever.
----------
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Linux vs. Solaris, not just in terms of price, but overall performance, reliability, maintainability, and ease of use. As a developer, I'm seeing Linux considered as an alternative to Solaris in many places, but there's little factual (or even anecdotal) information comparing the two.
----------
The trial showed how Microsoft had OEMs, even Intel, on a tight leash. With the trial in progress, I believe Microsoft has had to restrain itself and let the OEMs do things Microsoft wouldn't want them to do, like install Linux or ship PCs without Windows.
I've always felt that even if Microsoft is acquitted or is not slammed as hard as it deserves, if the trial goes on long enough---and I think we're almost at that point---the end result will be victory, simply because even just restraining Microsoft indirectly has been enough to allow market forces to work the way they are supposed to work: without the undue influence of monopoly power.
----------
I love Christmas the family time, but I hate Christmas the overcommercialized holiday. I could probably attempt to write a lengthy diatribe about how America is too commercialized, the forgetting of the genuine meaning behind important holidays, materialism, and public gullibility, but I should probably start making my shopping list...
----------
Second, my original post has nothing to do with whether the DOJ program is effective or desirable. It has to do with the slashdot summary of the article being misguided in saying that the DOJ attack against crackers is an attack against the foundation of the current computer prosperity (i.e. hackers). These are two different things.
----------
I only needed to clarify the hacker vs. cracker thing because the slashdot summary confused the two terms by saying that hackers are responsible for the current prosperity in computers... implying that the DOJ was going against hackers. The DOJ is going against crackers, not hackers, and it is hackers, not crackers, that are responsible for the current computer age.
Yes, it is a play on words, but my point is not the play on words itself; only that to criticize the DOJ program as attacking the foundation of the current computer boom is misguided and a confusion as to what those two terms mean.
Personally, I don't really care about the whole cracker/hacker thing. This is one particular case however where confusion about the two has led to misunderstanding a fundamental issue.
----------
Yes, I realize crackers do advance the state of the art in security. But that is only one aspect of computers---albeit a critical one---and cracker's methods can and frequently are highly questionable, when other methods of achieving security are perhaps as effective or more so. This actually opens up an intereseting debate: which is actually better for security, open source methodology for peer review or crackers forcing corporations to take security seriously? Can crackers use their skills in better ways that are not destructive? This question of course refers to crackers that actually want to advance security, not the purely malicious idiots that are only interested in destruction. (Political crackers are another category altogether.)
Regardless, criticizing the DOJ's move as anti-hacking is extremely misguided. The DOJ's move is anti-*cracking*, not anti-hacking. Our current prosperity is indeed in large part due to a generation of kids hacking... but not cracking.
Actually, there is one more interesting point to consider. All of us Gen X geek kid types, at the time, how many of us were really cracking anyway? Personal computers weren't really networked; did viruses even exist? I was definitely a young hacker, but now that I think about it, could I have been a cracker even if I wanted to? Until being exposed to the Internet at MIT in 1987, I don't think I could have been, or even really known what that was.
----------
I wonder what a neural net made of bogons, morons and vogons would be like?
----------
I use Fortify, it works beautifully. It actually also works better than the 128 bit domestic grade version, in terms of providing better SSL security; go to the Fortify web site and read up on it.
----------
The main reasons are skip protection and size. It is very hard to get a minidisc player to skip; you can shake it as hard as you can, and it'll be fine. They are also much smaller than CD players, and therefore much more portable, especially when you combine them with the added skip protection...
----------
P.S. Pardon my dangling preposition. :)
----------
----------
Second, postal carriers stamping it on mail is very different; that's not really a commercial branding use, it's just a label to inform the customer. It's not being used as advertising or as the name of a product. I am not a lawyer, but I'm guessing that means AOL has no basis for a lawsuit there, or in any other similar context where the phrase isn't being used in a true commercial or advertising sense.
Third, the problem with this woman is that she is relying on association of "You've got mail" with AOL to get recognition for her book. The postal service is not relying on AOL for anything; they're just telling you that you have mail. There's a huge difference. This woman is clearly trying to piggy ride off of AOL's brand association with that phrase; hence the lawsuit.
----------
What is stupid is the trademark over the phrase "You've got mail". That's such a common phrase---or at least close enough to the grammatically correct version---that it's amazing that AOL can have a trademark on it. Gee, why don't I just trademark "what's up" or "see you later"? Anyone more familiar with trademark law know about any possible restrictions on trademarking common terms?
And oh yeah, how AOL can be so high on itself about protecting a phrase that is so grammatically incorrect is beyond me. We all make mistakes, but a company with AOL's millions should at least be able to have the grammar capacity of a ten year old.
----------
However, the problem isn't really cell phones, pagers, and finding new phone numbers for them, in the same way that the IP address problem is not about exactly about new computers needing IP addresses. The problem is inefficient allocation; IP addresses, like phone numbers, are allocated to the people that need them blocks at a time. Unfortunately those blocks are not granular enough, and lots of numbers end up getting wasted.
IP example: many companies need only slightly more than a class C address space (255 IPs), but nowhere near a class B address space (65536). So they get a class B IP, but end up wasting thousands of IPs. Now imagine this with class A vs. class B addresses, where you are potentially wasting millions of addresses.
Telephone example: with all the new local telephone companies offering service, they are assigned phone number blocks they can distribute by exchange (i.e. first three digits of a seven digit local number). You now basically have potentially thousands of wasted numbers depending on how successful they are in signing up customers.
In any case, I am sure I'm off on a few technical details on the above, but the gist of it I'm pretty sure is correct.
----------
----------
Then again, a good separate commercial distro might be very good. There's probably enough security issues to merit a company just focusing on that, not to mention if they do it right they'll be proactive about finding security problems in Linux and feeding them back to the community.
Personally I think it'd be nice if Linux took OpenBSD's path of concentrating on security, for example by auditing all code for security problems. But that doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon.
----------
So any knowledgable hackers want to enlighten the ignorant among us as to the virtues of Mac web servers? I'd be really interested how they stack up to the favorite Slashdot choices such as Linux, OpenBSD (I mention it over other *BSDs because of its emphasis on security, but obviously hearing about {Free,Net,*}BSD would be cool too), and even commercial Unices like Solaris. Any takers?
----------
In any case, the original argument that a contractor who sacrifices long term money with short term gain is questionable still isn't very valid. IPOs and the exceptions of companies who can give strong incentives to their full-time employees, as a pretty solid general rule, you will make more money over the long term as a contractor. And this doesn't go into all the other benefits of contracting, like freedom, unlimited vacation time, and ability to stay on top of technology. Contracting is definitely not for everyone; but it has some definite strong points that shouldn't be written off as just short-sightedness or "just caring about money".
----------
----------
Then you need to fire the person that hires them. The problem isn't contractors, the problem is somebody in your company doesn't know how to hire good people. This is a very common problem.
----------
These are the 90s. There is no such thing as job security in high tech. Contractors have more job security than full-time people, because they expect to move around, and when they eventually have to, they are not affected by it; it is simply routine. If I get fired or layed off, I don't care; I just find another contract within two weeks time. As a full-time employee, you are much more likely to be affected emotionally by this, which will delay you finding work again. And if you are a smart contractor, you will not have any pauses between contracts.
Benefits are not worth staying a full-time employee. You can get double your annual salary as a contractor. Plus unlimited vacation time. I hardly imagine most companies can match those benefits.
As far as taxes, this is an understandable concern, but just get yourself a smart accountant, and it is just fine. Really. I barely have to worry about it, my accountant just takes care of everything.
That statement only makes sense when you are talking about contracting for a startup which might IPO. For any company that has already gone public, I don't see what they can do to make you big money long term.Thing is, with any startup, chances are incredibly slim that it will take off in an IPO. For that small chance, you sacrifice your life working like a dog. I prefer to enjoy my life. For me, it is simply a quality of life issue. I have worked the 80 hour weeks. It was not worth it.
----------
What tax penalty? If you incorporate and have a smart accountant, you should be just fine with taxes, maybe even better than working full-time. What you really want to avoid is working as a W2 and declaring yourself a sole proprietor. Then you really get reamed with self-employment taxes.
----------