I just don't see how those specs could be enough. How do you install your OS without USB to hook up the boot media (most people won't set up a network boot for their NIC). Anything you run in more than text mode will require more than 32MB of RAM. I think the box would need the 128MB and USB if it is to have any versatility at all.
The main problem is that, yes, things like this are more expensive. Laptops also cost more than comperable PC's, it's about form factor. The other usual cost booster on these is a certain amount of ruggedizing, given a lot of their target markets. I just don't see how you can have a box that can run more than a handful of very limited processes with specs much lower.
Actually, we usually get machines without either floppy or CD drives for quite a few uses. You can boot of the network, a USB keychain drive, USB floppy, USB cdrom, etc. These days it can sometimes make more sense to save the money for all the internal media drives and replace them with one good USB peripheral.
Do they really need to? In an enterprise environment, neither hardware support or ease of configuration are very important. Enterprise OS vendors always have very short lists of supported hardware, rendering hardware support pretty even when it comes to what is rock-stable. With a large and proficient admin staff, ease of configuration is not important at all compared to ease of maintaining consistant configurations and rolling out changes. While Windows may have an advantage in consumer level configuration and consumer hardware support, these evaporate when you enter the enterprise market.
Ahh, anyone who points out that, as much as he may look like an idiot in public, RMS's contributions to the creation and survival of Linux is a "minion"? I'm just tired of the we-did-it-all-by-ourselves (except for most of it) attitude of some on here. If you can't even give an answer to what he has done, and show why it is irrelevant, then I guess it is time to resort to idiotic personal attacks. Plonk!
Hmm, while I think you have a great point on profitability and such, I'm not so sure about your conclusion. If IT wages go down much more, a lot of peopoe will be looking at Taco Bell management as the high income career track.
As I said above, no, taking a NetBSD system then compiling all the GNU utilities does not count, since the BSD's are defined in terms of a project, not just a kernel. It no more becomes a GNU system than GNU/Windows XP is valid when you install Cygwin.
I did not intend to imply otherwise, my apologies for not being clearer. I was speaking of cases where it was a lawful order, such as has unfortunately been the case in some armies in previous conflicts (tring not to invoke Godwin's Law:)
Very nice and all, but how is any of that little rant relevant to either the review, or the topic of the correct usage of the term ".NET Framework"? This hypersensitivity is very unbecoming, as is responding to a list of arguments that were never made. I made no statement either for or against either group, and actually develop closed source software on a Microsoft platform. Your above screed only emphasizes my point about some developers flying off the handle about issues that are not relevant.
Well, if the argument is about whether the FSF has helped the OSS community, it is obvious that providing a compiler and editor is helping. They may not be compatible in license, but helping...it is.
For someone always being laughably pedantic about misspellings and incorrect usage of vague terminology (like.NET framework), I would think that you would know that there is no GNU/BSD. The BSD project is based on 4.4 BSD Lite, with its own userland. The only GNU projects included are gcc and possibly emacs.
Hmm, I don't know. Maybe because it is released under his license, following his philosophy, only built because of the existance of his tools, his compiler, his userland environment, etc. I don't know what his connection could possibly be...
Wow, that is exactly the idea I have been looking for! It is really tough to get people to think in terms of copyright, trademark, etc. I think the idea of Intellectual Privilege is exactly the thing to get the point accross. Thanks.
No, GNU wants to preserve the familiar aspects of the UNIX userland, it does not seek to be UNIX. Just being compliant with a standard is easy, look at Windows NT with POSIX compliance. They may meet some of the OG UNIX standard, but they do it with entierly different internals. It is not the same as UNIX just because cd and ls take similar options.
There is often a relation between which things are moral, legal, and ethical, but there is often a difference as well. Ethics is separate from the law, and rightly so, since it is that which can help people to act better than simply following the minimum requirements of law.
To use the usual inflammatory examples, if an officer in any army refused a direct order to kill a civilian, his behavior is illegal but most definately ethical. On a smaller scale, simply look at the civil rights movement. When Rosa Parks sat down on the bus instead of giving her seat to a white man, her action was illegal, but most certainly not unethical.
In summary, it may always be considered ethical to disobey what one believes to be an unjust law.
Oh, and it is also worth mentioning that it is close enough to languages that can use the.NET framework, since that is where the regular expression libraries discussed in the book are located.
Perhaps because he is writing a review of a book on regular expressions, and not a book on.NET? With all the marketing newspeak and hype about.NET, there is not exactly a great consensus about proper usage of specific terms among the general computing public. This kind of pedantic whining only serves to diminish the image of Microsoft developers in general.
No, apparently the real issue for you is that your own views should be able to overrule those of others. If someone doesn't allow books on "them evilllll furriner religions" in their house, should the library be forced to remove all non-Christian materials?
Parents have the right to control what their children access in their own home, but have no rights outside there. Should filtering be mandated on all PC's? After all, what might your children see at a friends house if they don't have filtering?
If parents wish to strictly control content access, there should be the option to turn filtering _on_ for a session perhaps, but the default for any access to information should always be uncensored. That is the only method that respects the wishes and freedoms of all, because any form starting with censorship is going to be predjudiced towards some specific group.
But we already do that. You see, society generally recognizes that the amount of damage done is significant in most crimes. Although both giving someone a bloody nose and breaking their arm are both assault, the bloody nose is treated less severely. If the damage is healed within a few minutes when the blood stops, why should the person be punished as severely as someone that causes lasting damage requiring multiple treatments?
In the same spirit, stealing $10 from someone with a net worth in excess of $10 million is rounding error. The same amount may be the weekly food budget for a low income worker. One party is greatly damaged by the theft, the other would likely not even notice. Why should they be punished as the same crime?
A lot of how someone views this is also influenced by the question of whether it is the infringement of property rights or the damage done to the victim that makes an act criminal. I tend to side with the second option, but respect those who disagree and side with the first.
I would also suggest that posting a comment accusing someone of having a "stupid mentality", especially one that it widely shared by the general public, is absurd, especially when your post is loaded with management newspeak such as "disincentivize"?
Oh genius boy, glass houses and all that. Congress covers both the Senate and House of Representatives, so congressman can be used to refer to a member of either body.
You must have a really interesting definition of "clearly." The article states in brief:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines.
And, to address your conclusion, the "free market" is already sorting it out, the same way it always has. Wonder what they paid for the lease on Mr. Hatch...
Haven't you worked on Open Server? The SCO IP is the unique method of putting...get this...system binaries in/etc! Every client I have that still uses SCO was already being forced by their software vendors to migrate to either Linux or AIX. Most of the SCO boxes left out there run crappy applications written in things like Business Basic.
Well, it depends on if they decide to classify him as an "enemy combatant" like Padilla. Remember, two prisoners in Camp X-Ray have died in interrogation. What's that about not being beaten and killed in jail?
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't see how those specs could be enough. How do you install your OS without USB to hook up the boot media (most people won't set up a network boot for their NIC). Anything you run in more than text mode will require more than 32MB of RAM. I think the box would need the 128MB and USB if it is to have any versatility at all.
The main problem is that, yes, things like this are more expensive. Laptops also cost more than comperable PC's, it's about form factor. The other usual cost booster on these is a certain amount of ruggedizing, given a lot of their target markets. I just don't see how you can have a box that can run more than a handful of very limited processes with specs much lower.
Hey, it's still a lot thinner than Battlefield Earth...
Actually, we usually get machines without either floppy or CD drives for quite a few uses. You can boot of the network, a USB keychain drive, USB floppy, USB cdrom, etc. These days it can sometimes make more sense to save the money for all the internal media drives and replace them with one good USB peripheral.
Do they really need to? In an enterprise environment, neither hardware support or ease of configuration are very important. Enterprise OS vendors always have very short lists of supported hardware, rendering hardware support pretty even when it comes to what is rock-stable. With a large and proficient admin staff, ease of configuration is not important at all compared to ease of maintaining consistant configurations and rolling out changes. While Windows may have an advantage in consumer level configuration and consumer hardware support, these evaporate when you enter the enterprise market.
Ahh, anyone who points out that, as much as he may look like an idiot in public, RMS's contributions to the creation and survival of Linux is a "minion"? I'm just tired of the we-did-it-all-by-ourselves (except for most of it) attitude of some on here. If you can't even give an answer to what he has done, and show why it is irrelevant, then I guess it is time to resort to idiotic personal attacks. Plonk!
Hmm, while I think you have a great point on profitability and such, I'm not so sure about your conclusion. If IT wages go down much more, a lot of peopoe will be looking at Taco Bell management as the high income career track.
As I said above, no, taking a NetBSD system then compiling all the GNU utilities does not count, since the BSD's are defined in terms of a project, not just a kernel. It no more becomes a GNU system than GNU/Windows XP is valid when you install Cygwin.
I agree with you in principle, but in this context, embracing the term would just egg on more SCO lawsuits...sigh.
And no, in the context of your time period, a bad hack running Hurd with a BSD or compiling your own with a GNU userland does not count.
I did not intend to imply otherwise, my apologies for not being clearer. I was speaking of cases where it was a lawful order, such as has unfortunately been the case in some armies in previous conflicts (tring not to invoke Godwin's Law :)
Very nice and all, but how is any of that little rant relevant to either the review, or the topic of the correct usage of the term ".NET Framework"? This hypersensitivity is very unbecoming, as is responding to a list of arguments that were never made. I made no statement either for or against either group, and actually develop closed source software on a Microsoft platform. Your above screed only emphasizes my point about some developers flying off the handle about issues that are not relevant.
Well, if the argument is about whether the FSF has helped the OSS community, it is obvious that providing a compiler and editor is helping. They may not be compatible in license, but helping...it is.
For someone always being laughably pedantic about misspellings and incorrect usage of vague terminology (like .NET framework), I would think that you would know that there is no GNU/BSD. The BSD project is based on 4.4 BSD Lite, with its own userland. The only GNU projects included are gcc and possibly emacs.
Hmm, I don't know. Maybe because it is released under his license, following his philosophy, only built because of the existance of his tools, his compiler, his userland environment, etc. I don't know what his connection could possibly be...
Wow, that is exactly the idea I have been looking for! It is really tough to get people to think in terms of copyright, trademark, etc. I think the idea of Intellectual Privilege is exactly the thing to get the point accross. Thanks.
No, GNU wants to preserve the familiar aspects of the UNIX userland, it does not seek to be UNIX. Just being compliant with a standard is easy, look at Windows NT with POSIX compliance. They may meet some of the OG UNIX standard, but they do it with entierly different internals. It is not the same as UNIX just because cd and ls take similar options.
There is often a relation between which things are moral, legal, and ethical, but there is often a difference as well. Ethics is separate from the law, and rightly so, since it is that which can help people to act better than simply following the minimum requirements of law.
To use the usual inflammatory examples, if an officer in any army refused a direct order to kill a civilian, his behavior is illegal but most definately ethical. On a smaller scale, simply look at the civil rights movement. When Rosa Parks sat down on the bus instead of giving her seat to a white man, her action was illegal, but most certainly not unethical.
In summary, it may always be considered ethical to disobey what one believes to be an unjust law.
Oh, and it is also worth mentioning that it is close enough to languages that can use the .NET framework, since that is where the regular expression libraries discussed in the book are located.
Perhaps because he is writing a review of a book on regular expressions, and not a book on .NET? With all the marketing newspeak and hype about .NET, there is not exactly a great consensus about proper usage of specific terms among the general computing public. This kind of pedantic whining only serves to diminish the image of Microsoft developers in general.
No, apparently the real issue for you is that your own views should be able to overrule those of others. If someone doesn't allow books on "them evilllll furriner religions" in their house, should the library be forced to remove all non-Christian materials?
Parents have the right to control what their children access in their own home, but have no rights outside there. Should filtering be mandated on all PC's? After all, what might your children see at a friends house if they don't have filtering?
If parents wish to strictly control content access, there should be the option to turn filtering _on_ for a session perhaps, but the default for any access to information should always be uncensored. That is the only method that respects the wishes and freedoms of all, because any form starting with censorship is going to be predjudiced towards some specific group.
But we already do that. You see, society generally recognizes that the amount of damage done is significant in most crimes. Although both giving someone a bloody nose and breaking their arm are both assault, the bloody nose is treated less severely. If the damage is healed within a few minutes when the blood stops, why should the person be punished as severely as someone that causes lasting damage requiring multiple treatments?
In the same spirit, stealing $10 from someone with a net worth in excess of $10 million is rounding error. The same amount may be the weekly food budget for a low income worker. One party is greatly damaged by the theft, the other would likely not even notice. Why should they be punished as the same crime?
A lot of how someone views this is also influenced by the question of whether it is the infringement of property rights or the damage done to the victim that makes an act criminal. I tend to side with the second option, but respect those who disagree and side with the first.
I would also suggest that posting a comment accusing someone of having a "stupid mentality", especially one that it widely shared by the general public, is absurd, especially when your post is loaded with management newspeak such as "disincentivize"?
Oh genius boy, glass houses and all that. Congress covers both the Senate and House of Representatives, so congressman can be used to refer to a member of either body.
You must have a really interesting definition of "clearly." The article states in brief:
"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," replied Randy Saaf of MediaDefender Inc.
"I'm interested," Hatch interrupted. He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."
"If we can find some way to do this without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Hatch said. "If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines.
And, to address your conclusion, the "free market" is already sorting it out, the same way it always has. Wonder what they paid for the lease on Mr. Hatch...
Haven't you worked on Open Server? The SCO IP is the unique method of putting...get this...system binaries in /etc! Every client I have that still uses SCO was already being forced by their software vendors to migrate to either Linux or AIX. Most of the SCO boxes left out there run crappy applications written in things like Business Basic.
Well, it depends on if they decide to classify him as an "enemy combatant" like Padilla. Remember, two prisoners in Camp X-Ray have died in interrogation. What's that about not being beaten and killed in jail?