I have been on/. for quite a while and until recently I hadn't asked that question, even in my head. It seems, however, as of late that there are numerous repeat stories, numerous old stories, and an apparently random selection process as to when and why a story gets posted. This was particularly annoying since I remember a number of us posting about the (evidently previous, sorry for that bit) whois change and thought I was now seeing the story a month later.
As for links, hm:
this one, or this one will probably suffice. Forgive me for not posting them originally, but I was tired and cranky enough to post the original which might be a valid excuse.
My general point is that, while I still greatly enjoy/. (and find it useful), I am beginning to have to take every story with bigger and bigger grains of salt because I don't know if they're current, their presence on/. is part of someone's private agenda, etc. I also am much less likely to submit a story due to a feeling of futility.
There are encryption systems (I'd have to dig for the references but I have them somewhere here) which allow a user to encrypt multiple pieces of content under different keys within the same data stream. This allows some degree of security under coercion: when They start breaking your fingers you give Them the password, but it is only the password which unlocks the "fake" information (to be done well it would have to look incriminating -- i.e., you are having an illicit affair with the recipient), while you keep secret the password that hides the real secret (say, your Ice-9 formula).
Assuming crypto is not illegal this provides an out when someone catches your stego (just pre-encrypt with the double encryption system). The downside (just like steganography) is that it takes a lot more cyphertext bits to do this sort of encryption.
So you'd better be sending some big ass sound files or images to hide it in...
your software might, but many users have (1) broken installs, (2) old software, (3) non-mainstream software, (4) no sense to know whether or not to accept a certificate, etc.
I personally use 'elm' to read mail. If I see an S-Mime message come across, the identity of whose sender I am concerned about I can fire up another package to validate it.
I have enjoyed seeing windoze lusers' mails come flying in with happy99 virii, and Melissa crap attached without their knowledge. If I want to view the latest pr0n avi attachment from some windrone I can do it, but generally it's been a waste of my time, and I don't feel the need to install some 40Mb piece of useless bloatware to read my *text* email. (this was to pre-flame the flamer who invariably babbles about the improvements of outlook/eudora/bloatmail etc).
The travelling salesman problem is a decision problem (is there a tour of length k which visits every city (variation:exactly once)?). The optimization problem is simple to construct: merely solve the decision problem for k=1,2,3,4,... The lowest value of k which generates a "yes" from the decision problem is the length of the optimal path. This is polynomial if the running time of the decision problem is polynomial, which has been shown "in the literature" (this is not an obvious result as presented).
What you seem to be talking about (I'm really stretching to fathom whatever it is you're trying to say) is a subset of TSP which assumes the triangle inequality (i.e., distances obey geometric rules). Unfortunately, this is a small subset of TSP for which numerous good results are known. Additionally you seem to imply that you were solving the problem on complete graphs, a *severely* restricted subset of TSP for which extremely good results (i.e., linear time in the size of the graph, IIRC) are known.
Some of you might be interested in looking at the Travelling Salesman page at the Stony Brook Algorithms Repository (which I helped put together (sorry for the shameless plug, but ignorance is a terrible thing to let fester)).
Being the sort who would like to fund developers, I will pay you $1,000 for your polynomial time implementation of TSP.
Everyone deserves a fair shake.
:-)
Re:"We want open protocols" from Yahoo+MS, yeah ri
on
AOL Jilts Open Source
·
· Score: 1
I think more operatively they changed it to make it difficult to script access to hotmail. I used to do just that -- I had a perl script that opened the web pages, POSTed the forms, retrieved the messages, forwarded them to my account on my linux box (using sendmail of course), and then deleted them.
They changed their interface and included a couple of weird redirects which appear to serve no function other than to confuse automated systems (perhaps I'm paranoid...).
So now I can't (well, I could, but it's not worth the effort IMHO) fake POP over their web interface so I let that email be a spam address now which I check about once a month just in case something legit got sent there. It makes me warm and fuzzy to think that an MS company is providing a free box for my junk mail.
The only trick is that analog computing methods (which are what you're describing) have been tried many times to solve difficult problems (NP-hard, hard optmization). While they allow, as in this case, great increases in parallelism, the answer becomes harder to discriminate. With NP-hard problems it is often the case that the answer can actually be known to be found (at least with a high degree of probability) in the "machine", it just takes exponentially more effort to retrieve it as the size of the problem instance increases.
This happened with Adleman's (the "A" in RSA) "genetic computer" -- it took exponentially more effort to extract the problem solution as the size of the problem increased (well, that and it took exponentially more slush to compute the answer).
Lacking any details on how the system works I would assume parallelism is key, as well as a speed-up due to being optical. But if I remember correctly, breaking RSA is equivalent to finding the primes in the key. So, this is essentially a factoring machine as well. While factoring is not known to be NP-hard, it is "pretty damned hard" in a colloquial sense, and one doesn't tend to get something for nothing where complexity theory is concerned. I'm sure that whatever he has done, while presumably incredible, it has similar exponential slowdown as the key length is increased.
btw, whatever happened to the pundits a couple of years ago who said that a 512-bit key would last for 20 years? The technology hasn't speed up that much (i.e., we are still keeping check with Moore's Law), but the methods have... I'd be interested to see an adaptation of Moore's Law for *actual* gains in key cracking (for something like RSA where there are known values), as opposed to the bullshit projections which depend only on processor speed.
"One could say NT is a much richer web-serving platform."
Or, one could look at the facts and skip your poor excuse for a troll.
"The Linux evangelism has to tone down..."
You sound like a puppet.
I've grown sick from a lifetime of having morons shove their (generally brainwashed) dogshit dogma down my throat, while decrying evangelism against their cause.
I have no problems with X once it is up and running. The X server idea with the server running close to the client is highly useful, as well as removing the window manager from the server (as opposed to the options on most prevalent systems).
Configuration does seem to be the problem area with X -- especially now that XFree86 has become so popular. Our local NLUG just had an hour-long lecture devoted to X configuration (and many of the listeners were the Linux Literate).
If X could be made to be more readily configurable (which is not an X issue per se...) by better configuration tools than currently exist -- hell, even fetching specs from www.xfree86.org automatically given a known card name/chipset would dramatically ease installation in most cases (most users don't know where to look and most tools guess horribly wrong about what numbers go with what cards) -- then X would be more usable by more people.
Another issue is security. Most X installations are grossly insecure. A secure X distribution (one that installs more securely by default) would be a nice touch.
I don't, however, see any competing protocol which offers anywhere near the utility of X.
I've tried connecting to the site, and the rules page with 3 different browsers on 2 different machines running two completely different operating systems. All I ever get is "you are not authorized to log in."
Excuse me, but, while that might be secure, it's pretty fuckin' useless as a web server.
AIM's original attraction was that it allowed a non-AOL user to contact his drone friends who had been sucked into the AOL vortex. As far as communications software goes it is ad-laden garbage. I wrote a better messaging system *yesterday* as part of another piece of software. And didn't realize until I looked at it that my protocol was essentially a chat service -- so I slapped a GUI on it for kicks just to have one of my own. Do I feel like I deserve millions of dollars for the effort, or that my product could have been worth that? No, that's utter bullshit.
So, now MS comes along and offers the same service (a piece of "write-it-in-a-day-if-you're- a-mediocre-programmer" chat software) and invites AOL users to use their client instead, while allowing AOL to host the connection. Tik *was* doing exactly the same thing -- adding load to AOL's servers -- it's just that TiK wasn't making $$$ for anyone.
The fundamental problem is that AOL isn't really providing anything useful other than the connection to their user-base. Their client is a piece of crap, their service is crappy, and they made the mistake of running AIM only through their servers to try to capitalize on ad revenue. At some point early in the design phase any half intelligent manager would have asked "well, what happens if somebody makes a client for our service?". Even after the design phase (if they were that stupid) TiK was a perfect example that it *could* be done -- they were just lucky to have been warned.
They chose to ignore the question. They chose to ignore the warning. They chose (probably) to assume they could litigate a solution if the problem arose. I say "fuck 'em". They dug their own damn grave. They should have outsourced the servers to some other bunch of schmucks. In a free market (which I wish we had, but we can pretend) shitty products fall by the wayside.
I see a trend forming here of corporations whining that someone is taking advantage of them, but, under closer examination, noticing that they are really whining because the free ride of advertising $$$ on a substandard service/product is coming to an end because people are no longer forced to view their ads (there was even another story on/. today about this). Screw 'em.
The amazing thing to me about this whole grass roots movement we seem to be building here is that we are up in arms about whether we can or can't, should or shouldn't, will or won't cry, scream, protest, picket, to pay to view some over-marketed, over-hyped, piece late '90's Hollywood dogshit.
I have spent much of the past decade watching in complete awe as otherwise apparently rational humans bent over backwards to suspend disbelief and fork over as much money as possible to be subjected to stale plots, bad acting, and overly expensive effects smirkingly called "cinema". Theater (I won't even talk about television..) has taken a direct spiral into the toilet over the past twenty years, and yet we get completely up in arms over whether or not little Johnny can see the next Piece of Shit (to quote Bill Hicks) film.
I could give a rat's ass over the controversy between the Moral Majority and the Libertarian People's Front. Maybe the damned cinemas are accidentally doing you a favor by not letting your kid be subjected to another batch of overpriced Hollywood propaganda and moral conditioning (not to mention shotgun advertisement).
Take the opportunity to take your kid to a fuckin' museum, a ballgame, or heaven forbid the fuckin' library for a change! That to me is the real problem with America: we'll fight to the death to fork over our dollars to the corporate Megalith to view some forgettable worthless brainwashing propaganda while our government slowly erodes our rights to privacy, speech, and arms. We ignore the opportunity to sieze the resources of our educational systems and complain that our children grow up stupid -- that the government doesn't require schools to force-feed knowledge into our kids to compensate for lack of parenting.
Let me go before my head explodes at the stupidity of this whole discussion.
But I (and presumably the previous poster) don't want black-box ActiveX controls to run. Period.
Why not just pop up a dialog saying "This MS product is collaborating with an MS web designer to pump an unspecified privileged executable (written for your inherently insecure system) your way. Would you like to risk losing all your valuable data for the opportunity to play with an annoying interactive advertisement that you probably won't like, and if you do it's just because you've become a mass-market puppet?"
p.s., this forum is in English, please learn to use it.
Moreover, the comparisons between Kennedy and Diana Spencer are a little overblown, though I fully expected them. Diana was a much more prominent public figure than Kennedy ever was... but wait, I forgot... he was a Kennedy® which automatically qualified him for godhood in America, it seems. Even still, I was sick of the Diana coverage, especially when a person truly deserving of admiration, Mother Theresa, died at the same time with barely a passing reference.
I think you're on the right track -- many of us are sick of the JFKJr coverage as much as we were of the Diana coverage. While an untimely death is tragic, it is depressing that the media can tout a death as an earth-stopping tragedy merely because of the bloodline of the deceased. It is insulting to me that the media tries to ram such a fiction down my throat when I figure out that I don't care more about JFKJr/Diana than my late neighbor from down the street, whom I actually knew.
Which I guess means that their Sr. Product Manager can't spell the word "definitely". Is "Sr." short for "Sen~or"? Maybe he should have just ended his response with "D00d!"
There is a hidden bias in this article towards legitimizing the dubious technical expertise of the coders in the "new media" industry. While I admit that the article is an insightful look into that segment of the booming technical industry, I think any conclusions which may be drawn from the article are hardly far reaching.
The "new media" world provides and organizes content primarily for corporations via the creation of websites. While some of these sites do require novel features and serious programming on the back end, I would venture a(n unsupported) claim that most sites produced require more artwork than technical work. HTML is not a programming language. An HTML coder is not a programmer. Even knowing javascript, ASP, and some SQL or VBA does not qualify one as much of a programmer.
I have been in college, graduate school, in various segments of the industry, in the market, and own my own over the past few years. I am a programmer (as are many of the readers of this site) and see no indication that it is an employers' market for programmers. While there is widespread overworking of truly technical people it has been my direct experience that this is essentially due to the scarcity and expense of good programmers.
I don't believe this contradicts what the article is saying, just points out that what the "new media" bunch considers "technical work" is generally little more than technical grunt work. The fact that a guy can come in from being a sword swallower at Coney Island to being one of their "programmers" should be sufficient evidence...
The devil is indeed in the details in this one. When I was in graduate school a few years ago we were kicking around packet-level billing models and came up with some ideas, but guaranteed QOS with guaranteed billing was near impossible -- and affected the bandwidth being sold (i.e., you end up reducing the bandwidth you're commoditizing by having to send billing bits on it). The time is coming for these sorts of ideas but I have yet to see anyone solve the fundamental network level billing problems.
You ignored the point of my post (i.e., the content of the post to which I replied). The poster asked why would someone want to port Ixrun to NT...
Clearly Sun (look at their own comments in the article) is doing it for money. Wonderful. No shocker there. In one of my other posts I say why it is a smart move for them.
Me, personally, I use Linux, I recommend Linux (where it fits), and I also recommend Solaris to those who need a truly high-end high-$ enterprise solution. I will be glad when the day comes that Sun is a hardware company on whose boxen Linux runs better than anything else. Hopefully that day will come.
Slashdot Mirror
hm.
I'm glad someone took the time to post that.
Thanks, AC
As for links, hm:
this one, or this one will probably suffice. Forgive me for not posting them originally, but I was tired and cranky enough to post the original which might be a valid excuse.
My general point is that, while I still greatly enjoy /. (and find it useful), I am beginning to have to take every story with bigger and bigger grains of salt because I don't know if they're current, their presence on /. is part of someone's private agenda, etc. I also am much less likely to submit a story due to a feeling of futility.
Did this appear on /. before?
/. at least a month ago!
I know this is at least a month old, because
a number of people in my local LUG submitted
this story to
Why was that chump's submission deemed newsworthy
a month later than any of ours?
Old News for Nerds: Stuff That Mattered
There are encryption systems (I'd have to dig
for the references but I have them somewhere
here) which allow a user to encrypt multiple
pieces of content under different keys within
the same data stream. This allows some degree
of security under coercion: when They start
breaking your fingers you give Them the password,
but it is only the password which unlocks the
"fake" information (to be done well it would
have to look incriminating -- i.e., you are
having an illicit affair with the recipient),
while you keep secret the password that hides
the real secret (say, your Ice-9 formula).
Assuming crypto is not illegal this provides
an out when someone catches your stego (just
pre-encrypt with the double encryption system).
The downside (just like steganography) is that
it takes a lot more cyphertext bits to do this
sort of encryption.
So you'd better be sending some big ass sound files or images to hide it in...
bunk.
your software might, but many users have
(1) broken installs, (2) old software,
(3) non-mainstream software, (4) no sense to
know whether or not to accept a certificate,
etc.
I personally use 'elm' to read mail. If I see
an S-Mime message come across, the identity of
whose sender I am concerned about I can fire up
another package to validate it.
I have enjoyed seeing windoze lusers' mails
come flying in with happy99 virii, and Melissa
crap attached without their knowledge. If I
want to view the latest pr0n avi attachment from
some windrone I can do it, but generally it's
been a waste of my time, and I don't feel the
need to install some 40Mb piece of useless
bloatware to read my *text* email. (this was
to pre-flame the flamer who invariably babbles
about the improvements of outlook/eudora/bloatmail
etc).
have a nice day
What you seem to be talking about (I'm really stretching to fathom whatever it is you're trying to say) is a subset of TSP which assumes the triangle inequality (i.e., distances obey geometric rules). Unfortunately, this is a small subset of TSP for which numerous good results are known. Additionally you seem to imply that you were solving the problem on complete graphs, a *severely* restricted subset of TSP for which extremely good results (i.e., linear time in the size of the graph, IIRC) are known.
Some of you might be interested in looking at the Travelling Salesman page at the Stony Brook Algorithms Repository (which I helped put together (sorry for the shameless plug, but ignorance is a terrible thing to let fester)).
I am intrigued by your possible method.
Being the sort who would like to fund
developers, I will pay you $1,000 for your
polynomial time implementation of TSP.
Everyone deserves a fair shake.
:-)
I think more operatively they changed it to make
it difficult to script access to hotmail. I
used to do just that -- I had a perl script that
opened the web pages, POSTed the forms, retrieved
the messages, forwarded them to my account on my
linux box (using sendmail of course), and then
deleted them.
They changed their interface and included a
couple of weird redirects which appear to serve
no function other than to confuse automated
systems (perhaps I'm paranoid...).
So now I can't (well, I could, but it's not worth
the effort IMHO) fake POP over their web interface
so I let that email be a spam address now which
I check about once a month just in case something
legit got sent there. It makes me warm and fuzzy
to think that an MS company is providing a free
box for my junk mail.
The only trick is that analog computing methods
(which are what you're describing) have been tried
many times to solve difficult problems (NP-hard,
hard optmization). While they allow, as in this
case, great increases in parallelism, the answer
becomes harder to discriminate. With NP-hard
problems it is often the case that the answer
can actually be known to be found (at least
with a high degree of probability) in the
"machine", it just takes exponentially more
effort to retrieve it as the size of the problem
instance increases.
This happened with Adleman's (the "A" in RSA)
"genetic computer" -- it took exponentially more
effort to extract the problem solution as the
size of the problem increased (well, that and
it took exponentially more slush to compute the
answer).
Lacking any details on how the system works I
would assume parallelism is key, as well as a
speed-up due to being optical. But if I
remember correctly, breaking RSA is equivalent
to finding the primes in the key. So, this is
essentially a factoring machine as well. While
factoring is not known to be NP-hard, it is
"pretty damned hard" in a colloquial sense, and
one doesn't tend to get something for nothing
where complexity theory is concerned. I'm sure
that whatever he has done, while presumably
incredible, it has similar exponential slowdown
as the key length is increased.
btw, whatever happened to the pundits a couple of
years ago who said that a 512-bit key would last
for 20 years? The technology hasn't speed up
that much (i.e., we are still keeping check with
Moore's Law), but the methods have... I'd be
interested to see an adaptation of Moore's Law
for *actual* gains in key cracking (for something
like RSA where there are known values), as
opposed to the bullshit projections which depend
only on processor speed.
>The last total solar eclipse of the centry
>(notice I didn't say 'millenium', is there one
>next year anytime?)
You should be aware that the next century begins
On Jan. 1, 2001, for exactly the same reason
that the next millenium begins on the same day.
Or, one could look at the facts and skip your poor excuse for a troll.
"The Linux evangelism has to tone down..."
You sound like a puppet.
I've grown sick from a lifetime of having morons shove their (generally brainwashed) dogshit dogma down my throat, while decrying evangelism against their cause.
Wake up.
That's enlightening.
I personally find my uncle's 48 Packard
clunky and old, but I'll take it if he
gives it to me.
The "it's old technology" argument it bunk.
What, in particular is wrong with X that you
don't like?
I have no problems with X once it is up and
running. The X server idea with the server
running close to the client is highly useful,
as well as removing the window manager from
the server (as opposed to the options on most
prevalent systems).
Configuration does seem to be the problem
area with X -- especially now that XFree86
has become so popular. Our local NLUG just
had an hour-long lecture devoted to X
configuration (and many of the listeners were
the Linux Literate).
If X could be made to be more readily
configurable (which is not an X issue per se...)
by better configuration tools than currently
exist -- hell, even fetching specs from
www.xfree86.org automatically given a known
card name/chipset would dramatically ease
installation in most cases (most users don't
know where to look and most tools guess horribly
wrong about what numbers go with what cards) --
then X would be more usable by more people.
Another issue is security. Most X installations
are grossly insecure. A secure X distribution
(one that installs more securely by default)
would be a nice touch.
I don't, however, see any competing protocol which
offers anywhere near the utility of X.
I've tried connecting to the site, and the rules
page with 3 different browsers on 2 different machines running two completely different
operating systems. All I ever get is "you are not
authorized to log in."
Excuse me, but, while that might be secure, it's
pretty fuckin' useless as a web server.
Isn't that what "Highest scores first" is for?
AIM's original attraction was that it allowed a
/. today about this). Screw 'em.
non-AOL user to contact his drone friends who
had been sucked into the AOL vortex. As far
as communications software goes it is ad-laden
garbage. I wrote a better messaging system
*yesterday* as part of another piece of software.
And didn't realize until I looked at it
that my protocol was essentially a chat
service -- so I slapped a GUI on it for
kicks just to have one of my own.
Do I feel like I deserve millions of dollars
for the effort, or that my product could have
been worth that? No, that's utter bullshit.
So, now MS comes along and offers the same
service (a piece of "write-it-in-a-day-if-you're-
a-mediocre-programmer" chat software) and
invites AOL users to use their client instead,
while allowing AOL to host the connection.
Tik *was* doing exactly the same thing --
adding load to AOL's servers -- it's just that
TiK wasn't making $$$ for anyone.
The fundamental problem is that AOL isn't
really providing anything useful other than
the connection to their user-base. Their
client is a piece of crap, their service is
crappy, and they made the mistake of running
AIM only through their servers to try to
capitalize on ad revenue. At some point early
in the design phase any half intelligent manager
would have asked "well, what happens if somebody
makes a client for our service?". Even after
the design phase (if they were that stupid) TiK
was a perfect example that it *could* be done --
they were just lucky to have been warned.
They chose to ignore the question. They chose
to ignore the warning. They chose (probably)
to assume they could litigate a solution if
the problem arose. I say "fuck 'em". They
dug their own damn grave. They should have
outsourced the servers to some other bunch of
schmucks. In a free market (which I wish we
had, but we can pretend) shitty products
fall by the wayside.
I see a trend forming here of corporations
whining that someone is taking advantage of them,
but, under closer examination, noticing that they
are really whining because the free ride of
advertising $$$ on a substandard service/product
is coming to an end because people are no longer
forced to view their ads (there was even another
story on
The amazing thing to me about this whole
grass roots movement we seem to be building
here is that we are up in arms about whether
we can or can't, should or shouldn't, will
or won't cry, scream, protest, picket, to
pay to view some over-marketed, over-hyped,
piece late '90's Hollywood dogshit.
I have spent much of the past decade watching
in complete awe as otherwise apparently rational
humans bent over backwards to suspend disbelief
and fork over as much money as possible to
be subjected to stale plots, bad acting, and
overly expensive effects smirkingly called
"cinema". Theater (I won't even talk about
television..) has taken a direct spiral into
the toilet over the past twenty years, and yet
we get completely up in arms over whether or
not little Johnny can see the next Piece of
Shit (to quote Bill Hicks) film.
I could give a rat's ass over the controversy
between the Moral Majority and the Libertarian
People's Front. Maybe the damned cinemas are
accidentally doing you a favor by not letting
your kid be subjected to another batch of
overpriced Hollywood propaganda and moral
conditioning (not to mention shotgun
advertisement).
Take the opportunity to take your kid to a
fuckin' museum, a ballgame, or heaven forbid the
fuckin' library for a change! That to me is
the real problem with America: we'll fight to
the death to fork over our dollars to the
corporate Megalith to view some forgettable
worthless brainwashing propaganda while
our government slowly erodes our rights to
privacy, speech, and arms. We ignore the
opportunity to sieze the resources of our
educational systems and complain that our
children grow up stupid -- that the government
doesn't require schools to force-feed
knowledge into our kids to compensate for
lack of parenting.
Let me go before my head explodes at the stupidity
of this whole discussion.
But I (and presumably the previous poster) don't
want black-box ActiveX controls to run. Period.
Why not just pop up a dialog saying "This MS
product is collaborating with an MS web designer
to pump an unspecified privileged executable
(written for your inherently insecure system)
your way. Would you like to risk losing all
your valuable data for the opportunity to play
with an annoying interactive advertisement that
you probably won't like, and if you do it's just
because you've become a mass-market puppet?"
p.s., this forum is in English, please learn
to use it.
one of the minor dangers of a self-moderating
system. as long as a truly insightful post
was not moderated down it doesn't overly bother
me...
Which I guess means that their Sr. Product Manager
can't spell the word "definitely". Is "Sr."
short for "Sen~or"? Maybe he should have just
ended his response with "D00d!"
:-P
There is a hidden bias in this article towards
legitimizing the dubious technical expertise
of the coders in the "new media" industry.
While I admit that the article is an insightful
look into that segment of the booming technical
industry, I think any conclusions which may be
drawn from the article are hardly far reaching.
The "new media" world provides and organizes
content primarily for corporations via the
creation of websites. While some of these
sites do require novel features and serious
programming on the back end, I would venture
a(n unsupported) claim that most sites produced
require more artwork than technical work.
HTML is not a programming language. An HTML
coder is not a programmer. Even knowing
javascript, ASP, and some SQL or VBA does
not qualify one as much of a programmer.
I have been in college, graduate school, in
various segments of the industry, in the market,
and own my own over the past few years. I am
a programmer (as are many of the readers of
this site) and see no indication that it is
an employers' market for programmers. While
there is widespread overworking of truly
technical people it has been my direct experience
that this is essentially due to the scarcity
and expense of good programmers.
I don't believe this contradicts what the article
is saying, just points out that what the "new
media" bunch considers "technical work" is
generally little more than technical grunt work.
The fact that a guy can come in from being a
sword swallower at Coney Island to being one
of their "programmers" should be sufficient
evidence...
The devil is indeed in the details in this one.
When I was in graduate school a few years ago we
were kicking around packet-level billing models
and came up with some ideas, but guaranteed QOS
with guaranteed billing was near impossible -- and
affected the bandwidth being sold (i.e., you end
up reducing the bandwidth you're commoditizing
by having to send billing bits on it). The time
is coming for these sorts of ideas but I have yet
to see anyone solve the fundamental network level
billing problems.
so many changes
patch and patch and patch and patch
(better than windows)
You ignored the point of my post (i.e., the
content of the post to which I replied). The
poster asked why would someone want to port Ixrun
to NT...
Clearly Sun (look at their own comments in
the article) is doing it for money. Wonderful.
No shocker there. In one of my other posts I
say why it is a smart move for them.
Me, personally, I use Linux, I recommend Linux
(where it fits), and I also recommend Solaris
to those who need a truly high-end high-$
enterprise solution. I will be glad when the
day comes that Sun is a hardware company on
whose boxen Linux runs better than anything
else. Hopefully that day will come.
thanks