Maybe I'm missing something, but after reading the article I'm wondering how your processor is going to explode "like a large hand grenade" when your average processor is a good bit smaller than your average hand grenade and far less explosive. And how do these guys know what processor you have? Yes, I go around telling people I get in fights with on the internet my exact processor specs. That way they can blow me up. Brilliant. Just another lame excuse for government to crack down... ...good thing only goofballs take this kind of publication seriously--I hope... -------- "Troll the ancient yuletide carol"
Well, the question may have been stupid but it got us into a decent discussion of what real-time means, how its considerations are different from normal work, and why AMD & intel are not the best choices for high-end math. Now the original question may sound stupid, but only because the poster didn't know these things. And if you already know, wtf is the point of asking a question?
So either their entire technical staff is comprised of chimpanzees, or this statement about needing a proprietary client for security reasons is a complete lie and a very deceptive way of spamming their users.
You can redistribute drivers under the GPL, or if they are independant modules dynamically loaded then under any license you choose. (you being the writer) In any case it makes no difference to Wyse, NetBSD is no more functionally open from that standpoint and the abandonment of Linux had to be for other reasons. duh.
I don't know what the deal with LinuxOne is, but they probably tried to either a) redistribute proprietary RH code (not the same as redistributing Linux) or b) redistribute code under a different license that contains GPL'd code. In which case they should get their asses sued, for closing things that should remain open.
Linux users are often accused of being crazed zealots in promotion of their OS, but if NetBSD is "The only *way* to go" then what does that make you? Come on, let's give them all a chance. There can never be an OS that does all things for all people, or perhaps there can, but not by embracing that attitude.
Personally, I think that both Linux and WinCE are bad choices for thin clients and other such computers. I don't believe that Linux provides any significant advantage to the corporation or the customer of these computers, in the technical aspect, particularly in comparison to other existing OSs - NetBSD has already been mentioned, and Be's IA offering (which runs on Stinger) seems rather nifty. Call me crazy, but I don't think any "regular Joe" wants to be forced to use an operating system whose primary focus has always been on an user base of hackers, sysadmins and other "advanced" users who like to play with Unix.
If Linux is too focused on 'hackers, sysadmins and other "advanced" users' to be a good client, then what is NetBSD?
Time being the biggest. I don't have time to learn Gimp. Why bother? Photoshop works great and I know it. mIRC works great, MS Office works great, Quake 3 runs great, and, god forbid, IE works great.
This is the logic that has kept us from adopting the metric system. It may be easier, but by golly I'm not gonna go learn another system.
Not to imply that I take any position on this issue.
Where will it go when they're on top?
on
BeOS For Linux!
·
· Score: 1
The important thing is the incentives. Be has a financial incentive for their developers to make things as good as possible, in the areas you mentioned of speed, ease of interface and multimedia support. In order to get users, they/have/ to make a better system. But if they were to achieve market dominance, these would fall behind as they would find they could make more money off of playing M$-style games of marketing and overcharging for what many consider "the only option." We would be relying on them intending to remain good guys instead of just wanting to make more money to insure we had a quality system. With Linux good development will always happen because the only incentive is to have a good system. Similarly with *BSD. So while Be may be better now, expect that to slow up with time as the incentive is removed.
In fact, if all you guys would develop BSD as actively, people would flock to it because of the BSD license.
What if we don't like the BSD license as much as the GPL? You trying to tell us what to develop? Sure, the reason Linux has more users is because people chose to develop it more, but there were reasons behind this as well. Besides, in the open source world things are IMHO better with less users, particularly mainstream ones who don't know how to develop the system themselves. That's why I like BSD and I want it to stay that way.
How about, if it is owned by root, with permissions set so only root can use it, or is not suid, others can't? Think--it's not a feature of the design of a program whether it can be run, but how the permissions are set and who owns it.
And IMHO, it would have to be suid root or run by root to work because it would try to access things only root can access to reboot in another OS. So if another user puts it on, it wouldn't run without root intervention. I don't think it's possible to have a program which reboots in another OS without root access, without exploiting an existing security hole.
The idea is, it loads from an existing partition with a windows/linux FS, and is activated from within windows/linux rather than by rebooting and boot-selecting.
The distinction between "offensive and defensive" weapons seems kind of bogus to me -- there's a saying that the best defense is a strong offense, and to make an example, in terms of nuclear arms, the threat of offense has served as a defense.
Defense against what? Other nuclear weapons? Commies invading Berlin? Us intervening in Chechnya? All they do is stop people from doing what they think is right, on the fear they will be blown away. And with increased proliferation to third-world powers, soon we won't be able to do anything without being scared shitless for our lives.
They should moderate your post up for being funny.
What does belong in server rooms?
Notice he refers to the companies only as LNUX and RHAT. Evidently there is nothing more to a Linux company than its ticker symbol. And apparently the value of technology is entirely the money it makes to investors.
Looks like somebody is upset 'cuz they lost out on buying stock for $200 a share before it dropped to $80. Yeah, you usually buy before it goes up and sell before it goes down. Don't blame the company. ------- Oh, and Torvalds/never/ makes/any/ representations of having a product worth buying in Linux. He's not part of the aforementioned companies, he just produces free software under the GPL, which clearly states there is no warranty of any kind, including the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a purpose. (to the extent permissable by applicable law, of course) For a living he works for chip manufacturer Transmeta. He doesn't sell Linux or make claims that it will necessarily do anything.
It isn't to sound cool. It's bashing them because we have a legitimate point. Once a certain amount of people are in it just because it's chic, the original starters of the "bashing dot-com" movement will be past it, the real geeks, they will have moved on. I'm a geek, but I don't have a cell phone, or a palm. I don't interrupt conversations for crap like that. I know plenty of yuppy business-persons who do tho'.
It'd be interesting to see the "long list of things that are rude, socially irresponsible and obnoxious about the tech culture" and see how many of them really apply to where you're applying them. You are missing the point of dot-com bashing while at the same time proving it. ---------- "Internet users seem to think adding ':)' on to anything will make it funny." -Yeah, but the original idea was to put it on something already funny. Before the influx of the AOLer contingent.
Didn't this already happen? Too many people on the get-rich-quick, something for nothing bandwagon in the 20s, a depression... It was said around then that if Roosevelt couldn't handle the problem he would be the last President of the United States. He may have overstepped his authority as president in de-capitalizing the situation, but the nation was shifting and if he hadn't we would've seen, as you said, a revolution with guns.
I was at work contemplating shit and out of the blue I said "I hate yuppies." And this dude I work with is like "huh?" So I say, "You know why windows crashes so much?" And he said he didn't think it did.
Well, I'm a big tech and computer person, and you're right. All this.com BS makes us all look like GD yuppies. It's good to see some techies revolt against the.coms.
BTW I noticed the other day that all the sites I was visiting were.org. What a grand transition from several years ago when I went to.com's exclusively and.org was alien. I bet most people don't even know.org exists.
The fact that hundreds of.com's can make their founders millionaires without having any revenue or profit just by going public is making the computer world looked at badly. Why, just the other day on linux.com I saw a post saying that Linux companies could make paper millionaires by having an IPO without having profit, or even revenue, and that we were seeing it right and left. But the only Linux companies that had gone public as of that post were VA and Red Hat, which had revenue and I believe were both turning profit. Bottom line, people see it happening in.com-land, it's ridiculous, they assume it's what goes on in all of the tech world. So you whip out your pilot, they assume you bought it by not turning any profit or revenue having an IPO. Even tho' you bought it by working hard making the things that make their world run. -------- "A...a piece of sushi named Matt just said hello to me..." "And a ball of lint with feet is okay in your world? Just deal with it, pal." -User Friendly
Of course, IANAJL (I'm not a Japanese Lawyer), so things may be different there.
Who would sue sony for it over there? The biggest deal would be to themselves. Sony wants to keep the region-encoding in place more than anybody. And then their standing with MPAA/CSS, who would be realy pissed. This is all outside the law, more like "if you violate the private contract we get pissed at you and don't let you in on stuff" than "if you violate we sue". And believe me, MPAA has a lot of power in that department.
So it's not civil, or criminal, but political. Sony has to recall them, you don't have to give them back, but once again they will throw their weight around and games will be made to run on the new ones only.
Of course, IANAJL (I'm not a Japanese Lawyer), so things may be different there.
Implying you are a lawyer somewhere else? Or you just preferred to add a redundant letter?
So/. and other such outlets are responsible? This is more a blow to them than to us.
They are exposed. In a large, media-worthy case they have shown that their scams and tactics amount to being negligent in technological security and having the law pick up for them, but that the law picking up for them would be analogous to arresting 1.25 million people simply for buying playstations in this case. Or by playing DVDs on the playstation, which is Sony's fault they can do. And that that would be analagous to the legal action taken against DeCSS, Bleem!, Tickets.com, mp3.com, and everybody else we've heard about lately getting picked on by big entertainment media.
They can't release crappy technology and just take a legal recourse. This case shows it. It is pleasant small victory for us, loss for them.
It's like a fork manufacturer sells forks with a license saying what that fork can be used for. use it improperly, and they sue you. Or release a product which can be used with fork "improperly", and they sue you. These are the games big entertainment has been playing, and this fiasco is the big exposer.
----------- "This fork has been licensed only for the use of ingesting tofu. Any other use is strictly prohibited and is punishible in civil court."
"Furthermore, distribution of any other product which can be ingested with this fork is punishable in civil court."
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that the former is already free, and the latter still wants to achieve freedom.
No, I talked to it. It told me, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Unfortunately I wasn't able to manage liberty...
He's up to five now. =]
Maybe I'm missing something, but after reading the article I'm wondering how your processor is going to explode "like a large hand grenade" when your average processor is a good bit smaller than your average hand grenade and far less explosive. And how do these guys know what processor you have? Yes, I go around telling people I get in fights with on the internet my exact processor specs. That way they can blow me up. Brilliant.
Just another lame excuse for government to crack down...
...good thing only goofballs take this kind of publication seriously--I hope...
--------
"Troll the ancient yuletide carol"
Well, the question may have been stupid but it got us into a decent discussion of what real-time means, how its considerations are different from normal work, and why AMD & intel are not the best choices for high-end math. Now the original question may sound stupid, but only because the poster didn't know these things. And if you already know, wtf is the point of asking a question?
No, gotta be z80. z80 all the way!!
-------
For the next generation of real-time applications,
"Zilog Inside"
So either their entire technical staff is comprised of chimpanzees, or this statement about needing a proprietary client for security reasons is a complete lie and a very deceptive way of spamming their users.
I'm betting on the chimpanzees.
and, finally, to be honest, staring at that darned penguin for too long just gives me the creeps
So use FreeBSD, then you get to stare at the devil...you're an atheist so that mascot shouldn't bother you, right?
You can redistribute drivers under the GPL, or if they are independant modules dynamically loaded then under any license you choose. (you being the writer)
In any case it makes no difference to Wyse, NetBSD is no more functionally open from that standpoint and the abandonment of Linux had to be for other reasons. duh.
I don't know what the deal with LinuxOne is, but they probably tried to either a) redistribute proprietary RH code (not the same as redistributing Linux) or b) redistribute code under a different license that contains GPL'd code. In which case they should get their asses sued, for closing things that should remain open.
Linux users are often accused of being crazed zealots in promotion of their OS, but if NetBSD is "The only *way* to go" then what does that make you? Come on, let's give them all a chance. There can never be an OS that does all things for all people, or perhaps there can, but not by embracing that attitude.
Good point, but...
Personally, I think that both Linux and WinCE are bad choices for thin clients and other such computers. I don't believe that Linux provides any significant advantage to the corporation or the customer of these computers, in the technical aspect, particularly in comparison to other existing OSs - NetBSD has already been mentioned, and Be's IA offering (which runs on Stinger) seems rather nifty. Call me crazy, but I don't think any "regular Joe" wants to be forced to use an operating system whose primary focus has always been on an user base of hackers, sysadmins and other "advanced" users who like to play with Unix.
If Linux is too focused on 'hackers, sysadmins and other "advanced" users' to be a good client, then what is NetBSD?
Time being the biggest. I don't have time to learn Gimp. Why bother? Photoshop works great and I know it. mIRC works great, MS Office works great, Quake 3 runs great, and, god forbid, IE works great.
This is the logic that has kept us from adopting the metric system. It may be easier, but by golly I'm not gonna go learn another system.
Not to imply that I take any position on this issue.
The important thing is the incentives. Be has a financial incentive for their developers to make things as good as possible, in the areas you mentioned of speed, ease of interface and multimedia support. In order to get users, they /have/ to make a better system. But if they were to achieve market dominance, these would fall behind as they would find they could make more money off of playing M$-style games of marketing and overcharging for what many consider "the only option." We would be relying on them intending to remain good guys instead of just wanting to make more money to insure we had a quality system.
With Linux good development will always happen because the only incentive is to have a good system. Similarly with *BSD.
So while Be may be better now, expect that to slow up with time as the incentive is removed.
In fact, if all you guys would develop BSD as actively, people would flock to it because of the BSD license.
What if we don't like the BSD license as much as the GPL? You trying to tell us what to develop?
Sure, the reason Linux has more users is because people chose to develop it more, but there were reasons behind this as well. Besides, in the open source world things are IMHO better with less users, particularly mainstream ones who don't know how to develop the system themselves. That's why I like BSD and I want it to stay that way.
How about, if it is owned by root, with permissions set so only root can use it, or is not suid, others can't? Think--it's not a feature of the design of a program whether it can be run, but how the permissions are set and who owns it.
And IMHO, it would have to be suid root or run by root to work because it would try to access things only root can access to reboot in another OS. So if another user puts it on, it wouldn't run without root intervention. I don't think it's possible to have a program which reboots in another OS without root access, without exploiting an existing security hole.
It's called Phat Linux.
The idea is, it loads from an existing partition with a windows/linux FS, and is activated from within windows/linux rather than by rebooting and boot-selecting.
The distinction between "offensive and defensive" weapons seems kind of bogus to me -- there's a saying that the best defense is a strong offense, and to make an example, in terms of nuclear arms, the threat of offense has served as a defense.
Defense against what? Other nuclear weapons?
Commies invading Berlin? Us intervening in Chechnya?
All they do is stop people from doing what they think is right, on the fear they will be blown away. And with increased proliferation to third-world powers, soon we won't be able to do anything without being scared shitless for our lives.
a peek inside a culture that mostly lives online, and has been Wal-Marted out of the real world.
What do you mean? Online is the real world!!
---------
Always posting non-anonomously, 'cuz, you know, I'm an anti-karma whore.
If you don't like Slashdot, why do you come here?
What's worse is that you're using "4" to mean both "for" and "a".
at first i was thinking you suck assdick cause you couldn't stand the jokes, but then you said the Crapdot thing and said "Fuckers."
that's funny.
Okay, fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck crap fuck. Real funny.
They should moderate your post up for being funny.
/never/ makes /any/ representations of having a product worth buying in Linux. He's not part of the aforementioned companies, he just produces free software under the GPL, which clearly states there is no warranty of any kind, including the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a purpose. (to the extent permissable by applicable law, of course) For a living he works for chip manufacturer Transmeta. He doesn't sell Linux or make claims that it will necessarily do anything.
What does belong in server rooms?
Notice he refers to the companies only as LNUX and RHAT. Evidently there is nothing more to a Linux company than its ticker symbol. And apparently the value of technology is entirely the money it makes to investors.
Looks like somebody is upset 'cuz they lost out on buying stock for $200 a share before it dropped to $80. Yeah, you usually buy before it goes up and sell before it goes down. Don't blame the company.
-------
Oh, and Torvalds
It isn't to sound cool. It's bashing them because we have a legitimate point. Once a certain amount of people are in it just because it's chic, the original starters of the "bashing dot-com" movement will be past it, the real geeks, they will have moved on.
I'm a geek, but I don't have a cell phone, or a palm. I don't interrupt conversations for crap like that. I know plenty of yuppy business-persons who do tho'.
It'd be interesting to see the "long list of things that are rude, socially irresponsible and obnoxious about the tech culture" and see how many of them really apply to where you're applying them. You are missing the point of dot-com bashing while at the same time proving it.
----------
"Internet users seem to think adding ':)' on to anything will make it funny." -Yeah, but the original idea was to put it on something already funny. Before the influx of the AOLer contingent.
Didn't this already happen? Too many people on the get-rich-quick, something for nothing bandwagon in the 20s, a depression...
It was said around then that if Roosevelt couldn't handle the problem he would be the last President of the United States.
He may have overstepped his authority as president in de-capitalizing the situation, but the nation was shifting and if he hadn't we would've seen, as you said, a revolution with guns.
I was at work contemplating shit and out of the blue I said "I hate yuppies." And this dude I work with is like "huh?" So I say, "You know why windows crashes so much?" And he said he didn't think it did.
.com BS makes us all look like GD yuppies. It's good to see some techies revolt against the .coms.
.org. What a grand transition from several years ago when I went to .com's exclusively and .org was alien. I bet most people don't even know .org exists.
.com's can make their founders millionaires without having any revenue or profit just by going public is making the computer world looked at badly. Why, just the other day on linux.com I saw a post saying that Linux companies could make paper millionaires by having an IPO without having profit, or even revenue, and that we were seeing it right and left. But the only Linux companies that had gone public as of that post were VA and Red Hat, which had revenue and I believe were both turning profit. Bottom line, people see it happening in .com-land, it's ridiculous, they assume it's what goes on in all of the tech world. So you whip out your pilot, they assume you bought it by not turning any profit or revenue having an IPO. Even tho' you bought it by working hard making the things that make their world run.
Well, I'm a big tech and computer person, and you're right. All this
BTW I noticed the other day that all the sites I was visiting were
The fact that hundreds of
--------
"A...a piece of sushi named Matt just said hello to me..."
"And a ball of lint with feet is okay in your world? Just deal with it, pal."
-User Friendly
Of course, IANAJL (I'm not a Japanese Lawyer), so things may be different there.
Who would sue sony for it over there? The biggest deal would be to themselves. Sony wants to keep the region-encoding in place more than anybody. And then their standing with MPAA/CSS, who would be realy pissed. This is all outside the law, more like "if you violate the private contract we get pissed at you and don't let you in on stuff" than "if you violate we sue". And believe me, MPAA has a lot of power in that department.
So it's not civil, or criminal, but political. Sony has to recall them, you don't have to give them back, but once again they will throw their weight around and games will be made to run on the new ones only.
Of course, IANAJL (I'm not a Japanese Lawyer), so things may be different there.
Implying you are a lawyer somewhere else?
Or you just preferred to add a redundant letter?
So /. and other such outlets are responsible? This is more a blow to them than to us.
They are exposed. In a large, media-worthy case they have shown that their scams and tactics amount to being negligent in technological security and having the law pick up for them, but that the law picking up for them would be analogous to arresting 1.25 million people simply for buying playstations in this case. Or by playing DVDs on the playstation, which is Sony's fault they can do. And that that would be analagous to the legal action taken against DeCSS, Bleem!, Tickets.com, mp3.com, and everybody else we've heard about lately getting picked on by big entertainment media.
They can't release crappy technology and just take a legal recourse. This case shows it. It is pleasant small victory for us, loss for them.
It's like a fork manufacturer sells forks with a license saying what that fork can be used for. use it improperly, and they sue you. Or release a product which can be used with fork "improperly", and they sue you. These are the games big entertainment has been playing, and this fiasco is the big exposer.
-----------
"This fork has been licensed only for the use of ingesting tofu. Any other use is strictly prohibited and is punishible in civil court."
"Furthermore, distribution of any other product which can be ingested with this fork is punishable in civil court."