I just installed SSH1 v1.2.27 last night on a new machine. I got lazy and installed via a SRPM, and didn't do anything more than 'rpm --rebuild./ssh-1_2_27-5us_src.rpm'. It's uses RSAREF. Bummer.
So if you start putting credits in software, what happens when a new version comes out but some of the people who have worked on the software have moved on or left the company altogether? Do they stay in the credits? After all, some portion of the software is a result of their efforts. It's a sticky question, and the list of credits can get really huge depending on your answer.
So you have to draw the line somewhere. When an engineering effort gets big, it can become unwieldy just to list all the current workers, much left those who've moved on. What do you do: list them all, just the current people, or nobody at all? It's easiest to list nobody.
Take a look at the credits for Eudora Pro sometime when you're bored (and if you're really bored, hold down the ctrl key while the list of names is scrolling by). Some of the people listed there haven't worked at Qualcomm for years. But they've been left in because some part of themselves went into Eudora.
Leaving them in is fine by me -- they were all part of the same big family. But maybe Apple doesn't think that way anymore. Maybe Jobs is just making sure he has one less thing to worry about. Either way, it's not much of an issue.
I researched this question long and hard, and finally found the best solution. I've got anywhere from 4 to 8 computers of varying OS'es in my computer room at any one time, and not enough monitors (or electrical outlets). I wanted one decent monitor (the Sony CPD-G500), one keyboard (I've got a stack of genuine IBM Selectric keyboards from the 80's) and one mouse for all of them (without relying on forwarding X11 packets). So I looked for KVM switches.
After asking the guys at work (the Eudora software lab at Qualcomm has about 50 computers in it, and many KVM switches), I finally found the best switch: the 4 port MasterView Plus Switch from Aten.
It has an amazing resolution (1920 x 1440 @ 75Hz -- take a long look at the resolution/refresh rate of other switches), and drives my high-res monitor perfectly (the Belkin I borrowed from work forced me into 1280 x 1024, which is not why I paid US$1200 for my monitor; the display also seemed fuzzy, which sucked). It's a smart switch, meaning you can reboot a machine without having to switch to that machine (the keyboard/mouse are kept active, so the machine thinks it has what it needs). It does PS/2 and serial mice/keyboards, and the lights on front also tell you what machine you're using. Another very cool feature is that it will even keep the capslock/numlock/scroll lock status the same when you switch between machines.
And to top it all off it has the coolest accessory of any KVM switch ever: a stainless steel foot pedal switch. You'll really like this. If you are the type that uses keyboard shortcuts, you'll really impress your friends with the foot switch. Your hands never leave the keyboard. I've even got my Aten KVM switch tucked out of sight, and it doesn't bug me at all because I can hit the pedal when I need to switch. It's very cool.
Get the Aten, you'll like it a lot. It's fairly pricey (about US$250), but worth it.
If they competed like that on everything, I wouldn't have a problem with it
This is exactly my point. One of my other home PCs has a microsoft mouse that has been in action for the last seven years. I've since bought plenty of MS mice because they work very well. MS mice are not my only choice, though. I own a few different brands of mice, and I tend to favor (and buy) Logitech.
The thing is, MS is going to have to compete real soon. That's why I don't like the Gov't meddling in the marketplace. Linux and MacOS and FreeBSD are all viable alternatives. People (like me and you) are starting to use those alternatives. So pretty soon, you'll see a selection on the OS shelf that looks a lot like the selection on the keyboard shelf. And if you want MS -- for whatever reason - then buy it. If not, buy the other one. Vote with your dollars and buy what you want.
The funny part is that with no Gov't intervention at all, we seem to have a large range of choices in things like mice and keyboards. Nobody bitches, and the system works very well. People buy a keyboard they like. That's what I want to see happen to the OS market.
And it won't take a judge to tell Compaq to unbundle Windows to do it. It'll take consumers like you and me to tell them that we want Prolineas without Windows on them. We want to be able to say "I'm buying your best server. Put Linux on it, because that's what I need and that's what I'm willing to pay for." And that's what you'll get. Without a judge making rules about how many servers Compaq can sell with Windows vs. Linux, or whatever.
If you sell things, then you listen to what buyers say. Some judge tells you what buyers say, and you think that helps? No. Buyers have to say it -- people like you and me. I'm going to buy an MS product if that's what I need. And I don't want the Gov't getting in the way of that. And I'm going to buy a Linux or AMD or whatever product if that's what I need. And I don't want any guff from the DoJ about it. They don't understand my needs, and they can't think for me.
I want to think for myself, without any arbitrary rules imposed on the marketplace. Government's job is to make a level playing field -- sink or swim, we don't care. The finding of fact pre-empts that notion. Linux seems to be doing pretty well without any Gov't rulings. The playing field is plenty level, and there can be more than one winner. MS just has to get used to this fact.
I know that's a Bad Thing to say, but I want to first mention that I'm saying it from a Linux machine with zero Intel/MS components. I'm a firm believer in Linux and OSS. I am also a firm believer in free trade and capitalism. And I'm a card-carrying Libertarian.
Allow me to explain whay the Fed should stay out of MS's business practices. Basically, it boils down to market forces. When Ma Bell broke up, everyone thought it was going to be low prices and better services for everyone. But now look what's happened: A bunch of little companies have sprung up and become successful. And have then been bought out. The break up took the big fish and made many little fish. Now the biggest of those little fish are eating the small ones, getting bigger. And we're coming back to one big fish again. How much of your voice/data traffic travles over lines owned my MCI/Worldcom/Sprint? Yeah.
The bottom line is that the market has spoken: We like the stuff MS makes. It's sad but true. No matter what, it comes down to MS has used the free market to get their stuff on top and the Gov't has no business second-guessing those market dynamics. People have voted with their dollars, and MS has won. Setting aside possible illegalities like surreptiously licensing software and then squashing the author's company (and cases like that should be handled like any other case where a company breaks the law), MS has used the free market system to get their products at the top. And they might even be inferior products, but it doesn't matter! Nobody says that the best thing has to be the most widely sold thing!
Do I think MS is a monopoly? Three years ago, I would have said yes. But now I use Linux on the desktop more than MS, so I'm not so sure. I'm probably a statistical anomaly, but even stll we have plenty of choice these days. MS is getting to be less and les a monopoly, because people are voting with their dollars, like they should! We don't need the DoJ to tell us what the market should be like. We need to do it ourselves. That's the way things are supposed work in a free market economy! When the Fed steps in like they did, the market becomes less and less free. The Gov't is making choices for you, and that is never a good thing.
Anyway, there's the rant. I'm going to keep influencing the market the way it should be influenced. I'm going to keep writing letters to software companies telling them I would love to buy a Linux port of their products. I'm going to continue to buy Red Hat CDs. I'm going to continue to pay for commercial Linux software, and continue to tell game companies that Loki is going to eat their lunch if they don't get on the bandwagon. I don't trust the Gov't to do the thinking for me, so I'm going to keep on thinking for myself and voting with my dollars and you all should do the same.
Yesterday was a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice.
Paul couldn't have been more correct. Every market needs competition, and AMD is it (RIP Cyrix, WinChip). But there's more to it than just dollars and investors and such.
AMD is important from an idealogical standpoint. I have two Linux boxes at home that have zero Intel or Microsoft components in them. And I like that very much. Every time I use those machines, I'm reminded that I voted for choice with my dollars, and that keeps me voting (like the $3500 ballot I cast when I bought the parts for my K7/600 system a couple weeks ago).
I don't like serialized CPUs. I don't like strong-arm, quasi-legal, neo-soviet business tactics. I don't like to be told what I want. I don't like paying a mint for CPUs just so I can fund some mindless "Our CPU makes the Internet better" campaign.
You like giving Micros~1 the finger? Well Intel ain't much better than them. So give them the finger too and get AMD and Via and Linux all together. If you do, you're casting your vote for freedom, choice, quality, advancing technology and lower prices.
P.S. The "major motherboard manufacturer" the Ars article mentioned is Asus and the mobo in question is called the K7M. Gamer's Depot has a review, as do many other sites. See AMD Zone for more news about all things AMD. And slota.com has a complete list of all the Slot A motherboards. Which makes it an interesting comparision to AMD's list.
Paul couldn't have been more correct. Every market needs competition, and AMD is it (RIP Cyrix, WinChip). But there's more to it than just dollars and investors and such. AMD is important from an idealogical standpoint. I have two Linux boxes at home that have zero Intel or Microsoft components in them. And I like that very much. Every time I use those machines, I'm reminded that I voted for choice with my dollars, and that keeps me voting (like the $3500 ballot I cast when I bought the parts for my K7/600 system a couple weeks ago). I don't like serialized CPUs. I don't like strong-arm, quasi-legal, neo-soviet business tactics. I don't like to be told what I want. I don't like paying a mint for CPUs just so I can fund some mindless "Our CPU makes the Internet better" campaign. You like giving Micros~1 the finger? Well Intel ain't much better than them. So give them the finger too and get AMD and Via and Linux all together. If you do, you're casting your vote for freedom, choice, quality, advancing technology and lower prices. P.S. The "major motherboard manufacturer" the Ars article mentioned is Asus and the mobo in question is called the K7M. Gamer's Depot has a review, as do many other sites. See AMD Zone for more news about all things AMD. And slota.com has a complete list of all the Slot A motherboards. Which makes it an interesting comparision to AMD's list.
OK, this may sound flippant, but I have to say it: If we don't have all the keys we need, how about getting something like distributed.net going? Someone cabbage together a linux client that takes a shot at brute-forcing the keys used to decode DVDs. I can't think of a better -- and more applicable -- use of my spare Linux cycles.
Of course, I haven't actually read the DVD spec, so I may be talking out ass.
I know that this has nothing to do with anything, but did anyone else but me notice that there were waaaaaaay too many hyphens in that article? I swear, it was hyphen-fu. Here's a taste:
Essentially, the new company--code-named VCellar--will target Internet hosts and data-center providers, which would offer this back-end platform to dot-com start-ups.
There ought to be a law prohibiting anyone from writing or saying the phrase "dot-com" anywhere. Marketing people (especially those that try too hard, you know, technically) need help in a biochemical way. They need off this kick. They, like papa, need a brand new bag. Pronto super fast.
Otherwise, I thought the article had nothing novel to offer.
Of course, that doesn't compare too well with the Linux source, but pound for pound plenty of prurient pontification.
(BTW, have any of you tried to enter source code in a/. post before? It's ironic that it can't really be done -- all the indentation gets stripped. Someone tell CmdrTaco that he needs to allow tags in HTML posts.)
I think the author had some good points, but he missed a big one: the MacOS still coddles the user in a way that is every bit as bad as any Microsoft OS. MacOS and Windows share the same attitude toward the user in that they claim know what you want so you don't need to worry about the details. It's a very good reason to not use either OS, and why they are roughly equally bad.
There's just not much real configurability with either OS. And at times, it can be downright insulting. "File extensions? You don't need to bother with those, because you'll only be dealing with other Macs and they'll know what file you're talking about." "Long file names? Sure, Windows has them -- Windows is really 32-bit!" It's ultimately a decision between Sherlock and the paper clip. Either OS lets anybody's mother -- no offense, Mom -- start using the computer as soon as it powers on. And that may be fine for some people. But not for me. I don't need to be insulted by my OS, and I like a learning experience.
I want an OS that is stable, powerful and configurable (free is good too). I want an OS that lets me tune it and tweak it to just where I want it for just the reasons I want. I want an OS that makes zero attempts at thinking for me. An OS that gives me plenty of tools -- that gives me a fishing pole instead of a fish, so to speak. And an OS that does all that and still lets you peek under the hood at your heart's content is icing on the cake.
For me, that's Linux. And it's why I've been moving to Linux as my desktop OS for the past couple years ("Linux: It's not just for servers anymore."). Linux is not insulting. Linux doesn't coddle me, or pretend to know what I want. It doesn't try to be everything to everyone, or try to be insultingly cute in the name of "useability" (has anyone got MS Bob to run on NT Server yet?). Sure, FreeBSD fits the bill too; hell, so does OpenDOS for that matter. And if you want to go that direction, more power to you.
No matter which way you go, you'll start "thinking different" (adverb intentionally ommitted), because you'll actually have to start thinking once you start using. In contrast to the Mac, in which case no thinking -- different or otherwise -- is required at all.
I've tried real hard to use Java lately, but it's just hasn't worked out.
Recently I was asked to create a new client/server system using HTTP (yes, it had to be HTTP). And that system has to respond to huge loads and many thousand connections/second. So I thought of Java servlets. And then I thought I would see what was out there in the way of an IDE and such. I was not impressed. Everything I looked at pretty much sucked.
Java is real nice and all, but I'm still waiting to see what the point is. There are no good tools, Sun doesn't know what it wants, MS keeps subverting everything in the name of marketing hype, and people keep trying to find a niche for something (Java) that was needlessly invented. (Anyone remember Kim Polese and how "push technolgy" was going to revolutionize your world? She's still trying to find a product that can live up to the hype her investors have paid her for...)
Anyway, it's a chicken and egg thing. Better tools mean better apps. The best Java IDE anyone could find was written in Java. That's a very scary thing to think about. Sun should dump the tools onto someone who cares (and who'll write the IDE in ANSI C). Then maybe we'll have a language (and apps) worth the hype.
The only reason that I have a Win32 machine at all is for games. I've got five computers in my office, and only one has a FAT32 partition on it. Got Solaris, got FreeBSD, got Linux, yep. And none of them machines can play games when my brother-in-law wants to play online (except Kingpin and Quake2/3, which run just fine in spite of my Voodoo3 graphics adapter and no damn official Linux support for it).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux needs games (and the ease of use required to sell/market those games).
What's driven hardware and software innovation the most in the last five years? Games. Admit it. If none of this 3D crap would have come out, I would have been fine on my 386/25. Once I saw Doom, I had to have a 486. And so on. But none of that wanting involved Linux, even though I was a big Slackware user back then. Because Linux was for work, and Windows was for games. Hell, if Commodore hadn't tanked, I'd have probably become a developer for Amigas.
Linux needs games. Not the desktop... right now anyway. Servers for onlines gaems is where it's at for the next year or so. Don't wanna fuss with Mesa, but want Quake3? No sweat, a dedicated server is for you. But no: you can't run Q3 as a dedicated server easily. Much fussing is required, and it sucks.
But what if most online games came with special provisions for Linux machines as servers? What if game software companies made it especially easy to run an online Linux server of each game they distribute? You'd have 14 year old kids clamoring for new Linux machines. And 32-year-old kids like me as well.
Make the preferred server for an online game a Linux server, and the desktop will follow. That's what I'm saying. We'd have demand, and we'd have drivers and we'd have industry support. And we need it.
...if Compaq decided to give back instead of cash in? It's plain that they (like many others) are looking at Linux as a fad they can make money from rather than a better way of doing things. In a way, I don't mind so much, because the more they cash in on Linux, the more Linux there is and I think that's a Good Thing.
But the USB deal is just one of many things that is keeping Linux from taking greater hold in the desktop market. Once Linux gets things like more games, USB, cutting edge hardware/driver support, etc. then people will consider Linux as a viable alternative to Windows or Mac. I think this is an important step in the evolution of the OS. If Comapq could see their way clear to releasing some code for their USB implementation, then it would certainly help, and others might follow their lead.
I'd really like to see a big name company like Compaq seriously embrace Linux and give back what it develops.
They haven't given us the program, they haven't given us the source, they haven't even told us how the thing works. Dimension says that they don't want to give it out. What the hell is up with that?!? I think we should hold off on any dancing for joy until they follow cDc-ish "protocol" and release something besides announcementware.
I tend to take unsubstantiated claims with a grain of salt. And I can't help but wonder why they won't at least give out the app. Something is fishy...
The goal isn't to have Linux be a success, but to have a free OS be a success. If Linux becomes successful, but becomes Windows in the process, we all lose.
I don't think so. At this point, all I care about is using a PC (and a server) that doesn't crash every five minutes. I could really care less if Linux was free or not -- as in either speech or beer. I just want an OS that works (this is one of the reasons why I like Solaris). If it attracts developers -- and therefore software, drivers, etc. -- then all the better. If it takes making money in order to do this, then so be it.
The fact that the OS which is coming up in the world happens to be GPLed is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; I love a free OS in all senses of the word. But I'd also pay money for a better mousetrap. Linux works very well, and it does what I need it to do. It happens to be free, but if the GPL expired tomorrow and Linux became proprietary, I'd still use it. Because it works, and that's where the traction is.
This may sound strange, but I don't care if Red Hat becomes the next Microsoft. As long as they keep Linux moving forward, then I win. If the IPO helps them do this, then the IPO was a good thing.
I know that some people see OSS, Linux, GNU, whatever as a sort of religion. And these people get squirrely when things start moving into the mainstream and getting "corporate-ized". But this is what it will take to get Linux and OSS into position to replace (or at least augment) NT and the like. In a way, it legitimizes Linux in a lot of people's eyes. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
IT managers need to see things like an IPO and articles in the Wall Street Journal about Red Hat -- it gets Linux and OSS on their radar. And they start wondering what this whole Linux thing is about. And they read InfoWorld or Wired and start getting a clue. They start feeling a little better about Linux because they've "heard about it". So when a tech decides to download(!) a freely available OS which comes with zero support (and zero culpability should something go wrong) and use it in mission critical applications, the PHBs won't get the screaming willies. To them, Linux can be taken seriously now because of things like the Red Hat IPO. Red Hat and Linux have now become "real" to the PHBs.
Anyway, I could go on about how Linux was the red-headed stepchild of the corporate OS world, but you get the point. The bottom line is that the IPO goes a long way toward guaranteeing that Linux will become a success. And that means Linux will not just live, but grow. And that means we all get a better Linux.
If the IPO gets just a handful of developers off the MFC tit, then we all come out ahead in the long run -- no matter what philosophical issues we might have about Red Hat making money off OSS. Let them make all the money they can, I say.
I think you're way off base when you say that OSS doesn't put food on the table. OK, so there's no Linux, Inc. that hires 30K people, but that doesn't mean that the spin-off business has no effect on people's lives.
My mother's store is about to use a completely OSS "solution" to put her internal network online (this will allow her to work at home, which will save her money). Later, she plans to phase in a real-time e-commerce system. She'll hire three people to set that up, and then a bunch more to do things like shipping/receiving, system admin, inventory control, buying, etc. And this is going to be done completely non-Wintel (Linux/AMD/Via for those of you who are curious). OSS will start feeding more people real soon.
Could an MS system have done the same thing? Sure, by all means. In fact, mom would probably need to hire even more people to take care of a Windows environment since it wouldn't be as stable. But on the other hand, she would need to pay more money for the software and hardware, so maybe she wouldn't be able to hire anyone at all. Her budget is pretty tight, and using OSS will allow her to get off the ground with very little up-front costs.
So dig this possibility: if it wasn't for OSS and low-cost/free software, she wouldn't be able to expand her business, and the opportunity cost in jobs would be at least a dozen people. Assuming this is the case, you're now more than wrong.
You can install RH via ftp. I do this from inside my local network at home (I just have this habit of turning old hardware into Linux boxes). But you have to use a different disk image for network installs (you use bootnet.img instead of just boot.img when you make the boot floppy). However, I certainly would hesitate to do an FTP install over the Net, especially when a new version of something comes out. I've never had much luck with that.
Having said that, I found the Fez deal to be interesting (I only went through part of it, but it looks like a normal RH install process). But it struck me as dumb that they don't give you an option to kickstart an FTP install (assuming such a thing is possible). It would be really easy for me to just take the new machine, plug it onto my hub and fire away. That other guy mentioned that he doesn't have a floppy drive, and I always seem to have a shortage of old CDROM drives -- it's a pain to rip out a CD drive and install it just to do a RH install. And installing via 100Mbps Ethernet is way faster than an old CDROM anyway.
Fez does allow you to install via NFS, but I don't think that's as handy as an FTP install. It isn't for me anyway. Although I probably ought to have installed and set up NFS by now...
It is an honor, priviledge and right of every citizen familiar with HTML, Java, JavaScript, VBScript, COM objects, IIS filters and ASP applications, as well as music, video and photo digitalization process, to participate in building of Cyber Yugoslavia.
I'm not a lawyer, but read the wording of the second to last sentence in their "agreement" carefully:
By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.
The only trouble is, you see that statement after you've already submitted the query! I may be picking nits here, but when I first read the notice on the/. front page, I went to one of my open ssh windows and did a whois on eudora.com. Then I read the "agreement". How could I have possibly agreed to it before I read the terms?!?
So what, you might say. So I have scripts -- like many other people -- that use the whois db info in a "repackaged" format. And most run without my intervention and have been for a while. So am I now in violation of their agreement? Hell, I may not even know where some of those scripts are anymore! (Possibly a slight exaggeration, but you see the point.)
All I'm trying to say is that their "agreement" seems spurious and can't possibly be binding. I mean, who is agreeing to the terms of the "agreement" if the whois db info is being slurped by a script? The author of the software? Yeah, right. Try that one, and I'm suing MS for a mint. OK, maybe the user account that the script runs under? I'd love to see NSI try to sue nobody@lazlo.qualcomm.com. They going to sue my company? I hope they have a lot of lawyers and a lot of money; there's got to be plenty of companies doing the same thing.
The hell with NSI, I say. Seriously, what is wrong with people these days?
Slashdot Mirror
-B
So you have to draw the line somewhere. When an engineering effort gets big, it can become unwieldy just to list all the current workers, much left those who've moved on. What do you do: list them all, just the current people, or nobody at all? It's easiest to list nobody.
Take a look at the credits for Eudora Pro sometime when you're bored (and if you're really bored, hold down the ctrl key while the list of names is scrolling by). Some of the people listed there haven't worked at Qualcomm for years. But they've been left in because some part of themselves went into Eudora.
Leaving them in is fine by me -- they were all part of the same big family. But maybe Apple doesn't think that way anymore. Maybe Jobs is just making sure he has one less thing to worry about. Either way, it's not much of an issue.
-B
After asking the guys at work (the Eudora software lab at Qualcomm has about 50 computers in it, and many KVM switches), I finally found the best switch: the 4 port MasterView Plus Switch from Aten.
It has an amazing resolution (1920 x 1440 @ 75Hz -- take a long look at the resolution/refresh rate of other switches), and drives my high-res monitor perfectly (the Belkin I borrowed from work forced me into 1280 x 1024, which is not why I paid US$1200 for my monitor; the display also seemed fuzzy, which sucked). It's a smart switch, meaning you can reboot a machine without having to switch to that machine (the keyboard/mouse are kept active, so the machine thinks it has what it needs). It does PS/2 and serial mice/keyboards, and the lights on front also tell you what machine you're using. Another very cool feature is that it will even keep the capslock/numlock/scroll lock status the same when you switch between machines.
And to top it all off it has the coolest accessory of any KVM switch ever: a stainless steel foot pedal switch. You'll really like this. If you are the type that uses keyboard shortcuts, you'll really impress your friends with the foot switch. Your hands never leave the keyboard. I've even got my Aten KVM switch tucked out of sight, and it doesn't bug me at all because I can hit the pedal when I need to switch. It's very cool.
Get the Aten, you'll like it a lot. It's fairly pricey (about US$250), but worth it.
-B
This is exactly my point. One of my other home PCs has a microsoft mouse that has been in action for the last seven years. I've since bought plenty of MS mice because they work very well. MS mice are not my only choice, though. I own a few different brands of mice, and I tend to favor (and buy) Logitech.
The thing is, MS is going to have to compete real soon. That's why I don't like the Gov't meddling in the marketplace. Linux and MacOS and FreeBSD are all viable alternatives. People (like me and you) are starting to use those alternatives. So pretty soon, you'll see a selection on the OS shelf that looks a lot like the selection on the keyboard shelf. And if you want MS -- for whatever reason - then buy it. If not, buy the other one. Vote with your dollars and buy what you want.
The funny part is that with no Gov't intervention at all, we seem to have a large range of choices in things like mice and keyboards. Nobody bitches, and the system works very well. People buy a keyboard they like. That's what I want to see happen to the OS market.
And it won't take a judge to tell Compaq to unbundle Windows to do it. It'll take consumers like you and me to tell them that we want Prolineas without Windows on them. We want to be able to say "I'm buying your best server. Put Linux on it, because that's what I need and that's what I'm willing to pay for." And that's what you'll get. Without a judge making rules about how many servers Compaq can sell with Windows vs. Linux, or whatever.
If you sell things, then you listen to what buyers say. Some judge tells you what buyers say, and you think that helps? No. Buyers have to say it -- people like you and me. I'm going to buy an MS product if that's what I need. And I don't want the Gov't getting in the way of that. And I'm going to buy a Linux or AMD or whatever product if that's what I need. And I don't want any guff from the DoJ about it. They don't understand my needs, and they can't think for me.
I want to think for myself, without any arbitrary rules imposed on the marketplace. Government's job is to make a level playing field -- sink or swim, we don't care. The finding of fact pre-empts that notion. Linux seems to be doing pretty well without any Gov't rulings. The playing field is plenty level, and there can be more than one winner. MS just has to get used to this fact.
-B
Allow me to explain whay the Fed should stay out of MS's business practices. Basically, it boils down to market forces. When Ma Bell broke up, everyone thought it was going to be low prices and better services for everyone. But now look what's happened: A bunch of little companies have sprung up and become successful. And have then been bought out. The break up took the big fish and made many little fish. Now the biggest of those little fish are eating the small ones, getting bigger. And we're coming back to one big fish again. How much of your voice/data traffic travles over lines owned my MCI/Worldcom/Sprint? Yeah.
The bottom line is that the market has spoken: We like the stuff MS makes. It's sad but true. No matter what, it comes down to MS has used the free market to get their stuff on top and the Gov't has no business second-guessing those market dynamics. People have voted with their dollars, and MS has won. Setting aside possible illegalities like surreptiously licensing software and then squashing the author's company (and cases like that should be handled like any other case where a company breaks the law), MS has used the free market system to get their products at the top. And they might even be inferior products, but it doesn't matter! Nobody says that the best thing has to be the most widely sold thing!
Do I think MS is a monopoly? Three years ago, I would have said yes. But now I use Linux on the desktop more than MS, so I'm not so sure. I'm probably a statistical anomaly, but even stll we have plenty of choice these days. MS is getting to be less and les a monopoly, because people are voting with their dollars, like they should! We don't need the DoJ to tell us what the market should be like. We need to do it ourselves. That's the way things are supposed work in a free market economy! When the Fed steps in like they did, the market becomes less and less free. The Gov't is making choices for you, and that is never a good thing.
Anyway, there's the rant. I'm going to keep influencing the market the way it should be influenced. I'm going to keep writing letters to software companies telling them I would love to buy a Linux port of their products. I'm going to continue to buy Red Hat CDs. I'm going to continue to pay for commercial Linux software, and continue to tell game companies that Loki is going to eat their lunch if they don't get on the bandwagon. I don't trust the Gov't to do the thinking for me, so I'm going to keep on thinking for myself and voting with my dollars and you all should do the same.
Yesterday was a sad day for freedom and liberty and personal choice.
-B
For my money, the Green Building as a VU meter is the most impressive, the cop car on the dome the most humorous.
Anyway, I thought it was sad that true great hacks got no mention.
-B
AMD is important from an idealogical standpoint. I have two Linux boxes at home that have zero Intel or Microsoft components in them. And I like that very much. Every time I use those machines, I'm reminded that I voted for choice with my dollars, and that keeps me voting (like the $3500 ballot I cast when I bought the parts for my K7/600 system a couple weeks ago).
I don't like serialized CPUs. I don't like strong-arm, quasi-legal, neo-soviet business tactics. I don't like to be told what I want. I don't like paying a mint for CPUs just so I can fund some mindless "Our CPU makes the Internet better" campaign.
You like giving Micros~1 the finger? Well Intel ain't much better than them. So give them the finger too and get AMD and Via and Linux all together. If you do, you're casting your vote for freedom, choice, quality, advancing technology and lower prices.
P.S. The "major motherboard manufacturer" the Ars article mentioned is Asus and the mobo in question is called the K7M. Gamer's Depot has a review, as do many other sites. See AMD Zone for more news about all things AMD. And slota.com has a complete list of all the Slot A motherboards. Which makes it an interesting comparision to AMD's list.
-B
-B
If you do use junkbuster, comment out the following lines from the blocklist file:
-B
Of course, I haven't actually read the DVD spec, so I may be talking out ass.
-B
There ought to be a law prohibiting anyone from writing or saying the phrase "dot-com" anywhere. Marketing people (especially those that try too hard, you know, technically) need help in a biochemical way. They need off this kick. They, like papa, need a brand new bag. Pronto super fast.
Otherwise, I thought the article had nothing novel to offer.
-B
[wrhodes@dt032nc0 linuxdoom-1.10]$ cat
19
static fuck = 0;
fprintf(stderr, "fuck %d \r", fuck++);
"fuck you, pussy!\nget the fuck out!",
"hey, ron! can we say\n'fuck' in the game?",
"suck it down, asshole!\nyou're a fucking wimp!",
boolean message_dontfuckwithme;
static boolean message_nottobefuckedwith;
message_dontfuckwithme = false;
message_nottobefuckedwith = false;
message_nottobefuckedwith = false;
if (showMessages || message_dontfuckwithme)
if ((plr->message && !message_nottobefuckedwith)
|| (plr->message && message_dontfuckwithme))
message_nottobefuckedwith = message_dontfuckwithme;
message_dontfuckwithme = 0;
message_nottobefuckedwith = true;
extern boolean message_dontfuckwithme;
message_dontfuckwithme = true;
[wrhodes@dt032nc0 linuxdoom-1.10]$ cat
5
wipe_shittyColMajorXform
wipe_shittyColMajorXform((short*)wipe_scr_start
wipe_shittyColMajorXform((short*)wipe_scr_end, width/2, height);
// Massive bunches of cheat shit
Of course, that doesn't compare too well with the Linux source, but pound for pound plenty of prurient pontification.
(BTW, have any of you tried to enter source code in a
-B
There's just not much real configurability with either OS. And at times, it can be downright insulting. "File extensions? You don't need to bother with those, because you'll only be dealing with other Macs and they'll know what file you're talking about." "Long file names? Sure, Windows has them -- Windows is really 32-bit!" It's ultimately a decision between Sherlock and the paper clip. Either OS lets anybody's mother -- no offense, Mom -- start using the computer as soon as it powers on. And that may be fine for some people. But not for me. I don't need to be insulted by my OS, and I like a learning experience.
I want an OS that is stable, powerful and configurable (free is good too). I want an OS that lets me tune it and tweak it to just where I want it for just the reasons I want. I want an OS that makes zero attempts at thinking for me. An OS that gives me plenty of tools -- that gives me a fishing pole instead of a fish, so to speak. And an OS that does all that and still lets you peek under the hood at your heart's content is icing on the cake.
For me, that's Linux. And it's why I've been moving to Linux as my desktop OS for the past couple years ("Linux: It's not just for servers anymore."). Linux is not insulting. Linux doesn't coddle me, or pretend to know what I want. It doesn't try to be everything to everyone, or try to be insultingly cute in the name of "useability" (has anyone got MS Bob to run on NT Server yet?). Sure, FreeBSD fits the bill too; hell, so does OpenDOS for that matter. And if you want to go that direction, more power to you.
No matter which way you go, you'll start "thinking different" (adverb intentionally ommitted), because you'll actually have to start thinking once you start using. In contrast to the Mac, in which case no thinking -- different or otherwise -- is required at all.
-B
Recently I was asked to create a new client/server system using HTTP (yes, it had to be HTTP). And that system has to respond to huge loads and many thousand connections/second. So I thought of Java servlets. And then I thought I would see what was out there in the way of an IDE and such. I was not impressed. Everything I looked at pretty much sucked.
Java is real nice and all, but I'm still waiting to see what the point is. There are no good tools, Sun doesn't know what it wants, MS keeps subverting everything in the name of marketing hype, and people keep trying to find a niche for something (Java) that was needlessly invented. (Anyone remember Kim Polese and how "push technolgy" was going to revolutionize your world? She's still trying to find a product that can live up to the hype her investors have paid her for...)
Anyway, it's a chicken and egg thing. Better tools mean better apps. The best Java IDE anyone could find was written in Java. That's a very scary thing to think about. Sun should dump the tools onto someone who cares (and who'll write the IDE in ANSI C). Then maybe we'll have a language (and apps) worth the hype.
-B
The only reason that I have a Win32 machine at all is for games. I've got five computers in my office, and only one has a FAT32 partition on it. Got Solaris, got FreeBSD, got Linux, yep. And none of them machines can play games when my brother-in-law wants to play online (except Kingpin and Quake2/3, which run just fine in spite of my Voodoo3 graphics adapter and no damn official Linux support for it).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux needs games (and the ease of use required to sell/market those games).
What's driven hardware and software innovation the most in the last five years? Games. Admit it. If none of this 3D crap would have come out, I would have been fine on my 386/25. Once I saw Doom, I had to have a 486. And so on. But none of that wanting involved Linux, even though I was a big Slackware user back then. Because Linux was for work, and Windows was for games. Hell, if Commodore hadn't tanked, I'd have probably become a developer for Amigas.
Linux needs games. Not the desktop... right now anyway. Servers for onlines gaems is where it's at for the next year or so. Don't wanna fuss with Mesa, but want Quake3? No sweat, a dedicated server is for you. But no: you can't run Q3 as a dedicated server easily. Much fussing is required, and it sucks.
But what if most online games came with special provisions for Linux machines as servers? What if game software companies made it especially easy to run an online Linux server of each game they distribute? You'd have 14 year old kids clamoring for new Linux machines. And 32-year-old kids like me as well.
Make the preferred server for an online game a Linux server, and the desktop will follow. That's what I'm saying. We'd have demand, and we'd have drivers and we'd have industry support. And we need it.
-B
But the USB deal is just one of many things that is keeping Linux from taking greater hold in the desktop market. Once Linux gets things like more games, USB, cutting edge hardware/driver support, etc. then people will consider Linux as a viable alternative to Windows or Mac. I think this is an important step in the evolution of the OS. If Comapq could see their way clear to releasing some code for their USB implementation, then it would certainly help, and others might follow their lead.
I'd really like to see a big name company like Compaq seriously embrace Linux and give back what it develops.
-B
-B
BTW, who has the pumpkin these days?
-B
I tend to take unsubstantiated claims with a grain of salt. And I can't help but wonder why they won't at least give out the app. Something is fishy...
-B
I don't think so. At this point, all I care about is using a PC (and a server) that doesn't crash every five minutes. I could really care less if Linux was free or not -- as in either speech or beer. I just want an OS that works (this is one of the reasons why I like Solaris). If it attracts developers -- and therefore software, drivers, etc. -- then all the better. If it takes making money in order to do this, then so be it.
The fact that the OS which is coming up in the world happens to be GPLed is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian; I love a free OS in all senses of the word. But I'd also pay money for a better mousetrap. Linux works very well, and it does what I need it to do. It happens to be free, but if the GPL expired tomorrow and Linux became proprietary, I'd still use it. Because it works, and that's where the traction is.
-B
I know that some people see OSS, Linux, GNU, whatever as a sort of religion. And these people get squirrely when things start moving into the mainstream and getting "corporate-ized". But this is what it will take to get Linux and OSS into position to replace (or at least augment) NT and the like. In a way, it legitimizes Linux in a lot of people's eyes. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
IT managers need to see things like an IPO and articles in the Wall Street Journal about Red Hat -- it gets Linux and OSS on their radar. And they start wondering what this whole Linux thing is about. And they read InfoWorld or Wired and start getting a clue. They start feeling a little better about Linux because they've "heard about it". So when a tech decides to download(!) a freely available OS which comes with zero support (and zero culpability should something go wrong) and use it in mission critical applications, the PHBs won't get the screaming willies. To them, Linux can be taken seriously now because of things like the Red Hat IPO. Red Hat and Linux have now become "real" to the PHBs.
Anyway, I could go on about how Linux was the red-headed stepchild of the corporate OS world, but you get the point. The bottom line is that the IPO goes a long way toward guaranteeing that Linux will become a success. And that means Linux will not just live, but grow. And that means we all get a better Linux.
If the IPO gets just a handful of developers off the MFC tit, then we all come out ahead in the long run -- no matter what philosophical issues we might have about Red Hat making money off OSS. Let them make all the money they can, I say.
-B
My mother's store is about to use a completely OSS "solution" to put her internal network online (this will allow her to work at home, which will save her money). Later, she plans to phase in a real-time e-commerce system. She'll hire three people to set that up, and then a bunch more to do things like shipping/receiving, system admin, inventory control, buying, etc. And this is going to be done completely non-Wintel (Linux/AMD/Via for those of you who are curious). OSS will start feeding more people real soon.
Could an MS system have done the same thing? Sure, by all means. In fact, mom would probably need to hire even more people to take care of a Windows environment since it wouldn't be as stable. But on the other hand, she would need to pay more money for the software and hardware, so maybe she wouldn't be able to hire anyone at all. Her budget is pretty tight, and using OSS will allow her to get off the ground with very little up-front costs.
So dig this possibility: if it wasn't for OSS and low-cost/free software, she wouldn't be able to expand her business, and the opportunity cost in jobs would be at least a dozen people. Assuming this is the case, you're now more than wrong.
-B
Having said that, I found the Fez deal to be interesting (I only went through part of it, but it looks like a normal RH install process). But it struck me as dumb that they don't give you an option to kickstart an FTP install (assuming such a thing is possible). It would be really easy for me to just take the new machine, plug it onto my hub and fire away. That other guy mentioned that he doesn't have a floppy drive, and I always seem to have a shortage of old CDROM drives -- it's a pain to rip out a CD drive and install it just to do a RH install. And installing via 100Mbps Ethernet is way faster than an old CDROM anyway.
Fez does allow you to install via NFS, but I don't think that's as handy as an FTP install. It isn't for me anyway. Although I probably ought to have installed and set up NFS by now...
-B
-B
So what, you might say. So I have scripts -- like many other people -- that use the whois db info in a "repackaged" format. And most run without my intervention and have been for a while. So am I now in violation of their agreement? Hell, I may not even know where some of those scripts are anymore! (Possibly a slight exaggeration, but you see the point.)
All I'm trying to say is that their "agreement" seems spurious and can't possibly be binding. I mean, who is agreeing to the terms of the "agreement" if the whois db info is being slurped by a script? The author of the software? Yeah, right. Try that one, and I'm suing MS for a mint. OK, maybe the user account that the script runs under? I'd love to see NSI try to sue nobody@lazlo.qualcomm.com. They going to sue my company? I hope they have a lot of lawyers and a lot of money; there's got to be plenty of companies doing the same thing.
The hell with NSI, I say. Seriously, what is wrong with people these days?
-B
How about widening the box for /. posts? (Or telling newbies they don't have to hit return overly much?)
-B