Heh, seems they have a sense of humor in configure
on
Pidgin 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Funny
checking for NSS... yes checking for snprintf... yes checking for connect... (cached) yes checking for me pot o' gold... no checking for gethostid... yes checking for lrand48... yes checking for memcpy... yes
Man, what an insult to Linux. If Linux were worth half the damn that most people here think it is, it should have 20% of the PC market already, much less by 10 years from now. Given how much people trash Microsoft here and talk about how Linux/OSS is so superior, why is Linux/OSS so slow that it'd take 10 years to get to 20% of where Microsoft is TODAY?;)
This is one of the few times i can say, i honestly don't know if you're trolling or not, and i don't mean that in any way an insult. Maybe it's a statement to your relative subtlety;)
People like things simple, but many things are complex. OS adoption is determined by many factors, technical excellence just being one of them. Consider something "simple" as price?
Software cost.
software perceived cost (With windows, its usually baked in with the "Microsoft tax")
Hardware to support my software cost (do drivers exist for my OS or do i have to do research and buy something)
Support cost: who do i call if something goes bad? Who can come over to my house? We're all MS's great unpaid IS support staff.
I could got on for a paragraph or two just on price alone. Early adoption is done by people who have a whole different class of requirements than the mass market. The fact that Linux is going into the mass market at all is a testament to its usefulness.
Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.
Though the name SCO probably deserves better than they're getting, even oldSCO wasn't that great of a company. They made a semi-decent for the time port of UNIX to x86, but never improved it and as time wore on showed it lacked features and was generally ugly. They never improved it in the face of not one but many free alternatives that were better on features price and support. They had an initial advantage of a sort of vendor lock-in but instead of capitalizing on this and improving their code base they milked the cash cow until it ran dry. I'd shed more tears over Digital, at least a place where they had a history of innovation with the VAX, Alpha, OSF/1, and some others.
1) it's a linux project, not a Linux Distro. It's a security adjunct to Linux.
umm, ok, so why is there a government linux project?....
2) Hacking has gone from the script kidd13z messing with n00bs to a huge business of DOS and industrial espionage. Its really hard to mandate security, but if you make it simple and easy to use, you might make things more secure.
1) the command actually is wrong. It should be perl -i -p -e s/id\:5\:in/id\:3\:in//etc/inittab Just a minor typo, as written, would miss the current default and wouldnt do anything at all to your files.
That's a pretty obscure command. There's no simpler way to not boot X11? I've never run RH.
2) unfortunately no. This is where xdm is spawned, by init, as directed by/etc/inittab. It actually makes more sense when you edit by hand. What you're really doing is switching the default runlevel, from 5 (not 6 as GP post) to 3. xdm is spawned in runlevel 5.
Much like the POSIX compatibility layer originally in WinNT. Effectively worthless as an implementation, it did allow them to get contracts that required POSIX compliance.
it's possible that your head remained relatively steady in a single location, but your center of gravity followed a normal parabolic motion. It depends on how your legs/arms were located and how they were rising/falling during this sequence.
Remember Jordan taking off from the free throw line in the dunk contest? he had to stretch his legs out to make the dunk, effectively changing his center of gravity relative to his outstretched arm on the "flight" path, allowing him to reach for the dunk. And create a cool logo.
Most US advances are not made with government money. It just doesn't work that way. Look towards the corporations leading the edges of technology to see what is really getting done that applicable to everyday life./quote>
Netscape browser, born as Mosaic, made by University students at a government funded, land grant institution.
Al Gore never said it. It's a sound bite that, though magnified his role somewhat, was wildly twisted for election purposes. Politicians know people never check primary sources.
> What do you dislike about it? My biggest issue is that i can take a perfectly working piece of code and open and save in my text editor, and depending on if my editor handles tab/hard tab differently than yours does, break working code. From the many people at my work who use python and love it, this seems more theoretical than actually encountered in practice, but is a real risk.
Yes, this "number of syscalls is proportional to number of possible exploits" is false, but your reasoning is flawed as well.
One thing i haven't seen people say is that syscalls don't go through a normal parameter passing mechanism. No stack overflows because there is no stack, at least not shared between user and kernel space.
Backwards compatibility has huge costs, one of them is security. Supporting those apps with 8.3 filename limits, and 3 or 4 different ways of accessing the file system, all mean there is a lot more around to go wrong.
As someone who followed the Apache 1.2 line (the one where someone contributed some code to let it compile on Windows) i remember the huge amount of security bugs due to 8.3 and LongFileName issues (e.g. you block something based on a longfilename, but someone requests its 8.3 equivalent, and it goes through).. The entire 1.2 lifecycle was unusable on Windows because of the security bugs, though it provided great insight into Windows for 1.3 and more importantly the 2.0 line.
1) Interestingly enough, the grandparent post was a Linux troll, and you responded about MS.
2) Whether or not you like MS (and i don't really, though i grudgingly call them useful at times) they weren't really lucky. They seized opportunities others didn't see, capitalized on other's mistakes, relentlessly focussed on how to usurp their competitors and steal their customers, saw the value of network effects and also leverage their dominance in one area to another. None of it was real luck. Though he likes to think of himself as a technical genius (which i don't really) Bill Gates really is a business genius, a true shark amongst techs without business acumen, and used it to amass a huge fortune.
MS strongarm tactics require them to have a market dominance in some field. At one time, MS was just another company, smaller than Lotus and others. Yet they grew to where they now can use strongarm tactics. They bought code from others, polished it, made it work together very well (to the exclusion of others) and make a lot of money from that.
As far as marketing, their consumer marketing really sucks. Seeing an ad saying "WOW" really isn't making me want to buy Vista. The dinosaur ads really don't make me want to buy Office.
If the Linux desktop is to succeed, they will need to take an honest look at how MS succeeded, and how to counter that. When MS saw a market dominated by a competitor (Lotus) they looked at every reason why someone would stay with Lotus and came up witha counter, when most Linux geeks look at MS market dominance, they say "luck" or "marketing" and just sit and wait for people to somehow realize Linux is technically better and then sit and wait until everybody switches.
A while back, Public Enemy split with long time record label Def Jam over some contractual issues. As a result of the argument and the bad feelings they released a single Swindler's Lust, then eventually recoreded some neew songs, bundled with some remixes and released There's A Poison Going On. For this album, they tried new (and unproven) internet label Atomic Pop. The download was $8, and a full CD, with autographed liner notes was $10. Atomic Pop folded soon and not too long after that I found the CD at Virgin for... 17.95.
I'm not sure how the price jumped 8 bucks for something that had less inherent value (no autograph). I'm sure there's some complexity in the fact A.P. may have underpriced because it's a new label, but also at that point, the production costs were already sunk costs and Virgin probably had a more efficient distribution system.
Re:I call bullshit on this
on
Finding New Code
·
· Score: 3, Informative
as far as (B) it was more due to change in the business model than any tech specific to DVD.
In the VHS days, movies were priced based on whether the studio thought you wanted to rent (then the price would be high, about $80-100 to make profit on the smaller number of sales to rental houses) or owned at home (priced around $20). With DVD, they decided to price everything for home, squeezing out the rental market (this is part of the reason Blockbuster isn't doing so well, among others).
There's also a hge tech difference. Extra audio tracks, embedded subtitles, makes it easier for rental houses (one copy of a dvd, no need for subtilted version, and a spanish version, etc).
In fact, if anything, i'm suprised Brazil isn't more expensive. When i had a gf there, every time i went back and forth i noticed camera prices, and the camera prices were actually on the order of 4-5x more expensive tehre than here in the US.
In this particular case, the Wiki page you linked to is a list of 29 possible meanings, 13 just in the tech section, where the appropriate meaning is 7th of the 13. I'd personally say that a wiki seart on VT would just add more confusion.
I know it's fun to say RTFM when you're frustrated at poeople who chose not to read, but in this case a @two letter acronym would really be helped by a definition or a link.
Well, a subset of the old employees. As others have said, SCO you see now is nee caldera, it's realy not much more than a holding company for IP and really only exists to sue. The original SCO, with the actual engineers was forked off into Tarantella, a web app company that never really did much business, and eventually was bought.
But even in the old days, OriginalSCO didn't do much. Their OS was the result of a contract to make a UNIX for Microsoft, called Xenix. MS never sold it, so SCO did. It wasn't pretty to look it, but at the time it was one of the cheaper x86 UNIX variants and became part of many a Point Of Sale system. They never really improved upon it, and it was a pain to use. They eventually bought the UNIX(tm) license from Novell, and released SVR5, but again, never really amounting to much new stuff. I know their old OpenServer product (the Xenix derived line) never ever got to multiprocessir, i think UnixWare (what they got from Novell) was. Apart from some half hearted efforts to get device drivers from OpenServer to UnixWare, they didn't do much but rely on their cash cow for years. One Linux undercut "cheap x86 UNIX" AND had better features, their days were numbered.
Yeah, i don't know if you remember when Dennis Rodman was painted up on there. I was coming from north and saw the idiots stop, stupid. It sucked because they had to repaint it for safety reasons, but before that they sued to have some great chicago people (Jordan, Joe Montegna)
Gawkers should have their driving privileges revoked.
I hear in several european countries, they bring out a big curtain to put around traffic accidents, to keep gawkers from slowing down traffic and causing a bigger mess
Then you have really stupid people. A few years ago we had some paintings on a building by one of our highways (the kennedy expresway). I saw people stop their cars on the damn expressway, literally zero miles an hour in a traffic lane, to take a pic. The areas was close to a curve as well, so not a lot of long distance cisibility.
Slashdot Mirror
checking for NSS... yes
checking for snprintf... yes
checking for connect... (cached) yes
checking for me pot o' gold... no
checking for gethostid... yes
checking for lrand48... yes
checking for memcpy... yes
This is one of the few times i can say, i honestly don't know if you're trolling or not, and i don't mean that in any way an insult. Maybe it's a statement to your relative subtlety
People like things simple, but many things are complex. OS adoption is determined by many factors, technical excellence just being one of them. Consider something "simple" as price?
I could got on for a paragraph or two just on price alone. Early adoption is done by people who have a whole different class of requirements than the mass market. The fact that Linux is going into the mass market at all is a testament to its usefulness.
Though the name SCO probably deserves better than they're getting, even oldSCO wasn't that great of a company. They made a semi-decent for the time port of UNIX to x86, but never improved it and as time wore on showed it lacked features and was generally ugly. They never improved it in the face of not one but many free alternatives that were better on features price and support. They had an initial advantage of a sort of vendor lock-in but instead of capitalizing on this and improving their code base they milked the cash cow until it ran dry. I'd shed more tears over Digital, at least a place where they had a history of innovation with the VAX, Alpha, OSF/1, and some others.
1) it's a linux project, not a Linux Distro. It's a security adjunct to Linux.
....
umm, ok, so why is there a government linux project?
2) Hacking has gone from the script kidd13z messing with n00bs to a huge business of DOS and industrial espionage. Its really hard to mandate security, but if you make it simple and easy to use, you might make things more secure.
perl -i -p -e s/id\:5\:in/id\:3\:in/
Just a minor typo, as written, would miss the current default and wouldnt do anything at all to your files.
2) unfortunately no. This is where xdm is spawned, by init, as directed by
Much like the POSIX compatibility layer originally in WinNT. Effectively worthless as an implementation, it did allow them to get contracts that required POSIX compliance.
it's possible that your head remained relatively steady in a single location, but your center of gravity followed a normal parabolic motion. It depends on how your legs/arms were located and how they were rising/falling during this sequence.
Remember Jordan taking off from the free throw line in the dunk contest? he had to stretch his legs out to make the dunk, effectively changing his center of gravity relative to his outstretched arm on the "flight" path, allowing him to reach for the dunk. And create a cool logo.
5.62 Millimeter...
Full... Metal... Jacket...!!!
Sorry, couldn't resist. One of my favorite movies of all time.
Netscape browser, born as Mosaic, made by University students at a government funded, land grant institution.
Al Gore never said it. It's a sound bite that, though magnified his role somewhat, was wildly twisted for election purposes. Politicians know people never check primary sources.
> What do you dislike about it?
My biggest issue is that i can take a perfectly working piece of code and open and save in my text editor, and depending on if my editor handles tab/hard tab differently than yours does, break working code. From the many people at my work who use python and love it, this seems more theoretical than actually encountered in practice, but is a real risk.
Easy, Erick and Parish Making Dollars, well, PMD was when Parrish went solo.
gets: calls syscall read()
Yes, this "number of syscalls is proportional to number of possible exploits" is false, but your reasoning is flawed as well.
One thing i haven't seen people say is that syscalls don't go through a normal parameter passing mechanism. No stack overflows because there is no stack, at least not shared between user and kernel space.
1) Interestingly enough, the grandparent post was a Linux troll, and you responded about MS.
2) Whether or not you like MS (and i don't really, though i grudgingly call them useful at times) they weren't really lucky. They seized opportunities others didn't see, capitalized on other's mistakes, relentlessly focussed on how to usurp their competitors and steal their customers, saw the value of network effects and also leverage their dominance in one area to another. None of it was real luck. Though he likes to think of himself as a technical genius (which i don't really) Bill Gates really is a business genius, a true shark amongst techs without business acumen, and used it to amass a huge fortune.
MS strongarm tactics require them to have a market dominance in some field. At one time, MS was just another company, smaller than Lotus and others. Yet they grew to where they now can use strongarm tactics. They bought code from others, polished it, made it work together very well (to the exclusion of others) and make a lot of money from that.
As far as marketing, their consumer marketing really sucks. Seeing an ad saying "WOW" really isn't making me want to buy Vista. The dinosaur ads really don't make me want to buy Office.
If the Linux desktop is to succeed, they will need to take an honest look at how MS succeeded, and how to counter that. When MS saw a market dominated by a competitor (Lotus) they looked at every reason why someone would stay with Lotus and came up witha counter, when most Linux geeks look at MS market dominance, they say "luck" or "marketing" and just sit and wait for people to somehow realize Linux is technically better and then sit and wait until everybody switches.
A while back, Public Enemy split with long time record label Def Jam over some contractual issues. As a result of the argument and the bad feelings they released a single Swindler's Lust, then eventually recoreded some neew songs, bundled with some remixes and released There's A Poison Going On. For this album, they tried new (and unproven) internet label Atomic Pop. The download was $8, and a full CD, with autographed liner notes was $10. Atomic Pop folded soon and not too long after that I found the CD at Virgin for... 17.95.
I'm not sure how the price jumped 8 bucks for something that had less inherent value (no autograph). I'm sure there's some complexity in the fact A.P. may have underpriced because it's a new label, but also at that point, the production costs were already sunk costs and Virgin probably had a more efficient distribution system.
Most applicable quote:
I agree with your main point though. Their statement was pretty silly.
as far as (B) it was more due to change in the business model than any tech specific to DVD.
In the VHS days, movies were priced based on whether the studio thought you wanted to rent (then the price would be high, about $80-100 to make profit on the smaller number of sales to rental houses) or owned at home (priced around $20). With DVD, they decided to price everything for home, squeezing out the rental market (this is part of the reason Blockbuster isn't doing so well, among others).
There's also a hge tech difference. Extra audio tracks, embedded subtitles, makes it easier for rental houses (one copy of a dvd, no need for subtilted version, and a spanish version, etc).
In fact, if anything, i'm suprised Brazil isn't more expensive. When i had a gf there, every time i went back and forth i noticed camera prices, and the camera prices were actually on the order of 4-5x more expensive tehre than here in the US.
In this particular case, the Wiki page you linked to is a list of 29 possible meanings, 13 just in the tech section, where the appropriate meaning is 7th of the 13. I'd personally say that a wiki seart on VT would just add more confusion.
I know it's fun to say RTFM when you're frustrated at poeople who chose not to read, but in this case a @two letter acronym would really be helped by a definition or a link.
Well, a subset of the old employees. As others have said, SCO you see now is nee caldera, it's realy not much more than a holding company for IP and really only exists to sue. The original SCO, with the actual engineers was forked off into Tarantella, a web app company that never really did much business, and eventually was bought.
But even in the old days, OriginalSCO didn't do much. Their OS was the result of a contract to make a UNIX for Microsoft, called Xenix. MS never sold it, so SCO did. It wasn't pretty to look it, but at the time it was one of the cheaper x86 UNIX variants and became part of many a Point Of Sale system. They never really improved upon it, and it was a pain to use. They eventually bought the UNIX(tm) license from Novell, and released SVR5, but again, never really amounting to much new stuff. I know their old OpenServer product (the Xenix derived line) never ever got to multiprocessir, i think UnixWare (what they got from Novell) was. Apart from some half hearted efforts to get device drivers from OpenServer to UnixWare, they didn't do much but rely on their cash cow for years. One Linux undercut "cheap x86 UNIX" AND had better features, their days were numbered.
Yeah, i don't know if you remember when Dennis Rodman was painted up on there. I was coming from north and saw the idiots stop, stupid. It sucked because they had to repaint it for safety reasons, but before that they sued to have some great chicago people (Jordan, Joe Montegna)
I hear in several european countries, they bring out a big curtain to put around traffic accidents, to keep gawkers from slowing down traffic and causing a bigger mess
Then you have really stupid people. A few years ago we had some paintings on a building by one of our highways (the kennedy expresway). I saw people stop their cars on the damn expressway, literally zero miles an hour in a traffic lane, to take a pic. The areas was close to a curve as well, so not a lot of long distance cisibility.