I wouldn't put anything on the mission-critical system except mission-critical applications. There's nothing about this being a game that's inherently the cause of the failure--any application installer could, in theory, be written with a typo to cause this behavior.
online games also need to check for cheating / hacking tools and that needs admin as well. Or here's a wild idea--don't trust the client.
Send the client what they need to see, and nothing more. Check their actions for legality on the server. Magically, if you do this, there's no need to check for cheating tools.
It's not necessary from Window's perspective. It's "necessary" because game (and other) developers want to write to system areas. It's the culture of the single-user that's evolved all the way back from DOS.
The obvious solution is to make it possible to install software without being administrator. This is obviously possible right now. The problem is that game developers want to do things like write to system-wide directories. There's no technical reason that any given piece of software needs to be installed as admin, unless it requires adding drivers or otherwise modifying the system just to run. Occasionally you'll find software that says, "Install just for this user?" It's pretty rare, though.
Then most things which are called "bricked" are not actually so.
The Linksys wireless router modding community uses the term to indicate a failed firmware update. In most cases, it's possible to recover from this. Unfortunately, it's a tedious procedure, requiring technical skill that most people don't have.
In fact, short of physical damage, it's pretty hard to brick electronics and computers these days.
No, I actually just meant 'good.' I had no idea that Autodesk offered a movie editor (I knew that there were rendering solutions for graphics, but I didn't know that the other editing tools were available!)
Of course, cheap would be better. There are plenty of cheap, high quality (well, high enough for the home user) editing tools for Windows. But this is pretty cool. Thanks for the info!
I would assume that there are several other newsreader applications which are more popular, and thus worth the added effort of keeping them current in the repositories. Ah, assuming. Great way to counter arguments. You don't even have to have any knowledge to do it!
Since the grandparent was referring to "normal users", and that Ubuntu seems to be targeted to said "normal users", the fact that a yet another virtualization tool has fallen beneath the radar of the maintainers is rather unsurprising. If you need the services of a tool such as Virtualbox, it may be reasonably assumed that you should know your way around Linux systems, and therefore are capable of "jumping through the hoops" of downloading tarballs and compiling a software package. And if that is too much of a hassle, perhaps you should begin to question the decision to use an relatively obscure software package in the first place. People try to convert others to the OS X platform with the promises of virtualization allowing them to run their old Windows software. I don't think that those users are any more capable than the ones who move over to Linux.
And again, fantastic argument. When replying to a post about how easy repositories in X distribution are, I point out a few software packages that don't fit that bill. Your response that I should reconsider my use of those packages is simply classic.
Computers should be our slaves, not the other way around.
So the fact that several of your pet applications are missing from the official repositories implies that said repositories are not held to any particular standard? While there may be legitimate security issues in particular applications, I would assume that serious security flaws in popular software packages would take precedence over more obscure ones. How many security flaws in mainstream (and thus more likely to be exploited) packages go without being patched? Read what I said. I was referring to the multiverse and universe repositories. These are not maintained directly by Canonical personnel. From the wiki (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu):
he components are called Main (officially supported software), Restricted (supported software that is not available under a completely free license), Universe (community-maintained, i.e. not officially supported software) and Multiverse (software that is "not free"). My complaint is that these are enabled by default (or silently enabled at some point during the first few hours of use of the system--I can't honestly speak to which without making a new install), yet they are unmaintained (i.e. old and buggy versions of the software) in many cases. I wouldn't expect Canonical to maintain software in Universe or Multiverse--if they were maintaining them, they should be in one of the official repos. Instead, they shouldn't be enabled by default, where an unsuspecting user might find himself with old, buggy software. I'll state it again--software in Universe and Multiverse aren't held to a high enough standard to be included in the default.
If it's out there, free and compilable, there almost always exists somewhere a moderately easy repository to add that contains it. I guess if you're willing to trust some random website. I generally prefer to get from known repositories or from the developer.
It's not apples-to-apples because backwards compatibility is expected.
Anyway, saying "Linux sucks," is rarely actually a statement on the quality of Linux, and more a personal opinion statement about operating system choice based upon the total experience. People just tend to say "X sucks" because it's short.
Of course, I guess this could extend as deeply as you want to go. "Linux sucks because the quality of the code is deficient in many, many modules." "Linux sucks because it doesn't have a stable API, and kernel drivers must always be recompiled when upgrading minor kernel versions." "Linux sucks because it doesn't fix hardware flaws in the most recent Intel chipset." At what point is it okay to say "Linux sucks"?
Of course, all of this depends upon the third-party developers who target the Linux operating system actually having a repository.
Anyway, Linux is all about the extremes. If the package is in one of the default repositories, it's a breeze to install. If it's not, your average user probably isn't going to be able to install it. Tarballs just aren't easy for the neophyte, and usually you need special -dev libraries in order to build the software. The -dev libraries aren't usually included when you install binary packages, so the user is going to have a heck of a time getting things to work.
Huh? Is there anything a normal user would want that can't be installed through Synaptic or Add/Remove (both frontends to apt)? There's plenty.
Lots of software in the universe and multiverse repositories isn't kept up-to-date. This can be pretty annoying. Off the top of my head, I always have to work extra hard to get Valknut and Pan (newsreader) to their newest versions (with the former, I compile several packages from source, and with the latter, I go to the website where I get the up-to-date debs.)
In emulation, Virtualbox also isn't in any of the repositories, (well, the open source version is, but it doesn't include a lot of the niceties that come with the less free version.) Wine is never at the newest version whenever I look for it, and the newer versions tend to include lots of compatibility updates. Cedega requires extra work, too. For transitioning people to Linux, software like this is essential.
For the longest time, GAIM wasn't up-to-date--or I should say, Pidgin wasn't available.
The Multiverse and Universe repositories aren't held to any particular standard, yet they are now apparently enabled by default (they were on my install from yesterday.) This means that software updates may not be enough to get you up-to-date software. The usability will (probably) be there, but there may be security issues.
Interesting. I'm in the "FreeBSD is for servers, Linux is for Desktops, and Windows is a toy" camp, myself. These days, the list of tasks you can't do in Linux, but that you can do in Windows is pretty small. For home users, it's basically just specific games. There aren't that many home users that buy the highly specialized applications like Photoshop.
Editing movies is one of those holdouts, though. It'd be nice if there was a good (note the emphasis) movie editor on Linux.
(c) click install when firefox prompts you to install flash Pretty sure Windows does this.
(d) automatic updates for all software on the system, not just the OS. Yeah. If Microsoft tried to do something like this (offer lots of really useful, free software, and update them all from a central location), they'd probably get charged with being a monopoly. That's what happened with Internet Explorer in the United States, and with Windows Media Player in the EU.
No having to find those downloads buried somewhere on every manufacturers site, occasionally having to locate the right version of additional runtime DLLs, and keep them all up to date yourself. I haven't had to manage DLLs on Windows in years. Is this for obscure software, or something?
Btw, I have been a DOS / Windows user since forever, and I'm now a very happy Linux user too. Some things are better in Windows, some are better in Linux. Your comments just show that you're not really familiar with anything except Windows. (Incidentally, I'm not the original poster) Well.. yeah. People tend to be biased towards what they're familiar with. That's why it will take a really long time for Windows or OS X to gain significant ground on Windows. Almost everyone uses Windows, and moving to the unfamiliar is scary.
I haven't used Windows as my primary OS in years, but even around XP, a lot of the old complaints had been addressed. It's pretty damned usable, though niceties like automatic updates for software would be a huge boon.
The clause in question is:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger I think it's very clear that these are the exceptions: - cases in the land forces - cases in the naval forces - cases in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger.
If you aren't in the militia, it doesn't apply to you. If you're in the militia, but it is not a time of war or public danger, it doesn't apply to you.
You'll never change these people's minds. For the record, I agree with you. The Constitution is quite clear when it refers to citizens and when it refers to persons.
I didn't see the word "citizen" in any of the bits that I quoted. And the word Citizen (capitalized, even) is used liberally throughout the constitution. It seems that the framers were quite clear on when something applied to any person (they used the word 'person') and when they applied to citizens (they used the word 'Citizen.')
1) is something that maybe should be rectified. What parts did we sign?
2) is something that may need to be decided by the courts. The Constitution is a document enumerating the powers of the federal government. There's no particular reason to believe that, in the below phrase, "person" refers only to "a citizen."
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law Going down a bit:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No one is even mentioned here. This is a clear restriction on the powers of the government, with no regard to the status of the person being punished.
All of that is without regard to the specific charges at Gitmo, which might be a happy and fun place, full of hugs and bunnies. I'm not arguing anything about Gitmo--I'm specifically refuting you and your statements regarding to whom the Constitution applies.
Major news outlets carried falsified stories in order to gauge citizen reaction. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you feel that the above stories might be fake, we're in the same boat--not knowing what to believe.
Fourteen days after filing the counter-notice, if the person who filed the takedown notice hasn't filed an actual lawsuit, then the service provider must restore the content.
It's a little worse than that, though. As you may read in the above link, a counter-notice includes identifying information. I could file a DMCA takedown notice claiming copyright infringement in your post. Slashdot would be required (by US law) to remove your post. If you filed a counter-notice, then I get your name and address[1]. If that's all I'm after, I don't even have to bother filing a suit--I've got what I was after.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I dislike all of this.
[1] This is necessary so that I could file a suit if that was what I wanted.
Party A puts content on a site, say Youtube for example.
Party B notices content, sends DMCA takedown notice to Youtube.
Party A is notified that his content was removed due to a DMCA takedown notice. Being a good American, he knows the law. He files a counter-notice.
Party B takes a two week vacation, comes back to find that the content was restored.
At this point, Party B still has every right to sue Party A. What has effectively been lost is the ability to have the content removed without a court order. If Party B hadn't gone to the Bahamas, a suit could have been filed. In that case, the service provider would not have been required to restore the material. Regardless of the timing of the notices, Party B can file a lawsuit against Party A.
The counter-notice isn't a tactic to keep from getting sued, it's a means for someone to fight bogus DMCA takedown notices. The idea is that someone filing a false notice with a service provider probably won't go to court with a false copyright claim. Unfortunately, filing a false notice still guarantees that the content will be down for 14 days.
Although he finally retracted the claim, the damage had already been done (Youtube, following the law, removed a video showing Mr. Crook, despite the fact that he had no claim to the ownership of the video.)
So this isn't some crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory. These things have happened. As Cory Doctorow mentions in one of his posts on the subject, "For instance, others might use the same tactic to chill political speech: what better way to see to it that your opponent's campaign ads are yanked from YouTube a week before the elections?"
The takedown notice is only even marginally acceptable when considered with the counter-notice. It's still all too easy to abuse. Like it or not, perjury convictions just aren't commonly sought. It's virtually a worthless threat.
The DMCA allows for takedown notices without anything but the author's word that copyright was infringed. Before that, different techniques were used (my understanding, at least.)
Slashdot Mirror
Right. You'll be bludgeoning the person behind you who won't shut up during the whole thing.
I wouldn't put anything on the mission-critical system except mission-critical applications. There's nothing about this being a game that's inherently the cause of the failure--any application installer could, in theory, be written with a typo to cause this behavior.
Send the client what they need to see, and nothing more. Check their actions for legality on the server. Magically, if you do this, there's no need to check for cheating tools.
It's not necessary from Window's perspective. It's "necessary" because game (and other) developers want to write to system areas. It's the culture of the single-user that's evolved all the way back from DOS.
Then most things which are called "bricked" are not actually so.
The Linksys wireless router modding community uses the term to indicate a failed firmware update. In most cases, it's possible to recover from this. Unfortunately, it's a tedious procedure, requiring technical skill that most people don't have.
In fact, short of physical damage, it's pretty hard to brick electronics and computers these days.
No, I actually just meant 'good.' I had no idea that Autodesk offered a movie editor (I knew that there were rendering solutions for graphics, but I didn't know that the other editing tools were available!)
Of course, cheap would be better. There are plenty of cheap, high quality (well, high enough for the home user) editing tools for Windows. But this is pretty cool. Thanks for the info!
And again, fantastic argument. When replying to a post about how easy repositories in X distribution are, I point out a few software packages that don't fit that bill. Your response that I should reconsider my use of those packages is simply classic.
Computers should be our slaves, not the other way around. So the fact that several of your pet applications are missing from the official repositories implies that said repositories are not held to any particular standard? While there may be legitimate security issues in particular applications, I would assume that serious security flaws in popular software packages would take precedence over more obscure ones. How many security flaws in mainstream (and thus more likely to be exploited) packages go without being patched? Read what I said. I was referring to the multiverse and universe repositories. These are not maintained directly by Canonical personnel. From the wiki (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu): he components are called Main (officially supported software), Restricted (supported software that is not available under a completely free license), Universe (community-maintained, i.e. not officially supported software) and Multiverse (software that is "not free"). My complaint is that these are enabled by default (or silently enabled at some point during the first few hours of use of the system--I can't honestly speak to which without making a new install), yet they are unmaintained (i.e. old and buggy versions of the software) in many cases. I wouldn't expect Canonical to maintain software in Universe or Multiverse--if they were maintaining them, they should be in one of the official repos. Instead, they shouldn't be enabled by default, where an unsuspecting user might find himself with old, buggy software. I'll state it again--software in Universe and Multiverse aren't held to a high enough standard to be included in the default.
It's not apples-to-apples because backwards compatibility is expected.
Anyway, saying "Linux sucks," is rarely actually a statement on the quality of Linux, and more a personal opinion statement about operating system choice based upon the total experience. People just tend to say "X sucks" because it's short.
Of course, I guess this could extend as deeply as you want to go. "Linux sucks because the quality of the code is deficient in many, many modules." "Linux sucks because it doesn't have a stable API, and kernel drivers must always be recompiled when upgrading minor kernel versions." "Linux sucks because it doesn't fix hardware flaws in the most recent Intel chipset." At what point is it okay to say "Linux sucks"?
Of course, all of this depends upon the third-party developers who target the Linux operating system actually having a repository.
Anyway, Linux is all about the extremes. If the package is in one of the default repositories, it's a breeze to install. If it's not, your average user probably isn't going to be able to install it. Tarballs just aren't easy for the neophyte, and usually you need special -dev libraries in order to build the software. The -dev libraries aren't usually included when you install binary packages, so the user is going to have a heck of a time getting things to work.
Lots of software in the universe and multiverse repositories isn't kept up-to-date. This can be pretty annoying. Off the top of my head, I always have to work extra hard to get Valknut and Pan (newsreader) to their newest versions (with the former, I compile several packages from source, and with the latter, I go to the website where I get the up-to-date debs.)
In emulation, Virtualbox also isn't in any of the repositories, (well, the open source version is, but it doesn't include a lot of the niceties that come with the less free version.) Wine is never at the newest version whenever I look for it, and the newer versions tend to include lots of compatibility updates. Cedega requires extra work, too. For transitioning people to Linux, software like this is essential.
For the longest time, GAIM wasn't up-to-date--or I should say, Pidgin wasn't available.
The Multiverse and Universe repositories aren't held to any particular standard, yet they are now apparently enabled by default (they were on my install from yesterday.) This means that software updates may not be enough to get you up-to-date software. The usability will (probably) be there, but there may be security issues.
Interesting. I'm in the "FreeBSD is for servers, Linux is for Desktops, and Windows is a toy" camp, myself. These days, the list of tasks you can't do in Linux, but that you can do in Windows is pretty small. For home users, it's basically just specific games. There aren't that many home users that buy the highly specialized applications like Photoshop.
Editing movies is one of those holdouts, though. It'd be nice if there was a good (note the emphasis) movie editor on Linux.
Well.. yeah. People tend to be biased towards what they're familiar with. That's why it will take a really long time for Windows or OS X to gain significant ground on Windows. Almost everyone uses Windows, and moving to the unfamiliar is scary.
I haven't used Windows as my primary OS in years, but even around XP, a lot of the old complaints had been addressed. It's pretty damned usable, though niceties like automatic updates for software would be a huge boon.
- cases in the land forces
- cases in the naval forces
- cases in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger.
If you aren't in the militia, it doesn't apply to you. If you're in the militia, but it is not a time of war or public danger, it doesn't apply to you.
You'll never change these people's minds. For the record, I agree with you. The Constitution is quite clear when it refers to citizens and when it refers to persons.
I didn't see the word "citizen" in any of the bits that I quoted. And the word Citizen (capitalized, even) is used liberally throughout the constitution. It seems that the framers were quite clear on when something applied to any person (they used the word 'person') and when they applied to citizens (they used the word 'Citizen.')
2) is something that may need to be decided by the courts. The Constitution is a document enumerating the powers of the federal government. There's no particular reason to believe that, in the below phrase, "person" refers only to "a citizen." No person shall
All of that is without regard to the specific charges at Gitmo, which might be a happy and fun place, full of hugs and bunnies. I'm not arguing anything about Gitmo--I'm specifically refuting you and your statements regarding to whom the Constitution applies.
There's good reason to doubt. Maybe it's all a conspiracy to make us completely unsure of what's real.
Here are some reasons to doubt news stories:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/9592
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36694-2005Mar15.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece
Major news outlets carried falsified stories in order to gauge citizen reaction. Of course, the catch-22 is that if you feel that the above stories might be fake, we're in the same boat--not knowing what to believe.
Sure. And you're still going to be down for 14 days.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
Fourteen days after filing the counter-notice, if the person who filed the takedown notice hasn't filed an actual lawsuit, then the service provider must restore the content.
It's a little worse than that, though. As you may read in the above link, a counter-notice includes identifying information. I could file a DMCA takedown notice claiming copyright infringement in your post. Slashdot would be required (by US law) to remove your post. If you filed a counter-notice, then I get your name and address[1]. If that's all I'm after, I don't even have to bother filing a suit--I've got what I was after.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I dislike all of this.
[1] This is necessary so that I could file a suit if that was what I wanted.
Here's the order of events as I see it.
At this point, Party B still has every right to sue Party A. What has effectively been lost is the ability to have the content removed without a court order. If Party B hadn't gone to the Bahamas, a suit could have been filed. In that case, the service provider would not have been required to restore the material. Regardless of the timing of the notices, Party B can file a lawsuit against Party A.
The counter-notice isn't a tactic to keep from getting sued, it's a means for someone to fight bogus DMCA takedown notices. The idea is that someone filing a false notice with a service provider probably won't go to court with a false copyright claim. Unfortunately, filing a false notice still guarantees that the content will be down for 14 days.
Someone already pointed you to chillingeffects. Here's a direct link to an example:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/02/michael-crook-sends-.html
Although he finally retracted the claim, the damage had already been done (Youtube, following the law, removed a video showing Mr. Crook, despite the fact that he had no claim to the ownership of the video.)
Uri Gellar has done similar things, though to my knowledge, he has not apologized. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/09/eff-sues-uri-geller-.html
So this isn't some crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory. These things have happened. As Cory Doctorow mentions in one of his posts on the subject, "For instance, others might use the same tactic to chill political speech: what better way to see to it that your opponent's campaign ads are yanked from YouTube a week before the elections?"
The takedown notice is only even marginally acceptable when considered with the counter-notice. It's still all too easy to abuse. Like it or not, perjury convictions just aren't commonly sought. It's virtually a worthless threat.
The DMCA allows for takedown notices without anything but the author's word that copyright was infringed. Before that, different techniques were used (my understanding, at least.)
The material must be restored, but that doesn't mean that a lawsuit cannot still be filed.