I wouldn't call it fanatical to prefer open source.
Reasons to prefer open source to commertal.. 1. The cause... A case of ethics.. 2. For want of code... All the advantages that come with having the source code... Scrapping unwanted features.. spotting back doors.. and just seeing how the stupid thing works... 3. Download... Easyer to download software than to walk down to the store... Freshmeat and the Linux Game Tome are like candy stores... pick your toy..... Entertainment every day.. 4. Free... Come on gotta love free.. $50... $100.. $500... no... I go for FREE... No money... Want a wordprocesor? Just download it.
I'll tell you what.. I'll download a free closed source game from Satan before I pay $10 for source code to the same game and have that $10 go to saving a life...
In the end I have a price... and that price is free software.... Thankfully I don't have to flex my morals for it....
What passes for coherent arguments amoung Windows supporters is amazing...
Also the two examples you gave... both were posted at score 2... One had 2 good lines and the rambled on about a Microsoft product. Not a troll but not worth a score 2...
The other was also posted as a score 2.. This one made a good point... it was short and to the point... it didn't go on and on... It got modded back up...
In nither case did you make it to score 0 let alone score -1.
There are a few Slashdot moderators who should lose moderator access.. and when thies posts hit M2 they will... But this isn't isolated to unPC and antiLinux posts. It's just that some moderators do a bad job. Some push an opinion.. and some mod up "First Post"s Some just seem to go out of there way to do a bad job...
But on the bulk most are good... for the bad ones we have M2...
>Trust me, I know.:) Meyer's sixth recommendation: > Call the extremists' bluff by questioning their moral premises. Re-establish ethical priorities.
Just to note... This is NOT calling anyones bluff... It's a misdirection tactic...
I've seen some pritty messed up arguments that basicly argue that everyone is greedy and selfish. The classic counter argument is "Not everyone is [greedy/selfish/sadistic]"
I have two other responces....
1. A person makes a program for himself. He makes the code available so others can improve it and give the improvments back to him. They give the improvements back to him so they don't need to make improvments every time he updates the program. In the end they do it for themselfs. In a very real way the code comes back. Giving away source code isn't a selfless act... It's a greedy act... It's the kind of greed everyone can get in on...
2. "It happends, telling the world why it'll never happen is foolish when the world sees it happening every day. In the end it dosn't matter why."
> Personally, I agree with most of what Meyer points out in his article. It's never been fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) why attempting to make money off your own work (and exclusively your own work) is taboo. I've heard people scream bloody murder at me for years for simply trying to sell various little odds and ends i've made, rather than just declare it public domain and give it out for free.
People IMHO get overboard when they demand someones work be given away for free. I've writen a lot of software myself. Some for free some for liccens and some I never distributed at all.
Right now a lot of screwed up things are happening in commertal software that shouldn't happen. Good products are shot down.. ports are killed.... People put up with it becouse "Thats how it's done" but the truth is that is NOT how it's done.
Open source is for authors who want to give software away but don't want someone else to repacage same under a commertal title.
It's happend occasionally....
Then suddenly some kids effort becomes some corperations product.
It's not fair but it happends.
Open source should not ever be about forcing software develupers to open source everything...
I open source becouse for me it's easyer to proffit from open source than it is to proffit from closed. But thats my choice... If you sell something and I think it's worth what you ask for it I'll buy it. If I don't I won't. But I will not steal and I certenly won't ask you to open source it.
I'm staying away from closed source myself simply becouse I don't want to deal with software distributors who want to distribute "Windows only" software titles.... Don't want the mess of software companys that won't put non-Windows titles on the shelfs... Don't want the hassle...
I'll make a proffit a diffrent way... But thats my choice... Not someone elses..
Your Quote: > It also looks like Mac will be bringing Kerberos to OSX, in partnership with MIT.
What was accually typed > It also looks like Apple will be bringing Kerberos to OSX, in partnership with MIT.
> No offense, but you PC guys always get that wrong. It's as bad as saying that a given OS was written by "Linux Torvalds".:>
No offense taken... I suspect however your brain is playing a small trick on you... Swapping out Apple and replacing it with Mac. It's done to improve your reading skills...
I've never seen this before.... And it's not what was posted....
No biggy:) Some times I get that and I have to slow down and read it again to be sure I'm seeing what I think I am seeing... 9 times out of 10.. I'm not... Not a big issue:) Just wouldn't want you going around correcting people for a mistake they did not make... could be very embaressing
> I agree entirely. He wants a world where nothing is free
I disagree here.. What he wants is a world where EVERYTHING is free.
The price you pay for open source is fixing the bugs yourself... The advantage is you know the bugs will be fixed and not set on the back burnner... A closed source company may not care about the bug... I may not care about the bug... the whole world may not care about the bug. If you.. one person alone in the world are the single person who cares about the bug and you alone fix it then the bug is fixed.
If no one cares enough to fix the bug in open source then it's a good bet the same product turnned closed source will never get a bug fix.
The fast bugfix time comes from the fact that people fix the bugs instead of waiting for someone to fix it for them... If you are willing to wait... then don't complain about how long you end up waiting...
This functionility dose not extend back to Dos days. In essense you are right. It dose not matter where the hole is located. It could be in the web browser.. just as bad... hay an FTP client that executes files... ohhh death... Even if the hole was in Napster...
However no mapping applications wasn't posable back in Dos days.
You may be thinking of when BBS Sysops could turn ANY application into a "door" accessable to anyone. All it's features.. including dos shell... Sysops who mistakenly installed apps with Dos shell as doors had a back door similer to the one used by the e-mail virus. However Dos back doors were installed by experenced hackers by hand. They did so not fully aware of just how many applications had dos shell support. This happend to me when I stalled DosHack. Of all things a Unix game ported to Dos could shell to Dos. Amazing...
This kind of problem can show up on ANY system. Dos, Unix, Windows, etc... It's installed by an expert who should know better. It dosn't happen as often.. given that today it's SysAdm who have security issues crapped up the bum.. vs Sysops whos idea of security is running the BBS on a spare computer.
However this defect was installed by Microsofts plug and play design. There isn't a Dos varient.
Side note... if this problem WAS found in MsDos would that absolve Microsoft? Or would it just give Microsoft a ferther history of neglect?
Also MsDos isn't a networked system.. Security by no access... Thats security not even Unix can provide... With the apparent side effect of being a pain to get on-line
Your basic statment holds just correcting a few errors:)
Minux ran on XTs and 386s the XT version was hardware bound and didn't run on 286s... SCO Xenix was also originally an XT Unix that was ported to the 286 and 386.
Minux did not handle GUIs and as far as I know Xfree never ran on Minux.
Xenix had a commertal X11 but again as far as I know this was rather expensive as was Xenix itself.
Linux started a bit before Windows 95 came out and ran fine on 386 hardware.. Windows 95 REQUIRED 386 hardware forcing XTs and 286s into early obsolesence (Demand died when Dos was discontinued.. and even that took a while)
Linux could not penitrate the user market at all and needed PCs powerful enough to run as servers before Linux could enter the server market.
But the hacker market.. ehh... Hackers continued to use XTs...
Anyway Motif was made in a time when Unix ment commertal servers and hackers ment home made hardware...
There is much out there for you. There are some PHP and Perl. Most require an SQL server but some (like mine) do not.
The issues to look at how much load do you want to handle, how much power do you want and how complex are you willing to put up with.
Slashcode is very powerful and handles the load quite nicely but isn't very easy...
You said power isn't an issue so there is likely to be a good system that handles the load and is very easy.
My own code is very powerful and very easy but with a load it gose up and down like a yoyo... It's also still in dev... Not the sort of thing you want on a tech support page.
Not the death of but rethinking the Net
on
Boo No More
·
· Score: 1
I cringed at the notion of an Internet defined by commertal protocalls. Mind you the computer world was defined the same way but with one diffrence. Companys created files and formats they would document. Standards of the future (hopefully). For the good of all. But the notion of Commertal Internet Standards was standards controlled by the author. Closed standards. Undocumented.
In the past users wanted to stick with software that used documented standards. They don't want to be locked into the application. If the program no longer dose what is needed they need an escape hatch. Todays users don't consider this escape. They think of now. If it works now it works for all time. However if a company has sufficent userbase locked into it they no longer need to worry about catering to the existing users and are free to presue other markets letting the old features decay in antiqity. This is the market today.
Part of this is in the Internet. Web pages designed for two web browsers instead of working on all HTML4 browsers. Web sites with specal plugins that work only on one operating system and controlled by one company.
This should not be the future of the Internet. I would like companys to rethink. Classic companys have larg doorways that are easy to get into and out of. Easy to do your busness and leave. Easy access for everyone. On the Internet it's whatever a web designners notion of "everybody" is. Everybody uses Windows.
I talked with one designner. His idea was that the costummer base was wealthy and could afford high end computers and such so they wouldn't be using Amigas. But.. he forgets... Amiga users aren't cash strapped.. they are users who use the Amiga becouse that is what they want to use. If you don't wish to support them becouse of some notion of obsolete then Amiga users don't need to do busness with you. Such stereotyping notions of Amiga, Linux, Mac and Unix users is what is hurtting on-line busnesses. Linux users are not all techno geeks and ISPs, Mac users arn't newbes or dumb, Unix isn't just for techno elite and Amiga users arn't poor. I have a Dos machine at home set up as a web terminal. I don't need anything more than that for surfing the web. It dosn't do IRC it dosn't FTP very well it is still having problems picking up my e-mail. Thats not the idea. I just wanted a box to surf the web from home. Thats it. No Java, no streaming audio no specal media at all. Just Dos and Arachne. At work I have my Linux box. Thats what I put my money... in my Linux box (I am so rarely home it dosn't matter much).
The notion that "Everybody uses Windows" is unrealistic.
I'm hopping that at some point someone gets the message. Designe for everyone or stay off-line...
No I think he is right... Copyrights have to do with text made public in some way.
Trade secrets have to do with documents protected by secrets and contracts. The two may not co-exist....
They are both automatic....
Here is an example: I draw a picure in private.. No one may see my picture. No one may comment on my picture becouse no one has seen it. If I make people sign a contract before looking at my picture they may not comment on it. Fair use dose not exist.
Now I show this picture to a friend (no contract). Fair use has died copyright starts. He may comment on my picture. He may say it's ugly. He may say whatever he likes. But he may not outright rip me off and copy (exactly) my picture. He may paridy it or anything else covered by fair use.
I give away the rights to a friend. Again no contract. I just say "Do whatever" I have now transfered the rights to public domain. No one owns it. Or everyone depending on your point of view.
Later I try and clame trade secret. I get laffed at....
Only one post on Slashdot violated Microsofts "copyright" the rest violated Microsofts Trade secret.
Now here comes the problem. A trade secret is something that is locked away so the avrage person can not come accrost it. This trade secret was posted on the Internet by Microsoft themselfs. Any clame to trade secret was tossed out the window when that happend.
The copyright is on the specs to Microsofts version of a public standard (at least Microsoft is clamming it's the specs to a public standard) this isn't Microsofts property to copyright so Microsoft has no IP rights...
Microsofts chief hold on the text is a click through copyright that could be ignored by simply extracting the files using commenly available software.
The responce demonstrates how Microsofts copyright and trade secret clames are baseless and the text Micrsoft wants removed from Slashdot are in fact public property part by having been posted publicly by Microsoft and part by prior art.
This single issue is to me a small minnor issue comparied to others.
Notting that most people here on Slashdot do not develup under Windows and most Windows have allready got the develupment tools they need.
I however thought to take advantage of the situation and download this and start doing some cross platform codework. Inprise is asking quite a bit of software develupers and to make things worse when I tried to download the software the link to stage one (join some software dev community thingy) didn't work. To make matters worse there was a refrence to needing turbo asmbler. If I rember correctly Turbo C only compiles asm source code it then passes that on to tasm.exe a smallish version of turbo asmbler and I suspect B C++ dose the same. But Tasm.exe isn't included with this "free" pacage forcing you to buy turbo asmbler. Might as well have bought the compiler to start with.
In my view there isn't very much free about this "builder". GCC dosn't require you jump through hoops dosn't have a messed up liccens (ok the GPL is a little messed but not as bad as this) and dosn't require you buy something else to make it work.
I don't like the idea of develuping code under GCC for Windows. GCC isn't ideal for Windows develupment (mostly thanks to the way Windows works) the compiller almost needs to be interconnected with the operating system. Thanks to Microsoft and Inprise Borland C++ has this advantage. This means that if I want to do sereous open source develupment I really need Borland C++ or Microsoft C++... But I need a compleate compiler pacage.. not an half baked builder pacage....
I'm going to try and download and install it anyway. If I can find a sutable replacement for tasm then I'll be in busness.... Otherwise... I'll make use of Microsofts handy uninstall feature... Or Linux handy fdisk.....
> These boxes don't have scheduled reboots, since we haven't had a need for them.
NT admin are trainned to reboot servers once a week NO MATTER WHAT... This becouse Microsoft admits NT has a SHORT max uptime and usually run into problems when attempting long uptime.
> Funny that the only way you can get your point across is by calling me stupid.
Stating an opinion... One a lot of people have by the way. NT is basicly OS/2 code and IBM dosn't recomend OS/2 for anything more than low end servers.
> I thought UNIX admins were smarter than that...
If you think Sysadm have socal skills then he is right about his estimate of your intelegence... Also I suspect he is a hobbyist not a profesional... A profesional waits for the big crash and chargs to clean up the mess
Microsoft allready admits max server uptime on NT is just over a month. You do not get 280 day uptime on NT servers... Good admit reboot NTs weekly bad admin don't get the chance..
I suspect you may be looking at 280 day network uptime. Thats a bit diffrent. You have a max uptime of forever no matter what your operating system is as long as your sysadm is good.
Downtime on one box shouldn't make any diffrence.. In the long run thats what matters.. max network uptime.. not max server uptime... However server uptime makes work easyer and grants bragging rights
"I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it"
One sided quoting is a bad thing... If anything is to be insightful it must be open to challange.
Otherwise it's a onesided rant....
I suspect I'd disagree with whatever it is you said but I think your comments should be included becouse they were a part of the overall responce. Sillencing a voice makes the picture incompleate...
> You guys are just as bad as the RIAA amd the MPAA.
The FPAA (First Post)?
People are getting cranky over ownership of there own words... I suggest that this be taken as a learning experence and the Robs (Taco and Limmo) talk to Andover lawyers about a new post disclamor that cosigns the rights of the posts to both Slashdot/Andover and the poster as well as the whole freaking plannet. (You must ask permition before publishing on the Krull homeword)
I agree the few whinners have an argument going for them and thats enough to rase a stink.... There are enough people who don't like Linux, open source or anything Slashdot represents that they'd run with any banner that hurts Slashdot
>> those I don't care what happens to them > These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
I personally care about what happends to ALL my posts. If you ask me if I want them reprinted I say "Yes yes yes".. That was after all the whole idea of posting to start with.. I want my comments seen and read. If they are posted in a newspaper I am happy... If they make it in a book I am happy...
If they are record in the Slashdot archives I am happy..
If the vanish off the face of the earth and never seen again I am sad...
Posting on Slashdot you allready burn any market value so the only value they have the the impact they have when someone reads them.
So the more I am quoted the happyer I am.... I'm even happyer when I am credited with the quote but thats purly an ego issue:) I like credit.. but thats not the point...
If NSI shutdown a domain when a transfer request was put in that wouldn't be a big deal as the new agentcy would just re-registure the name. If NSI resold the domain or held on to the domain in some way instead of honnering a transfer the domain holder would have grounds to sue.
Such a case would not be cut and dry.
It would be nessisary to prove that NSI acted in responce to the domain transfer. It would be nessisary to prove that the domain transfer request releases the domain holder from NSIs contract. NSI would have to prove that they in revoking the domain did act within the bounds of the contract and what they did was not wholesale theft. There is also the whole trademark issue that may enter into the picture of the domain holder owns the trademark to his/her domain.
It wouldn't be a cut and dry case and there would be much image bloodshead (trashing of each other). I would hope this alone would give NSI pause before trying something like this.
Sadly I suspect if NSI dose pull this the first few victoms won't be able to sue. If however something happend to Microsoft.com.... Microsoft has enough image scars to act as armor for an NSI vs Microsoft lawsute....
I think you understand the problem perfictly as stated. My only gripe is the how far along Microsofts API is compared to OpenGL.
The OpenGL solution to switch to software is there becouse OpenGL was designed to support hardware that dose not in any way exist on the PC.
This dose mean software can not probe for optimal config. The small venders COULD give many config options but I doupt many end users know what features they have.
It would still be nice.. Say the game runs fine on a P 200 but I'm on a Athon 1k... Let's tweek in some of those software solutions hmm?
I'm not in good forum today sorry... "No more Linux port" Was from Slashdot:) I keep thinking how Slashdot gets game news from peoples fingers with quicky one-liners like... "No more Linux port?" and nothing else...
"No more Quake for ID?"
Still it was a valid jump given the details... This is the reason Linux and Mac ports havn't been made in the past.... There is absolutly no reason to assume history isn't repeating itself....
In the lack of facts we assume busness as usual and in this case busness as usual means No Linux port...
The words "No Linux port?" No matter who the author is pritty dang clear.... it means one thing.... It's valid speculation from us.... If the engen gods start asking it... then we do have something to worry about
The story didn't say anything not allready admitted... I think Hemos knows more about what went into the story than someone who just reads the headlines:)
The '?' Dosn't matter the words "No more Linux port" still mean "No more Linux port" yes it's a question not a statment and thats the context the Linux community took it.
I don't care if UT is ported to Linux or not. It is nice to have more software titles than less but if someone isn't going to support us what can you do?
What I do care about is someone jerking the community around and then blamming the community for jumpping to the conclusions we get handed on a silver platter...
Your scarry... But thats a cool idea.... Have "messangers" volintears who live nearby carrying questions from people who don't...
Ask them what screening process they used and how they prevent advertisers from abusing the system and how do they prevent flooders from putting third party e-mail addresses on the list
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't call it fanatical to prefer open source.
Reasons to prefer open source to commertal..
1. The cause... A case of ethics..
2. For want of code... All the advantages that come with having the source code... Scrapping unwanted features.. spotting back doors.. and just seeing how the stupid thing works...
3. Download... Easyer to download software than to walk down to the store... Freshmeat and the Linux Game Tome are like candy stores... pick your toy..... Entertainment every day..
4. Free... Come on gotta love free.. $50... $100.. $500... no... I go for FREE... No money... Want a wordprocesor? Just download it.
I'll tell you what.. I'll download a free closed source game from Satan before I pay $10 for source code to the same game and have that $10 go to saving a life...
In the end I have a price... and that price is free software.... Thankfully I don't have to flex my morals for it....
>Hey Meyer! I question your statement that you should question extremists! =)
Dose his rule apply to himself?
What passes for coherent arguments amoung Windows supporters is amazing...
Also the two examples you gave... both were posted at score 2... One had 2 good lines and the rambled on about a Microsoft product. Not a troll but not worth a score 2...
The other was also posted as a score 2.. This one made a good point... it was short and to the point... it didn't go on and on...
It got modded back up...
In nither case did you make it to score 0 let alone score -1.
There are a few Slashdot moderators who should lose moderator access.. and when thies posts hit M2 they will...
But this isn't isolated to unPC and antiLinux posts.
It's just that some moderators do a bad job. Some push an opinion.. and some mod up "First Post"s
Some just seem to go out of there way to do a bad job...
But on the bulk most are good...
for the bad ones we have M2...
>Trust me, I know. :) Meyer's sixth recommendation:
> Call the extremists' bluff by questioning their moral premises. Re-establish ethical priorities.
Just to note...
This is NOT calling anyones bluff... It's a misdirection tactic...
I've seen some pritty messed up arguments that basicly argue that everyone is greedy and selfish.
The classic counter argument is "Not everyone is [greedy/selfish/sadistic]"
I have two other responces....
1. A person makes a program for himself. He makes the code available so others can improve it and give the improvments back to him. They give the improvements back to him so they don't need to make improvments every time he updates the program.
In the end they do it for themselfs. In a very real way the code comes back.
Giving away source code isn't a selfless act...
It's a greedy act... It's the kind of greed everyone can get in on...
2. "It happends, telling the world why it'll never happen is foolish when the world sees it happening every day. In the end it dosn't matter why."
> Personally, I agree with most of what Meyer points out in his article. It's never been fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) why attempting to make money off your own work (and exclusively your own work) is taboo. I've heard people scream bloody murder at me for years for simply trying to sell various little odds and ends i've made, rather than just declare it public domain and give it out for free.
People IMHO get overboard when they demand someones work be given away for free.
I've writen a lot of software myself. Some for free some for liccens and some I never distributed at all.
Right now a lot of screwed up things are happening in commertal software that shouldn't happen.
Good products are shot down.. ports are killed....
People put up with it becouse "Thats how it's done" but the truth is that is NOT how it's done.
Open source is for authors who want to give software away but don't want someone else to repacage same under a commertal title.
It's happend occasionally....
Then suddenly some kids effort becomes some corperations product.
It's not fair but it happends.
Open source should not ever be about forcing software develupers to open source everything...
I open source becouse for me it's easyer to proffit from open source than it is to proffit from closed.
But thats my choice...
If you sell something and I think it's worth what you ask for it I'll buy it. If I don't I won't. But I will not steal and I certenly won't ask you to open source it.
I'm staying away from closed source myself simply becouse I don't want to deal with software distributors who want to distribute "Windows only" software titles....
Don't want the mess of software companys that won't put non-Windows titles on the shelfs...
Don't want the hassle...
I'll make a proffit a diffrent way... But thats my choice... Not someone elses..
Your Quote:
:>
:) Some times I get that and I have to slow down and read it again to be sure I'm seeing what I think I am seeing... 9 times out of 10.. I'm not... :) Just wouldn't want you going around correcting people for a mistake they did not make... could be very embaressing
> It also looks like Mac will be bringing Kerberos to OSX, in partnership with MIT.
What was accually typed
> It also looks like Apple will be bringing Kerberos to OSX, in partnership with MIT.
> No offense, but you PC guys always get that wrong. It's as bad as saying that a given OS was written by "Linux Torvalds".
No offense taken...
I suspect however your brain is playing a small trick on you...
Swapping out Apple and replacing it with Mac.
It's done to improve your reading skills...
I've never seen this before....
And it's not what was posted....
No biggy
Not a big issue
> I agree entirely. He wants a world where nothing is free
I disagree here..
What he wants is a world where EVERYTHING is free.
The price you pay for open source is fixing the bugs yourself...
The advantage is you know the bugs will be fixed and not set on the back burnner...
A closed source company may not care about the bug... I may not care about the bug... the whole world may not care about the bug.
If you.. one person alone in the world are the single person who cares about the bug and you alone fix it then the bug is fixed.
If no one cares enough to fix the bug in open source then it's a good bet the same product turnned closed source will never get a bug fix.
The fast bugfix time comes from the fact that people fix the bugs instead of waiting for someone to fix it for them...
If you are willing to wait... then don't complain about how long you end up waiting...
This functionility dose not extend back to Dos days.
In essense you are right. It dose not matter where the hole is located.
It could be in the web browser.. just as bad... hay an FTP client that executes files... ohhh death...
Even if the hole was in Napster...
However no mapping applications wasn't posable back in Dos days.
You may be thinking of when BBS Sysops could turn ANY application into a "door" accessable to anyone. All it's features.. including dos shell...
Sysops who mistakenly installed apps with Dos shell as doors had a back door similer to the one used by the e-mail virus.
However Dos back doors were installed by experenced hackers by hand. They did so not fully aware of just how many applications had dos shell support.
This happend to me when I stalled DosHack. Of all things a Unix game ported to Dos could shell to Dos. Amazing...
This kind of problem can show up on ANY system. Dos, Unix, Windows, etc... It's installed by an expert who should know better.
It dosn't happen as often.. given that today it's SysAdm who have security issues crapped up the bum.. vs Sysops whos idea of security is running the BBS on a spare computer.
However this defect was installed by Microsofts plug and play design. There isn't a Dos varient.
Side note... if this problem WAS found in MsDos would that absolve Microsoft? Or would it just give Microsoft a ferther history of neglect?
Also MsDos isn't a networked system.. Security by no access... Thats security not even Unix can provide... With the apparent side effect of being a pain to get on-line
Your basic statment holds just correcting a few errors :)
Minux ran on XTs and 386s the XT version was hardware bound and didn't run on 286s...
SCO Xenix was also originally an XT Unix that was ported to the 286 and 386.
Minux did not handle GUIs and as far as I know Xfree never ran on Minux.
Xenix had a commertal X11 but again as far as I know this was rather expensive as was Xenix itself.
Linux started a bit before Windows 95 came out and ran fine on 386 hardware.. Windows 95 REQUIRED 386 hardware forcing XTs and 286s into early obsolesence (Demand died when Dos was discontinued.. and even that took a while)
Linux could not penitrate the user market at all and needed PCs powerful enough to run as servers before Linux could enter the server market.
But the hacker market.. ehh... Hackers continued to use XTs...
Anyway Motif was made in a time when Unix ment commertal servers and hackers ment home made hardware...
There is much out there for you.
There are some PHP and Perl.
Most require an SQL server but some (like mine) do not.
The issues to look at how much load do you want to handle, how much power do you want and how complex are you willing to put up with.
Slashcode is very powerful and handles the load quite nicely but isn't very easy...
You said power isn't an issue so there is likely to be a good system that handles the load and is very easy.
My own code is very powerful and very easy but with a load it gose up and down like a yoyo... It's also still in dev...
Not the sort of thing you want on a tech support page.
Check out Freashmeat, Linux Directory, Free Code, and Hot Scripts
I cringed at the notion of an Internet defined by commertal protocalls.
.. they are users who use the Amiga becouse that is what they want to use. If you don't wish to support them becouse of some notion of obsolete then Amiga users don't need to do busness with you.
Mind you the computer world was defined the same way but with one diffrence.
Companys created files and formats they would document. Standards of the future (hopefully). For the good of all.
But the notion of Commertal Internet Standards was standards controlled by the author. Closed standards. Undocumented.
In the past users wanted to stick with software that used documented standards. They don't want to be locked into the application. If the program no longer dose what is needed they need an escape hatch.
Todays users don't consider this escape. They think of now. If it works now it works for all time.
However if a company has sufficent userbase locked into it they no longer need to worry about catering to the existing users and are free to presue other markets letting the old features decay in antiqity.
This is the market today.
Part of this is in the Internet. Web pages designed for two web browsers instead of working on all HTML4 browsers.
Web sites with specal plugins that work only on one operating system and controlled by one company.
This should not be the future of the Internet.
I would like companys to rethink.
Classic companys have larg doorways that are easy to get into and out of. Easy to do your busness and leave.
Easy access for everyone.
On the Internet it's whatever a web designners notion of "everybody" is. Everybody uses Windows.
I talked with one designner. His idea was that the costummer base was wealthy and could afford high end computers and such so they wouldn't be using Amigas.
But.. he forgets... Amiga users aren't cash strapped
Such stereotyping notions of Amiga, Linux, Mac and Unix users is what is hurtting on-line busnesses.
Linux users are not all techno geeks and ISPs, Mac users arn't newbes or dumb, Unix isn't just for techno elite and Amiga users arn't poor.
I have a Dos machine at home set up as a web terminal. I don't need anything more than that for surfing the web. It dosn't do IRC it dosn't FTP very well it is still having problems picking up my e-mail. Thats not the idea.
I just wanted a box to surf the web from home.
Thats it.
No Java, no streaming audio no specal media at all. Just Dos and Arachne.
At work I have my Linux box.
Thats what I put my money... in my Linux box (I am so rarely home it dosn't matter much).
The notion that "Everybody uses Windows" is unrealistic.
I'm hopping that at some point someone gets the message. Designe for everyone or stay off-line...
No I think he is right...
Copyrights have to do with text made public in some way.
Trade secrets have to do with documents protected by secrets and contracts.
The two may not co-exist....
They are both automatic....
Here is an example:
I draw a picure in private.. No one may see my picture.
No one may comment on my picture becouse no one has seen it. If I make people sign a contract before looking at my picture they may not comment on it. Fair use dose not exist.
Now I show this picture to a friend (no contract). Fair use has died copyright starts. He may comment on my picture. He may say it's ugly. He may say whatever he likes. But he may not outright rip me off and copy (exactly) my picture. He may paridy it or anything else covered by fair use.
I give away the rights to a friend. Again no contract. I just say "Do whatever" I have now transfered the rights to public domain. No one owns it. Or everyone depending on your point of view.
Later I try and clame trade secret. I get laffed at....
Only one post on Slashdot violated Microsofts "copyright" the rest violated Microsofts Trade secret.
:)
Now here comes the problem. A trade secret is something that is locked away so the avrage person can not come accrost it. This trade secret was posted on the Internet by Microsoft themselfs. Any clame to trade secret was tossed out the window when that happend.
The copyright is on the specs to Microsofts version of a public standard (at least Microsoft is clamming it's the specs to a public standard) this isn't Microsofts property to copyright so Microsoft has no IP rights...
Microsofts chief hold on the text is a click through copyright that could be ignored by simply extracting the files using commenly available software.
The responce demonstrates how Microsofts copyright and trade secret clames are baseless and the text Micrsoft wants removed from Slashdot are in fact public property part by having been posted publicly by Microsoft and part by prior art.
Oh yeah... IANAL....
This single issue is to me a small minnor issue comparied to others.
Notting that most people here on Slashdot do not develup under Windows and most Windows have allready got the develupment tools they need.
I however thought to take advantage of the situation and download this and start doing some cross platform codework.
Inprise is asking quite a bit of software develupers and to make things worse when I tried to download the software the link to stage one (join some software dev community thingy) didn't work.
To make matters worse there was a refrence to needing turbo asmbler. If I rember correctly Turbo C only compiles asm source code it then passes that on to tasm.exe a smallish version of turbo asmbler and I suspect B C++ dose the same.
But Tasm.exe isn't included with this "free" pacage forcing you to buy turbo asmbler. Might as well have bought the compiler to start with.
In my view there isn't very much free about this "builder".
GCC dosn't require you jump through hoops dosn't have a messed up liccens (ok the GPL is a little messed but not as bad as this) and dosn't require you buy something else to make it work.
I don't like the idea of develuping code under GCC for Windows. GCC isn't ideal for Windows develupment (mostly thanks to the way Windows works) the compiller almost needs to be interconnected with the operating system.
Thanks to Microsoft and Inprise Borland C++ has this advantage.
This means that if I want to do sereous open source develupment I really need Borland C++ or Microsoft C++... But I need a compleate compiler pacage.. not an half baked builder pacage....
I'm going to try and download and install it anyway. If I can find a sutable replacement for tasm then I'll be in busness....
Otherwise... I'll make use of Microsofts handy uninstall feature...
Or Linux handy fdisk.....
> These boxes don't have scheduled reboots, since we haven't had a need for them.
NT admin are trainned to reboot servers once a week NO MATTER WHAT...
This becouse Microsoft admits NT has a SHORT max uptime and usually run into problems when attempting long uptime.
> Funny that the only way you can get your point across is by calling me stupid.
Stating an opinion... One a lot of people have by the way. NT is basicly OS/2 code and IBM dosn't recomend OS/2 for anything more than low end servers.
> I thought UNIX admins were smarter than that...
If you think Sysadm have socal skills then he is right about his estimate of your intelegence...
Also I suspect he is a hobbyist not a profesional...
A profesional waits for the big crash and chargs to clean up the mess
Microsoft allready admits max server uptime on NT is just over a month.
You do not get 280 day uptime on NT servers...
Good admit reboot NTs weekly bad admin don't get the chance..
I suspect you may be looking at 280 day network uptime. Thats a bit diffrent. You have a max uptime of forever no matter what your operating system is as long as your sysadm is good.
Downtime on one box shouldn't make any diffrence..
In the long run thats what matters.. max network uptime.. not max server uptime...
However server uptime makes work easyer and grants bragging rights
> It's all about letting dissenters be heard
"I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it"
One sided quoting is a bad thing...
If anything is to be insightful it must be open to challange.
Otherwise it's a onesided rant....
I suspect I'd disagree with whatever it is you said but I think your comments should be included becouse they were a part of the overall responce.
Sillencing a voice makes the picture incompleate...
Your responder seems to be missing...
> You guys are just as bad as the RIAA amd the MPAA.
The FPAA (First Post)?
People are getting cranky over ownership of there own words...
I suggest that this be taken as a learning experence and the Robs (Taco and Limmo) talk to Andover lawyers about a new post disclamor that cosigns the rights of the posts to both Slashdot/Andover and the poster as well as the whole freaking plannet. (You must ask permition before publishing on the Krull homeword)
I agree the few whinners have an argument going for them and thats enough to rase a stink....
There are enough people who don't like Linux, open source or anything Slashdot represents that they'd run with any banner that hurts Slashdot
>> those I don't care what happens to them
:) I like credit.. but thats not the point...
> These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
I personally care about what happends to ALL my posts.
If you ask me if I want them reprinted I say "Yes yes yes"..
That was after all the whole idea of posting to start with.. I want my comments seen and read.
If they are posted in a newspaper I am happy...
If they make it in a book I am happy...
If they are record in the Slashdot archives I am happy..
If the vanish off the face of the earth and never seen again I am sad...
Posting on Slashdot you allready burn any market value so the only value they have the the impact they have when someone reads them.
So the more I am quoted the happyer I am....
I'm even happyer when I am credited with the quote but thats purly an ego issue
If NSI shutdown a domain when a transfer request was put in that wouldn't be a big deal as the new agentcy would just re-registure the name.
If NSI resold the domain or held on to the domain in some way instead of honnering a transfer the domain holder would have grounds to sue.
Such a case would not be cut and dry.
It would be nessisary to prove that NSI acted in responce to the domain transfer.
It would be nessisary to prove that the domain transfer request releases the domain holder from NSIs contract.
NSI would have to prove that they in revoking the domain did act within the bounds of the contract and what they did was not wholesale theft.
There is also the whole trademark issue that may enter into the picture of the domain holder owns the trademark to his/her domain.
It wouldn't be a cut and dry case and there would be much image bloodshead (trashing of each other).
I would hope this alone would give NSI pause before trying something like this.
Sadly I suspect if NSI dose pull this the first few victoms won't be able to sue.
If however something happend to Microsoft.com.... Microsoft has enough image scars to act as armor for an NSI vs Microsoft lawsute....
I think you understand the problem perfictly as stated.
My only gripe is the how far along Microsofts API is compared to OpenGL.
The OpenGL solution to switch to software is there becouse OpenGL was designed to support hardware that dose not in any way exist on the PC.
This dose mean software can not probe for optimal config.
The small venders COULD give many config options but I doupt many end users know what features they have.
It would still be nice.. Say the game runs fine on a P 200 but I'm on a Athon 1k... Let's tweek in some of those software solutions hmm?
I'm not in good forum today sorry... :)
"No more Linux port" Was from Slashdot
I keep thinking how Slashdot gets game news from peoples fingers with quicky one-liners like...
"No more Linux port?" and nothing else...
"No more Quake for ID?"
Still it was a valid jump given the details...
This is the reason Linux and Mac ports havn't been made in the past....
There is absolutly no reason to assume history isn't repeating itself....
In the lack of facts we assume busness as usual and in this case busness as usual means No Linux port...
The words "No Linux port?" No matter who the author is pritty dang clear.... it means one thing....
It's valid speculation from us....
If the engen gods start asking it... then we do have something to worry about
The story didn't say anything not allready admitted... :)
I think Hemos knows more about what went into the story than someone who just reads the headlines
I agree...
The '?' Dosn't matter the words "No more Linux port" still mean "No more Linux port" yes it's a question not a statment and thats the context the Linux community took it.
I don't care if UT is ported to Linux or not. It is nice to have more software titles than less but if someone isn't going to support us what can you do?
What I do care about is someone jerking the community around and then blamming the community for jumpping to the conclusions we get handed on a silver platter...
Your scarry...
But thats a cool idea....
Have "messangers" volintears who live nearby carrying questions from people who don't...
Ask them what screening process they used and how they prevent advertisers from abusing the system and how do they prevent flooders from putting third party e-mail addresses on the list