I think this is a straw man argument... "What if you have a server that runs exactly one app that isn't ported to Win2K yet, and that server isn't connected to the internet, and no one ever puts floppies in it, and nobody ever wants to connect new devices to it or to run new software on it or use it in any new way whatsoever." Well, then you're using NT4 Server as an embedded OS. That's hardly typical.
In the network server world, though, there are nasty worms that cause network and server outages, there are viruses that destroy data, and there are new features that users or managers ask for (like remote administration).
Having to support ancient hardware (which has bugs) and ancient software (which also has bugs) costs YOU money because vendors have to develop extra code (part of the "damn MS bloatware!"/. folk whine about) to work around those bugs and support old APIs, and then their QA target matrix grows bigger and bigger as they add another OS that they have to test in combination with all of the other dependencies. This includes the OS vendor themselves having to QA their security patches. If you've spent any time reading NTBugtraq lately, you'd know that Microsoft needs all the help it can get in QAing patches before releasing them.
It's true that IT costs money, and the "upgrade treadmill" takes a lot of time and effort (since the IT folks have to do internal testing of new OSs with your line of business apps before rolling them out), but you get new features that benefit everybody.
I also find it interesting that on/., where the usual complaint is "Patch your damn systems you stupid Windows admins!", that someone is arguing in favor of leaving old installed systems completely untouched because it's easier than actually administering them.
No, but it will stop getting patched with free Microsoft service packs. Maybe on somebody else's gear it would be OK not to have the latest patches, but with MS stuff you gotta do it.
Otherwise the next time somebody discovers a Windows security hole that applies to NT4, you're screwed. No vendor patch, ever.
Because consumers want the world, for free (or better yet, with a rebate that makes it cost less than $0).
And, because when they do, they get sued. So when the next person who "gets it" tries to get some funding to make what consumers really want, investors won't touch it with a ten foot pole because they don't want to spend the next 2 years in court with the developer fighting the RIAA, MPAA, etc.
I don't think it could be any clearer that the "content" barons are holding back the march of technology innovation. But an interesting alternative to consider would be this: what if there were no copyrights, and these companies could build whatever consumers wanted. What would the content landscape look like then? Would it be better? (If you say yes, can you explain why you're sure?) I'm not saying it would be worse; I'm just posing the question because the/. zeitgeist seems to be "no copyright & totally free information would be utopia". I'm not convinced of that.
Yes, but as we have recently learned from SCO's CEO, once you license something to someone and they hire hundreds of brilliant people to work on it and spend millions of dollars on R&D improving it over the course of a decade, you still get to claim that it was all your idea and that you should get credit for everything. Or, as in the case of Xerox, people who don't like you can claim that it was all your idea.
>hmmm...you've never worked in marketing before, have you? (Dude: on Slashdot, this taunt is not going to make someone feel bad. "Hmph. You've clearly never been a Microsoft copyright lawyer, have you?")
But clearly you've never worked in marketing either. Just because there is any market for a product doesn't mean that it's automatically profitable to sell your product to that market. (And this is one of the historical "Windows-only" software publishers' arguments for why they won't port to MacOS: "our money is better spent on the Windows version.") This is just basic marketing. (No, marketing is not the same thing as sales, nor is it just advertising, as I've had to learn over the years.)
But sometimes, a product like NN4 which sucks in many more ways than CSS support (double-redraw, layout errors when resizing, etc.) just isn't worth supporting anymore. Some salesdroid may come over to an engineer's cube and say "there's this customer who still uses Netscape 4, and our product isn't certified on it... can you work on it over the weekend so it'll be certified by Monday?" (A key problem of salesdroids is that they have no concept of things taking longer than 1 day to do, since the largest unit of work they comprehend is a PowerPoint presentation for a pitch.)
And that's when the CTO / VP Engineering speaks up and says "um, no... those customers aren't worth the cost of making it work on Netscape. Tell them to upgrade."
Actually I use Mozilla 1.3 on Windows and Safari on the Mac, and I can't remember the last time I saw a "sorry you need IE" message. That's SOOOO 1999. Sites just work.
The only problems I've had were with sites that involve popup windows, since I also browse with popup windows blocked on both browsers. When I remembered that (and slapped myself on the forehead a few times) the few "problem sites" started working again.
>Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS, >or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?
Or, say, if an association of music distributors were threatened by some kind of new music format and distribution network that they didn't control and which had near-zero cost?
>Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.
What?!? Care to back that up? The vast majority of code I've seen (as a professional software developer and consultant working inside a number of fortune 500 companies including consumer product companies) has copyright notices at the top of *every file* of the source code as well as on the object code, clickwrap, terms of service, etc. The same goes for sample code I've downloaded, pseudo-closed source stuff I've been given NDA rights too, etc. The exception to this would be sample code fragments in textbooks, and rare things marked as public domain.
Where did you get the idea that companies don't claim copyright on the source code? My sample set might not be representative but I have no reason to believe that right now.
- you can use multiple drives: separate swap out onto a different spindle from the OS, for example, or go further than that if you're running a DB - you can get 10000 RPM Serial ATA drives (or as you said, go with SCSI & a 15,000RPM drive) - you can get drives with an ATA-133 interface, which at 7200 RPM will still be faster than, say, a 7200 RPM drive hooked up via ATA-33 - you can get a drive with a big on-board cache - you can RAID stripe the drives - you can put drives on their own controllers so there isn't bus contention - you can defragement your drive on a regular basis...but hey, other than those seven things, there's really not much you can do to make your storage faster.
Ah, and now the brillance of the.la scam is revealed: Big Dumb Companies will immediately buy their domain name under your TLD just to protect their name. Try going to http://www.microsoft.la/ or http://www.cartoonnetwork.la/... nuttin' (at the time I write this, anyway).
if it were cheaper I'd be tempted to register la.la, so I could create la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la and tra.la.la etc.
>I find it rather sad that this gets posted as news on slashdot, given that slashdot is >supposed to be run by geeks. I'd expect this from my local newspaper, but CowboyNeal >should know better.
Absolutely! This flies in the face of Slashdot's long tradition of journalistic excellence and integrity. Where stories are carefully fact-checked, duplicate stories are eliminated, spoilers are never found in the lead paragraph, misinformation is corrected...
In my experience, the folks in favor of integration are the engineers, while the folks in favor of segregation are usability specialists.
Maybe it *is* possible to get a phone, PDA, camera, pager, gameboy, audio player, etc. in a single small device, but how the hell are you going to get a decent UI on it? Perhaps the problem is more that there are too many single-function buttons on current devices, and that a multifunction device would just have a bunch of multifunction buttons that the software would use differently for each feature, sorta like the PS2 does.
You'd lose the dedicated "zoom in"/"zoom out" buttons but on the gadgets I have, those are so small that the icons for them are inscrutable anyway (so they might as well be unlabeled).
It's probably possible to come up with a good UI for such a thing, but since gadget buyers still buy based on features instead of usability, it'll probably be a reeeeeal long time before we see it.
The comment gives the URL format for an itms protocol URL. The URL helper for that protocol... iTunes.
Since Safari is not a system requirement for the Apple music store, I suspect that it's really some kind of interactive QuickTime thingy (maybe the embedded Flash layer is being used, maybe something else in QT) that is not very portable.
>I do know something about the technology involved in a professional recording studio. >I know that it is all being replaced big-time by computers
Yeah but computers are noisy (fans, hard disk motors) so you still need the studio itself. Also you need a recording engineer who has access to a lot of fancy microphones. Then you need a person with golden ears to mix and master the mofo (and maybe to tell you to overdub the guitars and vocals a few more times). These things cost money.
>Charge a dime per song. The artist sees the whole dime, and not only that, more people would pay.
Nice idea, but how would payment work? Micropayments have failed so far (despite great efforts on the part of several companies to put a working system in place), and credit card transaction costs are more than $0.10 so the artist wouldn't see diddly.
A more viable alternative is for artists to just sell CDs at reasonable prices ($5-$10) on their own web sites.
(TightVNC and VNC are interchangeable for the purpose of this post...) VNC is less secure and VNC Server doesn't allow multiple users to run different sessions at the same time.
"Because Windows in its present, standard incarnation, only supports a single graphical user being logged in at any one time, WinVNC makes the existing desktop of the PC available remotely, rather than creating a separate desktop as happens with the Unix server. It is only fair to emphasise this: VNC does not make an NT machine into a multi-user server in the same way that Citrix-based software, for example, does. A single NT machine can therefore be accessed by multiple users, but if they all connect at the same time they will all see the same desktop!"
Likewise, if there is someone looking at the monitor hooked up to the Windows server you're connected to with VNC, they'll see everything you're doing. It's possible to disable the local keyboard & mouse (via a VNC server config option) but you can't turn off the display. This could be a security issue.
Also, Terminal Server connections are encrypted, while VNC's are not. Yes, I know you can fix that with ssh; yes, I know Terminal Server uses Microsoft crypto... maybe it should be run over ssh also:)
Open Source derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the Microsoft derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp. Microsoft Open Source da teedily dumb.
From the creators of GNUDer, and Tum Ta Microsoft Tum Ta Too, Rob Malda is Da Derp Open Source Derp Da Microsoft Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.
Why? I only started watching at the tail end (the "we're so screwed" trilogy) and I must say that although the sets, rendered space scenes, and costumes are gorgeous, I wasn't blown away by the rest of it.
- Ben Browder is just awful. He's going for Kirk cocky studmuffin, and failing. It's hard to like a show where the protagonist is an annoying dick. His little anachronistic references, which are supposed to be clever 'n hip, just aren't.
- lots of alien babes showing lots of skin. That might be the sinister influence of Sci-Fi execs. (Wait a minute, why am I complaining?)
- Lots of inaudible dialogue. I have a ReplayTV so I recorded the shows and can replay scenes as many times as I want. Turn up the volume, play it again, and again, and again... dammit, what the #$%$#@% did they just say? Why can't the actors/director figure out that WE NEED TO HEAR THE DIALOGUE???
- no backstory given for new viewers. Sorry but this is TV, and it's the writers' job to give us some clue WTF is going on. I followed things somewhat, but who are we supposed to like or dislike, trust or distrust? Who are all these people and how do they relate to each other?
- most of the characters are just two-dimensional archetypes. Bad Guy Leader (male, female). Good guy soldier. Good guy love interest. Good female babe. Etc. Maybe they've been developed over time, but a decent writer can bring a tidbit or two of that out in every episode.
I'm not saying that, having seen 3 episodes, I feel qualified bash the whole series. Those are just my reactions to what I've seen. I'm willing to be convinced that I should take the time to watch the show, so bring on the positive stuff.
>I still don't know a single person who supports this war.
Meet an American; the odds are that he or she supports the war. 63% of us support the war even if a second resolution were vetoed, according to this poll. We wanted a second resolution but we support the war even without it. Congress passed a resolution giving Bush the legal authority (from US law's point of view) to invade. And, only 25% of eligible US voters in 2000 voted for GW Bush.
This is not a war that Bush is pursuing despite majority opposition in the US. The majority in the US supports it. (If you extrapolate the poll numbers to the US population of ~350 million, 100 million Americans oppose the war, but that leaves 250 million who support it.)
Actually, less than half of Americans who were eligible to vote did vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. Less than half of the Americans who did vote voted for George W. Bush. If you're keeping track, that means that less than 25% of Americans who were eligible to vote voted for George W. Bush.
The vote was so close that the results of a few districts in Florida would have decided the election. That's where the scandal came in - Florida's Governor is GW's brother Jeb, and there was quite a bit of doubt as to the validity of the votes in that district. In the end, the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court voted to halt a recount of the votes in Florida, making GW Bush president. There is still a dispute as to whether this was legal, but after 9/11 and all o the ultra-conservative legislation that the Bush administration has passed to fight terrorism (PATRIOT act etc.), not too many people are still arguing about the election.
That's why his opponents in the US call him "the Thief in Chief" (a play on the fact that the President of the US is also the "Commander in Chief" of the US military). Some people are angry about the fact that the US Presidential election process uses a system called the Electoral College to effectively award all the votes from a state to whoever won in just that state, so it is technically possible for the national popular vote (that is, the count of the millions of individual voters' votes) to support one candidate and the electoral college votes to support a different one. That happened in 2000 - the popular vote supported Al Gore (former VP under Bill Clinton), but
As for the war, according to this poll of American support for the war, on February 20, only 34% of Americans thought that the "US has enough international support for the war." 57% said that we should get a second U.N. resolution before taking military action. However, 30% said that we "should" get a second resolution, but if vetoed, we should go ahead with a war if we feel it's the right thing to do. That means that even with a second UN measure vetoed, 63% of Americans polled supported a war.
So, to Americans and foreigners trying to pin this war on Bush, don't. Almost 2/3 of Americans supported going to war even with a veto, even though 3/4 of eligible voters didn't vote for GW Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a straw man argument...
/. folk whine about) to work around those bugs and support old APIs, and then their QA target matrix grows bigger and bigger as they add another OS that they have to test in combination with all of the other dependencies. This includes the OS vendor themselves having to QA their security patches. If you've spent any time reading NTBugtraq lately, you'd know that Microsoft needs all the help it can get in QAing patches before releasing them.
/., where the usual complaint is "Patch your damn systems you stupid Windows admins!", that someone is arguing in favor of leaving old installed systems completely untouched because it's easier than actually administering them.
"What if you have a server that runs exactly one app that isn't ported to Win2K yet, and that server isn't connected to the internet, and no one ever puts floppies in it, and nobody ever wants to connect new devices to it or to run new software on it or use it in any new way whatsoever."
Well, then you're using NT4 Server as an embedded OS. That's hardly typical.
In the network server world, though, there are nasty worms that cause network and server outages, there are viruses that destroy data, and there are new features that users or managers ask for (like remote administration).
Having to support ancient hardware (which has bugs) and ancient software (which also has bugs) costs YOU money because vendors have to develop extra code (part of the "damn MS bloatware!"
It's true that IT costs money, and the "upgrade treadmill" takes a lot of time and effort (since the IT folks have to do internal testing of new OSs with your line of business apps before rolling them out), but you get new features that benefit everybody.
I also find it interesting that on
No, but it will stop getting patched with free Microsoft service packs. Maybe on somebody else's gear it would be OK not to have the latest patches, but with MS stuff you gotta do it.
Otherwise the next time somebody discovers a Windows security hole that applies to NT4, you're screwed. No vendor patch, ever.
>Why can't anyone make what consumers want?
/. zeitgeist seems to be "no copyright & totally free information would be utopia". I'm not convinced of that.
Because consumers want the world, for free (or better yet, with a rebate that makes it cost less than $0).
And, because when they do, they get sued. So when the next person who "gets it" tries to get some funding to make what consumers really want, investors won't touch it with a ten foot pole because they don't want to spend the next 2 years in court with the developer fighting the RIAA, MPAA, etc.
I don't think it could be any clearer that the "content" barons are holding back the march of technology innovation. But an interesting alternative to consider would be this: what if there were no copyrights, and these companies could build whatever consumers wanted. What would the content landscape look like then? Would it be better? (If you say yes, can you explain why you're sure?) I'm not saying it would be worse; I'm just posing the question because the
Yes, but as we have recently learned from SCO's CEO, once you license something to someone and they hire hundreds of brilliant people to work on it and spend millions of dollars on R&D improving it over the course of a decade, you still get to claim that it was all your idea and that you should get credit for everything. Or, as in the case of Xerox, people who don't like you can claim that it was all your idea.
>hmmm...you've never worked in marketing before, have you?
(Dude: on Slashdot, this taunt is not going to make someone feel bad. "Hmph. You've clearly never been a Microsoft copyright lawyer, have you?")
But clearly you've never worked in marketing either. Just because there is any market for a product doesn't mean that it's automatically profitable to sell your product to that market. (And this is one of the historical "Windows-only" software publishers' arguments for why they won't port to MacOS: "our money is better spent on the Windows version.") This is just basic marketing. (No, marketing is not the same thing as sales, nor is it just advertising, as I've had to learn over the years.)
But sometimes, a product like NN4 which sucks in many more ways than CSS support (double-redraw, layout errors when resizing, etc.) just isn't worth supporting anymore. Some salesdroid may come over to an engineer's cube and say "there's this customer who still uses Netscape 4, and our product isn't certified on it... can you work on it over the weekend so it'll be certified by Monday?" (A key problem of salesdroids is that they have no concept of things taking longer than 1 day to do, since the largest unit of work they comprehend is a PowerPoint presentation for a pitch.)
And that's when the CTO / VP Engineering speaks up and says "um, no... those customers aren't worth the cost of making it work on Netscape. Tell them to upgrade."
Actually I use Mozilla 1.3 on Windows and Safari on the Mac, and I can't remember the last time I saw a "sorry you need IE" message. That's SOOOO 1999. Sites just work.
The only problems I've had were with sites that involve popup windows, since I also browse with popup windows blocked on both browsers. When I remembered that (and slapped myself on the forehead a few times) the few "problem sites" started working again.
[karma whoring here, I know it]
>Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS,
>or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?
Or, say, if an association of music distributors were threatened by some kind of new music format and distribution network that they didn't control and which had near-zero cost?
>Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.
What?!? Care to back that up? The vast majority of code I've seen (as a professional software developer and consultant working inside a number of fortune 500 companies including consumer product companies) has copyright notices at the top of *every file* of the source code as well as on the object code, clickwrap, terms of service, etc. The same goes for sample code I've downloaded, pseudo-closed source stuff I've been given NDA rights too, etc. The exception to this would be sample code fragments in textbooks, and rare things marked as public domain.
Where did you get the idea that companies don't claim copyright on the source code? My sample set might not be representative but I have no reason to believe that right now.
- you can use multiple drives: separate swap out onto a different spindle from the OS, for example, or go further than that if you're running a DB ...but hey, other than those seven things, there's really not much you can do to make your storage faster.
- you can get 10000 RPM Serial ATA drives (or as you said, go with SCSI & a 15,000RPM drive)
- you can get drives with an ATA-133 interface, which at 7200 RPM will still be faster than, say, a 7200 RPM drive hooked up via ATA-33
- you can get a drive with a big on-board cache
- you can RAID stripe the drives
- you can put drives on their own controllers so there isn't bus contention
- you can defragement your drive on a regular basis
Ah, and now the brillance of the .la scam is revealed: Big Dumb Companies will immediately buy their domain name under your TLD just to protect their name. Try going to http://www.microsoft.la/ or http://www.cartoonnetwork.la/ ... nuttin' (at the time I write this, anyway).
if it were cheaper I'd be tempted to register la.la, so I could create la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la.la and tra.la.la etc.
What?
Oh, I get it. Hey, that's pretty funny.
>I find it rather sad that this gets posted as news on slashdot, given that slashdot is
>supposed to be run by geeks. I'd expect this from my local newspaper, but CowboyNeal
>should know better.
Absolutely! This flies in the face of Slashdot's long tradition of journalistic excellence and integrity. Where stories are carefully fact-checked, duplicate stories are eliminated, spoilers are never found in the lead paragraph, misinformation is corrected...
Oh, wait...
Better yet, la-la-la-suit.
In my experience, the folks in favor of integration are the engineers, while the folks in favor of segregation are usability specialists.
Maybe it *is* possible to get a phone, PDA, camera, pager, gameboy, audio player, etc. in a single small device, but how the hell are you going to get a decent UI on it? Perhaps the problem is more that there are too many single-function buttons on current devices, and that a multifunction device would just have a bunch of multifunction buttons that the software would use differently for each feature, sorta like the PS2 does.
You'd lose the dedicated "zoom in"/"zoom out" buttons but on the gadgets I have, those are so small that the icons for them are inscrutable anyway (so they might as well be unlabeled).
It's probably possible to come up with a good UI for such a thing, but since gadget buyers still buy based on features instead of usability, it'll probably be a reeeeeal long time before we see it.
Dude, be honest. Nothing integrates seamlessly with a Sun workstation nor anything based on Linux.
Well, sorta, but it's useless to hackers.
The comment gives the URL format for an itms protocol URL. The URL helper for that protocol... iTunes.
Since Safari is not a system requirement for the Apple music store, I suspect that it's really some kind of interactive QuickTime thingy (maybe the embedded Flash layer is being used, maybe something else in QT) that is not very portable.
Logitech optical USB mice (compatible with Macs) cost $15 as of about 6 months ago.
>I can't think of a proper term to describe losing quality via sampling
"Downsampling"
>I do know something about the technology involved in a professional recording studio.
>I know that it is all being replaced big-time by computers
Yeah but computers are noisy (fans, hard disk motors) so you still need the studio itself. Also you need a recording engineer who has access to a lot of fancy microphones. Then you need a person with golden ears to mix and master the mofo (and maybe to tell you to overdub the guitars and vocals a few more times). These things cost money.
>Charge a dime per song. The artist sees the whole dime, and not only that, more people would pay.
Nice idea, but how would payment work? Micropayments have failed so far (despite great efforts on the part of several companies to put a working system in place), and credit card transaction costs are more than $0.10 so the artist wouldn't see diddly.
A more viable alternative is for artists to just sell CDs at reasonable prices ($5-$10) on their own web sites.
(TightVNC and VNC are interchangeable for the purpose of this post...)
:)
VNC is less secure and VNC Server doesn't allow multiple users to run different sessions at the same time.
From http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/winvnc.html:
"Because Windows in its present, standard incarnation, only supports a single graphical user being logged in at any one time, WinVNC makes the existing desktop of the PC available remotely, rather than creating a separate desktop as happens with the Unix server. It is only fair to emphasise this: VNC does not make an NT machine into a multi-user server in the same way that Citrix-based software, for example, does. A single NT machine can therefore be accessed by multiple users, but if they all connect at the same time they will all see the same desktop!"
Likewise, if there is someone looking at the monitor hooked up to the Windows server you're connected to with VNC, they'll see everything you're doing. It's possible to disable the local keyboard & mouse (via a VNC server config option) but you can't turn off the display. This could be a security issue.
Also, Terminal Server connections are encrypted, while VNC's are not. Yes, I know you can fix that with ssh; yes, I know Terminal Server uses Microsoft crypto... maybe it should be run over ssh also
Open Source derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the Microsoft derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp. Microsoft Open Source da teedily dumb.
From the creators of GNUDer, and Tum Ta Microsoft Tum Ta Too, Rob Malda is Da Derp Open Source Derp Da Microsoft Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.
>I think it is a wonderful series.
Why? I only started watching at the tail end (the "we're so screwed" trilogy) and I must say that although the sets, rendered space scenes, and costumes are gorgeous, I wasn't blown away by the rest of it.
- Ben Browder is just awful. He's going for Kirk cocky studmuffin, and failing. It's hard to like a show where the protagonist is an annoying dick. His little anachronistic references, which are supposed to be clever 'n hip, just aren't.
- lots of alien babes showing lots of skin. That might be the sinister influence of Sci-Fi execs. (Wait a minute, why am I complaining?)
- Lots of inaudible dialogue. I have a ReplayTV so I recorded the shows and can replay scenes as many times as I want. Turn up the volume, play it again, and again, and again... dammit, what the #$%$#@% did they just say? Why can't the actors/director figure out that WE NEED TO HEAR THE DIALOGUE???
- no backstory given for new viewers. Sorry but this is TV, and it's the writers' job to give us some clue WTF is going on. I followed things somewhat, but who are we supposed to like or dislike, trust or distrust? Who are all these people and how do they relate to each other?
- most of the characters are just two-dimensional archetypes. Bad Guy Leader (male, female). Good guy soldier. Good guy love interest. Good female babe. Etc. Maybe they've been developed over time, but a decent writer can bring a tidbit or two of that out in every episode.
I'm not saying that, having seen 3 episodes, I feel qualified bash the whole series. Those are just my reactions to what I've seen. I'm willing to be convinced that I should take the time to watch the show, so bring on the positive stuff.
>I still don't know a single person who supports this war.
Meet an American; the odds are that he or she supports the war. 63% of us support the war even if a second resolution were vetoed, according to this poll. We wanted a second resolution but we support the war even without it. Congress passed a resolution giving Bush the legal authority (from US law's point of view) to invade. And, only 25% of eligible US voters in 2000 voted for GW Bush.
This is not a war that Bush is pursuing despite majority opposition in the US. The majority in the US supports it. (If you extrapolate the poll numbers to the US population of ~350 million, 100 million Americans oppose the war, but that leaves 250 million who support it.)
Actually, less than half of Americans who were eligible to vote did vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. Less than half of the Americans who did vote voted for George W. Bush. If you're keeping track, that means that less than 25% of Americans who were eligible to vote voted for George W. Bush.
The vote was so close that the results of a few districts in Florida would have decided the election. That's where the scandal came in - Florida's Governor is GW's brother Jeb, and there was quite a bit of doubt as to the validity of the votes in that district. In the end, the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court voted to halt a recount of the votes in Florida, making GW Bush president. There is still a dispute as to whether this was legal, but after 9/11 and all o the ultra-conservative legislation that the Bush administration has passed to fight terrorism (PATRIOT act etc.), not too many people are still arguing about the election.
That's why his opponents in the US call him "the Thief in Chief" (a play on the fact that the President of the US is also the "Commander in Chief" of the US military). Some people are angry about the fact that the US Presidential election process uses a system called the Electoral College to effectively award all the votes from a state to whoever won in just that state, so it is technically possible for the national popular vote (that is, the count of the millions of individual voters' votes) to support one candidate and the electoral college votes to support a different one. That happened in 2000 - the popular vote supported Al Gore (former VP under Bill Clinton), but
As for the war, according to this poll of American support for the war, on February 20, only 34% of Americans thought that the "US has enough international support for the war." 57% said that we should get a second U.N. resolution before taking military action. However, 30% said that we "should" get a second resolution, but if vetoed, we should go ahead with a war if we feel it's the right thing to do. That means that even with a second UN measure vetoed, 63% of Americans polled supported a war.
So, to Americans and foreigners trying to pin this war on Bush, don't. Almost 2/3 of Americans supported going to war even with a veto, even though 3/4 of eligible voters didn't vote for GW Bush.