Not likely. The FM band is kinda full, and commercialized by those big evil corporations.
OTOH, what for full deployment of HDTV. HDTV will be moving everyone to UHF (which used to have to be spaced 6 channels apart for really bad UHF tuners of the 1950's and 1960's, but can be packed much tighter today). That means many VHF TV allocations will be emptied, especially in big cities, as RS-170/NTSC gets phased out. Channels 5 and 6 would be ripe for adding to the FM band (though we would need new FM radios... many non-US FM bands already use these frequencies of 76 to 88 MHz). If that happens, we need to petition to set aside a few MHz for low power.
I live in Dallas. So far I plan to stay here. I'll never move to California or New York. If Pittsburgh did the right things I would seriously consider moving there. I've never actually been in Pittsburgh.
There are some things cities need to NOT do in order to attract people like me. Dallas does a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. Among the things I have a problem with:
bad water. Sure I can drink bottled water at home, but sometimes I have to drink from fountains where I might be.
There is a city ordinance against hanging out in commons pool areas after midnight in apartment complexes.
It is illegal to sell or own ferrets in the city limits.
A city that were to go through their ENTIRE laws/ordinances/regulations and clean up stupid stuff that only favors people that want to control other people's lives, so that freedom truly prevails, then... then that city will definitely get my attention (except in California or much of the northeast, unless the states do the same thing, too).
The city of Pittsburgh should set an example for all businesses in the city by converting the entire city office structure and management to Linux. That means Linux on every desktop and server owned or contracted by the city. Then encourage smaller businesses to use it, too.
That and all the other mentioned perks like competitive DSL everywhere (build more CO's if the distance is a problem), cable modems, unlimited local dialing, 24 hour bus service, nice apartments and condos downtown, with low prices, and something to replace the lack of a beach (Erie doesn't cut it).
I remember a childhood story about a duck giving a snake a ride across the river in exchange for the snake agreeing not to bite the duck. Once on the other side the snake bites the duck and the duck in his dying breath asks why and the snake replies, because that is that nature of being a snake.
Now we turn to big corporations and small organizations. Same story.
I use HTML. Granted it has weaknesses, but the main reason I choose it is because of the hyperlinks. Can POD do that? I could go spend the next N minutes, and I have no idea whether N is 1 or 10000, finding and reading the documentation about POD (quite frankly I never heard of it, so maybe it's too closely tied to Perl... something to change if it's really good).
But I suspect that POD cannot. Most of the documentation out there in HTML doesn't even use hyperlinks for anything more than it's chapter and section index, and previous/next links. Most of it is generated from SGML or some other format (which is partly why I have not contributed).
I would definitely look to something else besides HTML, but it needs to let me do what I want to do, which not only includes hyperlinks, but also the ability to control layout for things like example code. And I might need a graph every now and then.
Maybe POD isn't for me. I don't like things too abstractly simple. In addition to coding directly in HTML, I have also done PostScript (and would use PS if web browsers would directly display it).
Sometimes I was overwhelmed by the amount of information available about a subject. It took time to filter through all that information and get the answer.
This is part of the problem. But whether to blame the documentation for taking so much time, or to blame the new user for not committing enough time, is the tough issue. There are no easy answers. I have seen where I think I could improve the documentation in many ways. The problem is I don't have the time to do it.
Part of the learning Linux process is unlearning the DOS/Windows background. I say unlearning because no matter what stuff you learn first, like a particular OS for computers, your impression isn't "this is how DOS/Windows works" but rather "this is how computers work". The unlearning process is to disregard all that in terms of computers in general, so that you start with at least a semi-clean slate to now pick up Linux.
I had this problem when I moved from IBM mainframes to UNIX (then on to Linux was a lot easier).
Sounds like perhaps we need a newbie shell? I know I wouldn't want my shell stuffed with such code. But I wouldn't want to deny it to others, either.
Now if xterm allowed hyperlinks, and you hyperlinked the error messages, then people can just click on them to get more info, that might be an interesting approach.
Part of the problem is there is too much documentation. Just reading the documentation sequentially would take ages. It's not all that well indexed, and much of it assumes certain prior knowledge. Much of it is self recursive in prerequisite.
Linux newsbies come in 2 popular flavors: those already experienced with computers (mostly Windows or Mac, but even some UNIX), and those without any computer experience. Those with experience are the largest group right now. And many are actually deploying, or soon will be deploying, Linux (or one of the BSD cousins).
Many newsbies want, and need, to learn fast. And that means not spending the time to learn everything else whether it is actually needed or not. While it's always good to learn the foundations, it's often not practical for many newbies because they are entering the Linux realm because of a need to solve some technical problem in their new deployment today (probably brought on by not having spent the last 3 months reading every document).
I've watched the questions newbies ask. Sure, a few are "where can I learn all about Linux?". But most are more practical like "why am I only getting half my harddrive?". These questions are the result of someone actually setting up, administering, or programming, Linux. They can't just drop all and go read the foundational documents because they have to get things done and running now.
Those with experience also find the introductory documentation, and beginner books, boring and dull. While there is information in there they need to know, it is surrounded more and more with stuff that is totally boring.
So, sure, we need more documentation, and we need less, at the same time. The reader paradigm is shifting from what it was just 2 or 3 years ago.
Those of us with solid Linux eperience need well referenced and indexed documentation. Some of that exists now, but it remains skimpy in many areas, and not well integrated.
Those of us with other UNIX computer experience need to know what's different about Linux, as well as the same. It will be hard reading because most of the differences are the subtle details and the abstract concepts. Many of the differences don't matter today, but they might tomorrow.
Those of us with other OS computer experience need to understand what this is all about, in 25 words or fewer, in terms of how things were done in Windows or Mac or VMS or MVS/390 or whatever it might be (anyone here still using TOPS-10/20?).
Basically the answer is that the documentation needs to be right-sized and customized. Short (read in 30 minutes or less) documents introducing Linux, oriented to each incoming experience, would be among the most needed. A solid (by that I mean well organized for looking things up) reference document is also needed for everyone once they have the Linux experience (no one can know it all anymore, especially with so many distributions and other diversity). Make liberal use of hyperlinks for all concepts, too.
FAQs are OK for the most common questions. But they just can't handle the mass of knowledge that really needs to be presented. While I wouldn't say to drop FAQs, as they are still a valuable tool, other documentation should not assume that FAQs are present.
I'd also like to put much blame on the horrible architecture we call the PC. But that is best left for another thread another day.
There could be flaws in this mechanism. For example, a CD-R cannot make an exact bitwise copy of a CD. This is because a CD has more than can be recorded on a CD-R. There are pre-recorded parts of a CD-R and recorded places in a CD that cannot be recorded on a CD-R. A DVD and DVD-R could (and most likely does) have a significant difference.
However, a well equipped CD or DVD production facility can make bitwise copies using the same kind of equipment used to make the originals. If the data can be read, at this level you can make something that will end up reading the same exact thing. It's equivalent to being able to record mispositioned tracks and long sectors or a floppy.
If in a DVD player application all of the decrypting takes place in the program (and none in the DVD device) then all you need to do is trace exactly what the device driver gets from the device, and make something (a different device or a differently recorded DVD with an emulating driver) that gives the application exactly the same thing. Then you see the same thing.
If the device does the decrypting, less than a bitwise copy would not fool it. However, a data DVD could have simple raw data (perhaps lightly encrypted to prevent any detection mechanisms in the device from seeing what is going on) that allows an emulating device driver to fool the application into believing it has a motion picture DVD.
Illegal copying may or may not be trivial or easy, but almost certainly it can be done. And once done, the tools are likely to be software and will spread faster than a virus. The copies might not work on consumer grade audio/video only devices, but certainly could be done in a computer.
The movie and music industries almost surely know that their goals cannot be met. Why would they go to all this trouble to suppress DeCSS if the replacement CSS they are now delaying DVD-video for will work just fine. They clearly are depending on obscurity, and trying to take legal measures to bring about that obscurity.
Yet at the same time, they (at least their lawyers) are coming across as rather ignorant. I don't expect a lawyer to know the mathematics of encryption algoriths, or the details of coding a device driver, but I would at least expect lawyers from a large corporation to have access to smart technical advisers that know that a CD with an application can be read without ever seeing (or clicking "agree" on) the user agreement.
But they will be better prepared for the next round.
FreeBSD (as of 3.1 which was released march 1999... I have not tested 3.4 the most recent version) appears to have limitations in the area of IDE support. Certain ATAPI devices and/or configurations do nor work and/or are not recognized to exist. Earlier discussions from advocates and at least one developer suggested lack of support was intentional because the configuration was not standard (though from reading the standards this appears not to be the case). Recent thread on comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc now suggests that support for all IDE is intended and succeeds for others. Perhaps device specific details are problematic.
In a sense, you could say that BSD has not, or had not in the past, stooped down to the level of the masses. OTOH, I did notice in trying to install FreeBSD 3.1, there was some GUI orientation to the install tools. I much preferred the way SLS (how many Linux old timers go back as far as the SLS distribution) installed.
This is an important issue. Hopefully the old owners bring this up to the new owners during negotiations. Otherwise they're just buying a domain. Fortunately some buyouts do the right thing (e.g. Andover, Slashdot, Freshmeat).
Now when will the corporate types realize they also need to hire some Linux types, and actually give them some responsibility to do cool stuff. There are lots of people out there who won't mind someone else getting rich as long as they get to do cool stuff (and pay for the house).
Of course content matters in the end. But no one knows your content is there unless you can bring them in for the tour. A catchy name can help. And a name easy to remember can help keep them coming back until you reach critical mass.
Andrew, one of your upstreams is netaxs.net. What's the other one (just in case netaxs.net has a fit and cuts you off for technical or business reasons)?
Saying "somehow we've developed models to make it work" doesn't give me great confidence. Sure, you're still online while MassLinux is belly up. Do you not know what you successful model is, or just don't want to say?
One lesson to learn here is that if you are seeking services from an ISP that are critical for your business operation, you want to be certain that ISP can continue to deliver. There are technical, financial, and even human resource issues to consider. So why not give us some confidence and explain how your service really stands out form the likes of MassLinux? How many upstreams do you have? How many core routers and switches do you have? Are you running HSRP? How many distinct paths from server to Internet are there?
The record to check is the HOST record. You can change the IP on a HOST record and it won't show up as a change on the DOMAIN record because the DOMAIN record wasn't changed. The wonders of a relational database. You have to check them all since a change can be made either way.
However, the HOST record for their DNS servers does show fairly old data. NS.NEBULA.ORG was last changed on 19-Mar-1999 and NS.SUNDOWNIS.COM was last changed on 02-Jun-1999.
It kinda looks like they might have been running this from a cable modem? NS.NEBULA.ORG (209.219.204.3) goes into home.com and loops in some private address space somewhere. NS.SUNDOWNIS.COM (63.66.103.5) gets out through C&W (so there are BGP announcements for the space) to ALTER.NET in SF and stops, so some other routing issue is present there.
You pay for what you get. Sure, a hosting company with redundant pipes is a better provider. But they cost more, too. I never looked at their service offering but I get the impression it was cheap cheap cheap. Did MassLinux ever say they had redundant links to the Internet?
The fact that this kind of information is just now having this effect on the patent status, indicates an incompetence on the part of the initial review for first issuance. The incompetence is the fact that they don't have any capable software engineers on the review panel.
But then, many past patents issued show this condition as well.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so how about an Internet DX Contest? How well do you think the net would handle every ham and hacker pinging every other ham and hacker?
Not likely. The FM band is kinda full, and commercialized by those big evil corporations.
... many non-US FM bands already use these frequencies of 76 to 88 MHz). If that happens, we need to petition to set aside a few MHz for low power.
OTOH, what for full deployment of HDTV. HDTV will be moving everyone to UHF (which used to have to be spaced 6 channels apart for really bad UHF tuners of the 1950's and 1960's, but can be packed much tighter today). That means many VHF TV allocations will be emptied, especially in big cities, as RS-170/NTSC gets phased out. Channels 5 and 6 would be ripe for adding to the FM band (though we would need new FM radios
ham radio != broadcast radio
There are some things cities need to NOT do in order to attract people like me. Dallas does a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. Among the things I have a problem with:
A city that were to go through their ENTIRE laws/ordinances/regulations and clean up stupid stuff that only favors people that want to control other people's lives, so that freedom truly prevails, then
The city of Pittsburgh should set an example for all businesses in the city by converting the entire city office structure and management to Linux. That means Linux on every desktop and server owned or contracted by the city. Then encourage smaller businesses to use it, too.
That and all the other mentioned perks like competitive DSL everywhere (build more CO's if the distance is a problem), cable modems, unlimited local dialing, 24 hour bus service, nice apartments and condos downtown, with low prices, and something to replace the lack of a beach (Erie doesn't cut it).
I remember a childhood story about a duck giving a snake a ride across the river in exchange for the snake agreeing not to bite the duck. Once on the other side the snake bites the duck and the duck in his dying breath asks why and the snake replies, because that is that nature of being a snake.
Now we turn to big corporations and small organizations. Same story.
I use HTML. Granted it has weaknesses, but the main reason I choose it is because of the hyperlinks. Can POD do that? I could go spend the next N minutes, and I have no idea whether N is 1 or 10000, finding and reading the documentation about POD (quite frankly I never heard of it, so maybe it's too closely tied to Perl ... something to change if it's really good).
But I suspect that POD cannot. Most of the documentation out there in HTML doesn't even use hyperlinks for anything more than it's chapter and section index, and previous/next links. Most of it is generated from SGML or some other format (which is partly why I have not contributed).
I would definitely look to something else besides HTML, but it needs to let me do what I want to do, which not only includes hyperlinks, but also the ability to control layout for things like example code. And I might need a graph every now and then.
Maybe POD isn't for me. I don't like things too abstractly simple. In addition to coding directly in HTML, I have also done PostScript (and would use PS if web browsers would directly display it).
Sometimes I was overwhelmed by the amount of information available about a subject. It took time to filter through all that information and get the answer.
This is part of the problem. But whether to blame the documentation for taking so much time, or to blame the new user for not committing enough time, is the tough issue. There are no easy answers. I have seen where I think I could improve the documentation in many ways. The problem is I don't have the time to do it.
Part of the learning Linux process is unlearning the DOS/Windows background. I say unlearning because no matter what stuff you learn first, like a particular OS for computers, your impression isn't "this is how DOS/Windows works" but rather "this is how computers work". The unlearning process is to disregard all that in terms of computers in general, so that you start with at least a semi-clean slate to now pick up Linux.
I had this problem when I moved from IBM mainframes to UNIX (then on to Linux was a lot easier).
Sounds like perhaps we need a newbie shell? I know I wouldn't want my shell stuffed with such code. But I wouldn't want to deny it to others, either.
Now if xterm allowed hyperlinks, and you hyperlinked the error messages, then people can just click on them to get more info, that might be an interesting approach.
Part of the problem is there is too much documentation. Just reading the documentation sequentially would take ages. It's not all that well indexed, and much of it assumes certain prior knowledge. Much of it is self recursive in prerequisite.
Linux newsbies come in 2 popular flavors: those already experienced with computers (mostly Windows or Mac, but even some UNIX), and those without any computer experience. Those with experience are the largest group right now. And many are actually deploying, or soon will be deploying, Linux (or one of the BSD cousins).
Many newsbies want, and need, to learn fast. And that means not spending the time to learn everything else whether it is actually needed or not. While it's always good to learn the foundations, it's often not practical for many newbies because they are entering the Linux realm because of a need to solve some technical problem in their new deployment today (probably brought on by not having spent the last 3 months reading every document).
I've watched the questions newbies ask. Sure, a few are "where can I learn all about Linux?". But most are more practical like "why am I only getting half my harddrive?". These questions are the result of someone actually setting up, administering, or programming, Linux. They can't just drop all and go read the foundational documents because they have to get things done and running now.
Those with experience also find the introductory documentation, and beginner books, boring and dull. While there is information in there they need to know, it is surrounded more and more with stuff that is totally boring.
So, sure, we need more documentation, and we need less, at the same time. The reader paradigm is shifting from what it was just 2 or 3 years ago.
Those of us with solid Linux eperience need well referenced and indexed documentation. Some of that exists now, but it remains skimpy in many areas, and not well integrated.
Those of us with other UNIX computer experience need to know what's different about Linux, as well as the same. It will be hard reading because most of the differences are the subtle details and the abstract concepts. Many of the differences don't matter today, but they might tomorrow.
Those of us with other OS computer experience need to understand what this is all about, in 25 words or fewer, in terms of how things were done in Windows or Mac or VMS or MVS/390 or whatever it might be (anyone here still using TOPS-10/20?).
Basically the answer is that the documentation needs to be right-sized and customized. Short (read in 30 minutes or less) documents introducing Linux, oriented to each incoming experience, would be among the most needed. A solid (by that I mean well organized for looking things up) reference document is also needed for everyone once they have the Linux experience (no one can know it all anymore, especially with so many distributions and other diversity). Make liberal use of hyperlinks for all concepts, too.
FAQs are OK for the most common questions. But they just can't handle the mass of knowledge that really needs to be presented. While I wouldn't say to drop FAQs, as they are still a valuable tool, other documentation should not assume that FAQs are present.
I'd also like to put much blame on the horrible architecture we call the PC. But that is best left for another thread another day.
There could be flaws in this mechanism. For example, a CD-R cannot make an exact bitwise copy of a CD. This is because a CD has more than can be recorded on a CD-R. There are pre-recorded parts of a CD-R and recorded places in a CD that cannot be recorded on a CD-R. A DVD and DVD-R could (and most likely does) have a significant difference.
However, a well equipped CD or DVD production facility can make bitwise copies using the same kind of equipment used to make the originals. If the data can be read, at this level you can make something that will end up reading the same exact thing. It's equivalent to being able to record mispositioned tracks and long sectors or a floppy.
If in a DVD player application all of the decrypting takes place in the program (and none in the DVD device) then all you need to do is trace exactly what the device driver gets from the device, and make something (a different device or a differently recorded DVD with an emulating driver) that gives the application exactly the same thing. Then you see the same thing.
If the device does the decrypting, less than a bitwise copy would not fool it. However, a data DVD could have simple raw data (perhaps lightly encrypted to prevent any detection mechanisms in the device from seeing what is going on) that allows an emulating device driver to fool the application into believing it has a motion picture DVD.
Illegal copying may or may not be trivial or easy, but almost certainly it can be done. And once done, the tools are likely to be software and will spread faster than a virus. The copies might not work on consumer grade audio/video only devices, but certainly could be done in a computer.
The movie and music industries almost surely know that their goals cannot be met. Why would they go to all this trouble to suppress DeCSS if the replacement CSS they are now delaying DVD-video for will work just fine. They clearly are depending on obscurity, and trying to take legal measures to bring about that obscurity.
Yet at the same time, they (at least their lawyers) are coming across as rather ignorant. I don't expect a lawyer to know the mathematics of encryption algoriths, or the details of coding a device driver, but I would at least expect lawyers from a large corporation to have access to smart technical advisers that know that a CD with an application can be read without ever seeing (or clicking "agree" on) the user agreement.
But they will be better prepared for the next round.
FreeBSD (as of 3.1 which was released march 1999 ... I have not tested 3.4 the most recent version) appears to have limitations in the area of IDE support. Certain ATAPI devices and/or configurations do nor work and/or are not recognized to exist. Earlier discussions from advocates and at least one developer suggested lack of support was intentional because the configuration was not standard (though from reading the standards this appears not to be the case). Recent thread on comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc now suggests that support for all IDE is intended and succeeds for others. Perhaps device specific details are problematic.
In a sense, you could say that BSD has not, or had not in the past, stooped down to the level of the masses. OTOH, I did notice in trying to install FreeBSD 3.1, there was some GUI orientation to the install tools. I much preferred the way SLS (how many Linux old timers go back as far as the SLS distribution) installed.
This is an important issue. Hopefully the old owners bring this up to the new owners during negotiations. Otherwise they're just buying a domain. Fortunately some buyouts do the right thing (e.g. Andover, Slashdot, Freshmeat).
Now when will the corporate types realize they also need to hire some Linux types, and actually give them some responsibility to do cool stuff. There are lots of people out there who won't mind someone else getting rich as long as they get to do cool stuff (and pay for the house).
if they add a .linux TLD, don't you think those will just fill up as fast?
Of course there will be the rush/race to see who registers microsoft.linux first!
Of course content matters in the end. But no one knows your content is there unless you can bring them in for the tour. A catchy name can help. And a name easy to remember can help keep them coming back until you reach critical mass.
However, linuxpr0n.com is NOT taken.
I have the feeling the registrars are about to be slashdotted!
Look here full examples of names you can no longer get unless you pay money.
:-)
And I have several of them myself, such as linuxhomepage.com
Well, go look for yourself!
Andrew, one of your upstreams is netaxs.net. What's the other one (just in case netaxs.net has a fit and cuts you off for technical or business reasons)?
Saying "somehow we've developed models to make it work" doesn't give me great confidence. Sure, you're still online while MassLinux is belly up. Do you not know what you successful model is, or just don't want to say?
One lesson to learn here is that if you are seeking services from an ISP that are critical for your business operation, you want to be certain that ISP can continue to deliver. There are technical, financial, and even human resource issues to consider. So why not give us some confidence and explain how your service really stands out form the likes of MassLinux? How many upstreams do you have? How many core routers and switches do you have? Are you running HSRP? How many distinct paths from server to Internet are there?
Any customer of MassLinux remember their IP? If so, we can use that to really figure what netblock was being used and what the upstream ISP chain was.
The record to check is the HOST record. You can change the IP on a HOST record and it won't show up as a change on the DOMAIN record because the DOMAIN record wasn't changed. The wonders of a relational database. You have to check them all since a change can be made either way.
However, the HOST record for their DNS servers does show fairly old data. NS.NEBULA.ORG was last changed on 19-Mar-1999 and NS.SUNDOWNIS.COM was last changed on 02-Jun-1999.
It kinda looks like they might have been running this from a cable modem? NS.NEBULA.ORG (209.219.204.3) goes into home.com and loops in some private address space somewhere. NS.SUNDOWNIS.COM (63.66.103.5) gets out through C&W (so there are BGP announcements for the space) to ALTER.NET in SF and stops, so some other routing issue is present there.
You pay for what you get. Sure, a hosting company with redundant pipes is a better provider. But they cost more, too. I never looked at their service offering but I get the impression it was cheap cheap cheap. Did MassLinux ever say they had redundant links to the Internet?
The fact that this kind of information is just now having this effect on the patent status, indicates an incompetence on the part of the initial review for first issuance. The incompetence is the fact that they don't have any capable software engineers on the review panel.
But then, many past patents issued show this condition as well.
after some information came to light? like some facts?