What sort of technology are you running other than Linux/Apache for dynamic content and content management?
For example, are you running mod_perl, php, or some other solution (plain CGI perhaps?). I noted that something ending in.nsf is used which I hadn't seen before (which interestingly gave me a 404 style error when I clicked on it:)). I'm guessing that tells me you're using ftp for content management...
Those who release their code under the GPL are doing so because, just possibly, they believe in certain ideals about the way software (especially their software!!!) should be used. We _must_ respect those ideals, or else we open the Gates of Troy wide open to those who would love to pillage the jewels that Open Source has produced.
This is what I don't get. How come we're expected to respect the library developer's ideals of the way software should be used, and not those of a developer using a library? There are licences available (e.g. LGPL) that don't allow the so-called "pillage of the jewels" but do allow developers who use that code freedom to choose the licence they want.
GPL is great for software, but just plain silly for libraries.
Your solution is available today with closed libraries like MFC though. You have to be very careful what you wish for (unless I misunderstood).
What we need is for RMS to back down on his "Don't use LGPL" stand (because he's very influential) and have people use that wherever possible. Either that or the AL/GPL combo.
It is wrong wrong wrong and extremely impolite to accuse GPL of being a viral license because an application that links against or is based on a GPL'd app must be GPL.
Erm, that was the point.
If you consider this virus a good thing then fine. Others don't.
Personally I think the best licence is the one I tend to use: Mixed AL/GPL (a-la perl).
The point being is that most of my free code is in the form of libraries. I will not restrict the use of my code to non-commercial developers (OK, there are a few commercial GPL developers, but not many). I can't expect an in-house application to have to be GPL'd. And personally I think the world is a better place because of my lenient attitude. My code should be free. I don't force that idea upon others.
This sort of thing is made much harder due to the Data Protection Act (easy to find - do a search). I'm still not sure why US citizens haven't asked for a similar law - I guess it might be because the citizens don't decide the laws there any more - the lobyists do.
I did buy a copy of Web Board earlier this year. The performance on a dual PII 233 with 512MB RAM (Dell Poweredge 2200) was horrible. There was a nasty issue where Web Board virtually locked up one of the processors. There were also other issues relating to performance.
OK. I don't know if that was Web Board 3, but it probably was since 4 is very recent. One of the major reasons for WB4 was performance improvement and ability to do load distribution across multiple servers. However it's sadly still NT and still VB and still single threaded - I don't have a control over those issues.
Support at the ORA site was anything but but helpful, denying any problems, until some other posts meticulously detailed the issue. Then there was no comment. It's a classic case for Open Source, as there were several on the forum with the chops to take a look and fix what was wrong, but the nature of closed software prohibited such.
I can't argue with this. It is unfortunately the nature of closed s/w. I wish I were in a position to change it. However I'd still like to be paid for the work:)
I'm probably not the only one with whom the irony is not lost on the fact the Tim O'Reilly, while lately pushing OSS models, still has Web Board under an commercial license, for a single platform.
I see the irony there too. It's not just WB either - ORA have WebSite Pro too. One of the key things I had to keep fighting was support for the NNTP server on "alternative" platforms too - it's developed on Linux - I don't have a single NT box. It's also developed on a Sybase backend rather than the stinky MSDE they deliver on. But hey - maybe they'll see the error of their ways soon enough:) (I'm trying, OK:))
The real problem now, is how to deal with the nearly 30,000 messages in the archive since January.
If you decide to try out the latest WB, contact me directly (matt @ sergeant.org - minus the spaces) 'cos we're working on a WWWBoard->WebBoard conversion script (there are a number of people in your shoes).
A lot of people like something that just works out of the box and doesn't give them a lot of trouble. Obviously that wasn't the case with the free solution that the original poster was trying, although I can't speak for all free systems.
It's the same reason some people still pay for O'Reilly's WebSite Pro - unlike IIS (and other free NT web servers) it just plain works.
I'm on the O'Reilly WebBoard team. I wrote the NNTP component. Glad to hear you found it scalable. Personally I don't know much about the web interface, having joined only to do the NNTP component, but it looks like a good product.
However there are a couple of things to consider:
1. The web interface is single threaded. This hasn't affected the performance for most people, but it is an issue (one that is being thought about for the next release).
2. It uses 3 horrible components (not my choice): VB for WebBoard web interface, MS SQL server (5 user edition) - bad because it means I can't properly cache statements and do some nice things I'd like to, and finally - NT. However I developed the NNTP component on Linux so there's no reason you can't run that separately on a Linux box.
However I would very much like to hear back from anyone using WebBoard (as would the rest of the team - we're a very small group), especially feedback on the NNTP component.
This misconception stems not from Copyright law, but from reverse engineering law where it is (was?) legal to reverse engineer a product if done in a clean room environment.
One thing I have to ask about your interesting article - how international is what you've written? What are the international implications? Some patent laws simply won't apply where a lot of free software is written and I'd be very interested to hear if it would be possible to sue someone in a different country for a patent that wouldn't be an issue in that country.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
Tim is an avid fan of Perl. When he teaches XML to his classes he teaches to parse it in Perl first, and maybe Java later.
James Clark writes about 50/50 in C and Java.
When you say "[Java] certainly isn't slower than Perl/PHP/CFML/etc" you are actually saying "[Java] certain is faster than Perl/PHP/CFML/etc" (just reverse the "isn't slower" into "is faster"). That's not the experience I and a lot of companies I've consulted for have had. YMMV.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
Reading the kernel archives it looks like there may be problems with some versions of GCC. Check out the kernel mailing list synopsis (url anyone?) for further details. Also patch to Alan Cox's latest pre kernel.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
This is slightly off topic, but today I was playing with Mozilla M10's editor. I created some HTML and it stuck this at the top of what I wrote (inside an HTML comment):
-- The contents of this file are subject to the Netscape Public -- License Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file -- except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of -- the License at http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/
(and so on...)
Which I thought was a bit off considering I was the person who wrote what was in the file - not netscape or mozilla or anyone. I'm assuming this licence will be removed before release, in the meantime I guess I'll take a trip to bugzilla...
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
Well here's my take after reading the whole thing...
This doesn't seem to be a critique of CatB at all - more squarely aimed at the open source concept in general.
However... It's just a nice collection of articles, writings and statements we've seen and argued about before. I've seen nothing new here. What I do see is a lot of stuff from a few individuals who've had a bad experience with OSS - or even who've pointed out weaknesses in the model (and yet often pointed out solutions - a fact this article doesn't cover). We've all seen the writings of Ritchie and Zawinski on this subject - often well thought out, sometimes flawed.
There's a bit in there about development models - how patches to Linux get rejected and waste developer time causing bad feeling. But someone should go and read Linus' statements on the ISDN stuff from the kernel dev list - they are very clear as to why sometimes good patches get rejected. That's just the nature of the beast. However it doesn't amount to wasted time. Those patches don't vanish in a poof of smoke - they could be integrated better (or written better - whatever is applicable) later. Even on commercial projects you don't always get your code included just because you spent a 3 months writing it (voice of experience here...).
Yes, it's a good article covering a lot of pitfalls of open source development. Yes, it's a horribly flawed article. No, open source isn't a panacea - that doesn't exist (unless you're in s/w marketing).
Move along - nothing to see here.:)
(really need to change this.sig)
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
I think we both have a point. The point I was trying to raise was that the author is trying to make CatB invalid based on a number of bulleted points (and then sets out to elaborate on those points). But the points themselves were in fact not existant in the Cathedral and the Bazaar - so how could the whole article be correct.
Anyway - I'm nearly through it now so I'll post a follow up.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
When I learned science at school, which feels like a long time ago (but in reality isn't), we learned that if the premise upon which you're trying to prove something is wrong then the proof itself must also be wrong.
The premise of this discussion seems to be the points at the top of the article - none of which I see exactly touted in CatB (although I'm sure ESR leans towards some of the points). The article makes out ESR to be an open source fundamentalist. I think he's anything but a fundamentalist - ESR by his many discussions in the past can be shown very clearly to be a pragmatist.
Nowhere in CatB does ESR state that the Bazaar model is a silver bullet (IIRC it very carefully states that it is _not_ a silver bullet). Nowhere does it state that open source is an ideal community without disagreement (IIRC it states that disagreements are out in the open and so you'd better be right on your point or smarter people will show you to be wrong).
I think criticism of CatB is important. I don't think open source is a silver bullet. But I think the premise of this article is wrong.
Now I'm going to go read the rest of it:)
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
This is a long road, and probably for Jon (and most people) a never ending one.
Linux (and any other OS) is complex - even Linus himself couldn't claim to understand the entire workings of a complete linux distribution (although I bet he's got a damn good idea) - how all the different apps work - how Corba is working in Gnome, how KDE marshals events, etc.
Of course the point is you don't need to know all those things to make use of something (whether it be Linux or BillOS) - it's just nice to have that feeling of control.
My point is that Jon needn't feel alone here. We're all on that learning curve - some are higher than others, some progress faster than others. And while we pass others by on that path it's a lot nicer to offer someone a hand up than to flip them the finger as we feel superior.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
You can read it in the bath, in bed, on the train, upside down, on the loo, anywhere there's enough light and a comfy seat. (While you can read a palm pilot in the bath and all those other places, a chunk of paper is easier to replace if you drop it in)
You can write on it. Don't underestimate the value of scratching notes onto things - the number of notes I've made on my printouts of important RFC's is uncountable (well, I'm not going to count them:)). While electronic annotations are available, they're not nearly as good as being able to just draw an arrow up to another part of the text.
It's quicker to write on paper than fire up some application - even on a palm pilot. (NB: This requires the availability of pens - something most households and offices seem to have a vast shortage of - in fact I'm convinced of the existance of a pen demon somewhere that hordes pens).
You can bend paper. Paper aeroplanes are very theraputic - especially when made of some of the RFC's:)
You can eat paper. OK - it's not exactly a Whopper - but it's a "fun snack between meals" (TM).
It's healthier to read than a CRT. (and probably healthier to eat...)
It makes you look important and busy. Try looking busy with a cluttered WindowMaker. Now try it with a cluttered desk - much better:)
It keeps the office alive - think what a boring place it would be if no-one had to bash the printer or swear at the NT box doing print serving.
Paper is here for good. Let's hear it for paper!
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
I've had great experience with Sybase's beta product. I can't really see anything beta about it so far, and I've been using it for nearly a year now. It's blazingly fast for most operations, very stable, and the documentation is amazing - the full Sybase documentation set ships with it (albeit in Postscript format - not great for searching/indexing - sybooks would have been nicer). And at a price that's right. I just wish Sybase would get off their butt's with their full support behind the product - Sybase have a long history of not going headlong into technology that could put them a step ahead (hence Oracle overtook them in the market ages ago). That and the fact that it's not their latest version of Sybase (which therefore lacks row level locking) are the only dissapointments.
I guess I've just always had a soft spot for Sybase (I think because of the excellent docs) and it's not let me down on Linux yet.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
I'm scepticle about this myself. On the one hand I think RH is a great company - writing and paying for Free software. However now they've had an IPO - they're partly at the mercy of their shareholders. If I was a naive RedHat shareholder who didn't understand fully their business I'd be pushing for RH to do something about Linux-Mandrake - because to me they'd just be profiting off RH's hard work.
One easy way out for RH would be to buy out Mandrake. Now I know that because it's all open source, someone else could just as easily take up the batton for Mandrakesoft. However there are issues like support and infrastructure that can't just spring up out of nowhere. They take investment and time to build up.
Well, it's something to think about - welcome to the world of corporate takeovers:) (that's if it ever happens...)
Matt. (Linux-Mandrake user for nearly a year now).
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
I don't know where people here have their sources from, but javaOS isn't written in Java. The name was simply a marketing ploy, and to indicate the fact that it would have been "The best platform to run Java on".
JavaOS was purchased by Sun. It was originally called ChaOS, by some french company. A small real time OS IIRC. Do a net search for it - there may still be some URL's left about it.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
While this was an interesting article, it wasn't a good defence against STO. The author appears to be arguing that STO, while isn't a good security defence, it can make a good security buffer. These are totally different things. So really he's saying that STO is good to have in your toolbox, it's not a good defence - this is what we've been saying all along.
Having said that, his arguments are totally bogus. Saying that passwords are obscurity is nonesense. When we speak of STO we're talking about source code, not passwords, keyfiles, etc. Trying to defend STO by talking about the success of the navajo indian code is stupidity in the extreme. There are working practices available _today_ without using STO, so why would anyone bother with a "time limited" crypto?
So just what _was_ this microserf trying to defend? It seems very unclear to me.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
Wow - are the bits in secti on 6/8 talking about Bill Gates (antichrist), or what!!! I liked the bit at the end about the length of the antichrist's reign...;)
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
By default Exchange is setup as an IMAP server - so just setup pine or mutt or Netscape (or even fetchmail) to use the exchange server as an IMAP server. Exchange is also an LDAP (albeit quite buggy) server for addresses - netscape can take advantage of this, as can mutt if you use an external program - I don't know about pine.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:,hacker Perl another Just)'
Slashdot Mirror
What sort of technology are you running other than Linux/Apache for dynamic content and content management?
.nsf is used which I hadn't seen before (which interestingly gave me a 404 style error when I clicked on it :)). I'm guessing that tells me you're using ftp for content management...
For example, are you running mod_perl, php, or some other solution (plain CGI perhaps?). I noted that something ending in
Those who release their code under the GPL are doing so because, just possibly, they believe in certain ideals about the way software (especially their software!!!) should be used. We _must_ respect those ideals, or else we open the Gates of Troy wide open to those who would love to pillage the jewels that Open Source has produced.
This is what I don't get. How come we're expected to respect the library developer's ideals of the way software should be used, and not those of a developer using a library? There are licences available (e.g. LGPL) that don't allow the so-called "pillage of the jewels" but do allow developers who use that code freedom to choose the licence they want.
GPL is great for software, but just plain silly for libraries.
Matt.
Your solution is available today with closed libraries like MFC though. You have to be very careful what you wish for (unless I misunderstood).
What we need is for RMS to back down on his "Don't use LGPL" stand (because he's very influential) and have people use that wherever possible. Either that or the AL/GPL combo.
Erm, that was the point.
If you consider this virus a good thing then fine. Others don't.
Personally I think the best licence is the one I tend to use: Mixed AL/GPL (a-la perl).
The point being is that most of my free code is in the form of libraries. I will not restrict the use of my code to non-commercial developers (OK, there are a few commercial GPL developers, but not many). I can't expect an in-house application to have to be GPL'd. And personally I think the world is a better place because of my lenient attitude.
My code should be free. I don't force that idea upon others.
Matt.
This sort of thing is made much harder due to the Data Protection Act (easy to find - do a search). I'm still not sure why US citizens haven't asked for a similar law - I guess it might be because the citizens don't decide the laws there any more - the lobyists do.
I did buy a copy of Web Board earlier this year. The performance on a dual PII 233 with 512MB RAM (Dell Poweredge 2200) was horrible. There was a nasty issue where Web Board virtually locked up one of the processors. There were also other issues relating to performance.
:)
:) (I'm trying, OK :))
OK. I don't know if that was Web Board 3, but it probably was since 4 is very recent. One of the major reasons for WB4 was performance improvement and ability to do load distribution across multiple servers. However it's sadly still NT and still VB and still single threaded - I don't have a control over those issues.
Support at the ORA site was anything but but helpful, denying any problems, until some other posts meticulously detailed the issue. Then there was no comment. It's a classic case for Open Source, as there were several on the forum with the chops to take a look and fix what was wrong, but the nature of closed software prohibited such.
I can't argue with this. It is unfortunately the nature of closed s/w. I wish I were in a position to change it. However I'd still like to be paid for the work
I'm probably not the only one with whom the irony is not lost on the fact the Tim O'Reilly, while lately pushing OSS models, still has Web
Board under an commercial license, for a single platform.
I see the irony there too. It's not just WB either - ORA have WebSite Pro too. One of the key things I had to keep fighting was support for the NNTP server on "alternative" platforms too - it's developed on Linux - I don't have a single NT box. It's also developed on a Sybase backend rather than the stinky MSDE they deliver on. But hey - maybe they'll see the error of their ways soon enough
The real problem now, is how to deal with the nearly 30,000 messages in the archive since January.
If you decide to try out the latest WB, contact me directly (matt @ sergeant.org - minus the spaces) 'cos we're working on a WWWBoard->WebBoard conversion script (there are a number of people in your shoes).
Good Luck with your search.
A lot of people like something that just works out of the box and doesn't give them a lot of trouble. Obviously that wasn't the case with the free solution that the original poster was trying, although I can't speak for all free systems.
It's the same reason some people still pay for O'Reilly's WebSite Pro - unlike IIS (and other free NT web servers) it just plain works.
I'm on the O'Reilly WebBoard team. I wrote the NNTP component. Glad to hear you found it scalable. Personally I don't know much about the web interface, having joined only to do the NNTP component, but it looks like a good product.
However there are a couple of things to consider:
1. The web interface is single threaded. This hasn't affected the performance for most people, but it is an issue (one that is being thought about for the next release).
2. It uses 3 horrible components (not my choice): VB for WebBoard web interface, MS SQL server (5 user edition) - bad because it means I can't properly cache statements and do some nice things I'd like to, and finally - NT. However I developed the NNTP component on Linux so there's no reason you can't run that separately on a Linux box.
However I would very much like to hear back from anyone using WebBoard (as would the rest of the team - we're a very small group), especially feedback on the NNTP component.
Matt.
This misconception stems not from Copyright law, but from reverse engineering law where it is (was?) legal to reverse engineer a product if done in a clean room environment.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
One thing I have to ask about your interesting article - how international is what you've written? What are the international implications? Some patent laws simply won't apply where a lot of free software is written and I'd be very interested to hear if it would be possible to sue someone in a different country for a patent that wouldn't be an issue in that country.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Tim is an avid fan of Perl. When he teaches XML to his classes he teaches to parse it in Perl first, and maybe Java later.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
James Clark writes about 50/50 in C and Java.
When you say "[Java] certainly isn't slower than Perl/PHP/CFML/etc" you are actually saying "[Java] certain is faster than Perl/PHP/CFML/etc" (just reverse the "isn't slower" into "is faster"). That's not the experience I and a lot of companies I've consulted for have had. YMMV.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Reading the kernel archives it looks like there may be problems with some versions of GCC. Check out the kernel mailing list synopsis (url anyone?) for further details. Also patch to Alan Cox's latest pre kernel.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
This is slightly off topic, but today I was playing with Mozilla M10's editor. I created some HTML and it stuck this at the top of what I wrote (inside an HTML comment):
,hacker Perl another Just)'
-- The contents of this file are subject to the Netscape Public
-- License Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file
-- except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of
-- the License at http://www.mozilla.org/NPL/
(and so on...)
Which I thought was a bit off considering I was the person who wrote what was in the file - not netscape or mozilla or anyone. I'm assuming this licence will be removed before release, in the meantime I guess I'll take a trip to bugzilla...
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Well here's my take after reading the whole thing...
:)
.sig)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
This doesn't seem to be a critique of CatB at all - more squarely aimed at the open source concept in general.
However... It's just a nice collection of articles, writings and statements we've seen and argued about before. I've seen nothing new here. What I do see is a lot of stuff from a few individuals who've had a bad experience with OSS - or even who've pointed out weaknesses in the model (and yet often pointed out solutions - a fact this article doesn't cover). We've all seen the writings of Ritchie and Zawinski on this subject - often well thought out, sometimes flawed.
There's a bit in there about development models - how patches to Linux get rejected and waste developer time causing bad feeling. But someone should go and read Linus' statements on the ISDN stuff from the kernel dev list - they are very clear as to why sometimes good patches get rejected. That's just the nature of the beast. However it doesn't amount to wasted time. Those patches don't vanish in a poof of smoke - they could be integrated better (or written better - whatever is applicable) later. Even on commercial projects you don't always get your code included just because you spent a 3 months writing it (voice of experience here...).
Yes, it's a good article covering a lot of pitfalls of open source development. Yes, it's a horribly flawed article. No, open source isn't a panacea - that doesn't exist (unless you're in s/w marketing).
Move along - nothing to see here.
(really need to change this
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
I think we both have a point. The point I was trying to raise was that the author is trying to make CatB invalid based on a number of bulleted points (and then sets out to elaborate on those points). But the points themselves were in fact not existant in the Cathedral and the Bazaar - so how could the whole article be correct.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Anyway - I'm nearly through it now so I'll post a follow up.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
When I learned science at school, which feels like a long time ago (but in reality isn't), we learned that if the premise upon which you're trying to prove something is wrong then the proof itself must also be wrong.
:)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
The premise of this discussion seems to be the points at the top of the article - none of which I see exactly touted in CatB (although I'm sure ESR leans towards some of the points). The article makes out ESR to be an open source fundamentalist. I think he's anything but a fundamentalist - ESR by his many discussions in the past can be shown very clearly to be a pragmatist.
Nowhere in CatB does ESR state that the Bazaar model is a silver bullet (IIRC it very carefully states that it is _not_ a silver bullet). Nowhere does it state that open source is an ideal community without disagreement (IIRC it states that disagreements are out in the open and so you'd better be right on your point or smarter people will show you to be wrong).
I think criticism of CatB is important. I don't think open source is a silver bullet. But I think the premise of this article is wrong.
Now I'm going to go read the rest of it
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Think international. Think impossible to regulate.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Enough said.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
This is a long road, and probably for Jon (and most people) a never ending one.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Linux (and any other OS) is complex - even Linus himself couldn't claim to understand the entire workings of a complete linux distribution (although I bet he's got a damn good idea) - how all the different apps work - how Corba is working in Gnome, how KDE marshals events, etc.
Of course the point is you don't need to know all those things to make use of something (whether it be Linux or BillOS) - it's just nice to have that feeling of control.
My point is that Jon needn't feel alone here. We're all on that learning curve - some are higher than others, some progress faster than others. And while we pass others by on that path it's a lot nicer to offer someone a hand up than to flip them the finger as we feel superior.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
You can read it in the bath, in bed, on the train, upside down, on the loo, anywhere there's enough light and a comfy seat. (While you can read a palm pilot in the bath and all those other places, a chunk of paper is easier to replace if you drop it in)
:)). While electronic annotations are available, they're not nearly as good as being able to just draw an arrow up to another part of the text.
:)
:)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
You can write on it. Don't underestimate the value of scratching notes onto things - the number of notes I've made on my printouts of important RFC's is uncountable (well, I'm not going to count them
It's quicker to write on paper than fire up some application - even on a palm pilot. (NB: This requires the availability of pens - something most households and offices seem to have a vast shortage of - in fact I'm convinced of the existance of a pen demon somewhere that hordes pens).
You can bend paper. Paper aeroplanes are very theraputic - especially when made of some of the RFC's
You can eat paper. OK - it's not exactly a Whopper - but it's a "fun snack between meals" (TM).
It's healthier to read than a CRT. (and probably healthier to eat...)
It makes you look important and busy. Try looking busy with a cluttered WindowMaker. Now try it with a cluttered desk - much better
It keeps the office alive - think what a boring place it would be if no-one had to bash the printer or swear at the NT box doing print serving.
Paper is here for good. Let's hear it for paper!
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
The version of awk that handles XML data is called Perl. I thought you'd heard of it :)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
And then there's sgrep.
Damn all these tools for moving us into the 20th century.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
I've had great experience with Sybase's beta product. I can't really see anything beta about it so far, and I've been using it for nearly a year now. It's blazingly fast for most operations, very stable, and the documentation is amazing - the full Sybase documentation set ships with it (albeit in Postscript format - not great for searching/indexing - sybooks would have been nicer). And at a price that's right. I just wish Sybase would get off their butt's with their full support behind the product - Sybase have a long history of not going headlong into technology that could put them a step ahead (hence Oracle overtook them in the market ages ago). That and the fact that it's not their latest version of Sybase (which therefore lacks row level locking) are the only dissapointments.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
I guess I've just always had a soft spot for Sybase (I think because of the excellent docs) and it's not let me down on Linux yet.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
I'm scepticle about this myself. On the one hand I think RH is a great company - writing and paying for Free software. However now they've had an IPO - they're partly at the mercy of their shareholders. If I was a naive RedHat shareholder who didn't understand fully their business I'd be pushing for RH to do something about Linux-Mandrake - because to me they'd just be profiting off RH's hard work.
:) (that's if it ever happens...)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
One easy way out for RH would be to buy out Mandrake. Now I know that because it's all open source, someone else could just as easily take up the batton for Mandrakesoft. However there are issues like support and infrastructure that can't just spring up out of nowhere. They take investment and time to build up.
Well, it's something to think about - welcome to the world of corporate takeovers
Matt. (Linux-Mandrake user for nearly a year now).
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
I don't know where people here have their sources from, but javaOS isn't written in Java. The name was simply a marketing ploy, and to indicate the fact that it would have been "The best platform to run Java on".
,hacker Perl another Just)'
JavaOS was purchased by Sun. It was originally called ChaOS, by some french company. A small real time OS IIRC. Do a net search for it - there may still be some URL's left about it.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
While this was an interesting article, it wasn't a good defence against STO. The author appears to be arguing that STO, while isn't a good security defence, it can make a good security buffer. These are totally different things. So really he's saying that STO is good to have in your toolbox, it's not a good defence - this is what we've been saying all along.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
Having said that, his arguments are totally bogus. Saying that passwords are obscurity is nonesense. When we speak of STO we're talking about source code, not passwords, keyfiles, etc. Trying to defend STO by talking about the success of the navajo indian code is stupidity in the extreme. There are working practices available _today_ without using STO, so why would anyone bother with a "time limited" crypto?
So just what _was_ this microserf trying to defend? It seems very unclear to me.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Wow - are the bits in secti on 6/8 talking about Bill Gates (antichrist), or what!!! I liked the bit at the end about the length of the antichrist's reign... ;)
,hacker Perl another Just)'
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
IMAP.
,hacker Perl another Just)'
By default Exchange is setup as an IMAP server - so just setup pine or mutt or Netscape (or even fetchmail) to use the exchange server as an IMAP server. Exchange is also an LDAP (albeit quite buggy) server for addresses - netscape can take advantage of this, as can mutt if you use an external program - I don't know about pine.
Matt.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-: