I can only speek for myself. I don't intend to claim that support is the _only_ way to make profit other than shrinkwrap.
1) look at employment ads. (you or will you discredit that too?) Programmers _are_ being hired more and more by companies to work on projects that are not "shrinkwrap software."
2) How can you discredit RedHat, or O'Reilly when it is clear that they do make a profit from thier products, which include GNU/GPL work? It's a fact. Add to that list, VAResearch (yes, they employ people to do programming, but they don't sell shrink wrap software), and now SGI, SuSE, Caldera,... That is a long long list if you look around, and it's growing. Just because people bring up "Red Hat" as an example frequently does not mean that they are the only one. Would you say Microsoft is the only one making money on shrink wrap software because it's the one that get's talked about the most?
3) Support your comment "Trust me guys, it ain't workin' -- just makes it look like you and your plan can't stand up under scrutiny." Where have you seen the Open Source model fail? Is the open source community getting smaller? Are there less people programming open source software now? Are companies that sell/use/develop open source products loosing money? You accuse the arguments of not being valid, and then don't make any support to your statment that it's not working?
Bob Young doenn't have to code a single line to prove Open Source is effective. What has Bill Gates been coding lately? If he hasn't been coding, does that prove that Closed Source is failing?
Beowulf has no more to do with this than Meept does.
The iMac? I am sorry, please expand on how the iMac proves that Gnome or KDE is never going to succede? I don't get it. You mean industry is moving twards something that is a lot of market hype and "simple" but the GNU/GPL community is getting more complex and harder to use and not getting any public attention? I don't see your point.
Please provide some information about the "not wanting to pay for support" statement. I see no indication that closed source shrink wrap software is any more ready for the computer illeterate than open source is, so I don't see a point your making there. I don't see how people not wanting to spend money on anything makes a point either. Why do people buy the "Offical" SuSE (see, I didn't say RedHat) if they aren't willing to pay for support. Can you explain the profit in Word Perfect if it's not support and documentation that people are buying? (see, I didn't say Red Hat). Can you explain how good programmers are making good money for hardware companys like SGI, IBM, SUN, VAResearch while working on GNU/GPL code?
You can't write these things off as not important if they _ARE_ happening. I would have to say the author of the "there is no such thing as free software" artical made a better case against GNU/GPL than you are. And his main point was that Hardware venders are paying for the development. Even if THAT was the case, it still would mean that hardware vendors see better profit when there is a larger market for thier product, and providing more applications will expand thier market. Still, it would be a plus for the idea of open source, not shrinkwrap.
To close your eyes at the many avenues of revenue companys can make from open source and limit it to the discussion of "support" only is not the point. The fact that open source movement is growning and some people fear it, and some people are blind to seeing it, that, is the point.
Sorry, I couldn't open it this morning, and from the posts I read b4 mine and the little blurb here on/., it didn't sound anything like you discribe.
I finally got threw to it, and it does say for the disabled. But, I found something very uncomfortable about some of the wording.
Standards, yet, no definition what so ever about how or what is to be standardized. This potentially could mean black in white, with everything written with an H1 tag so it's easy to read. I don't doubt that something that stupid is possable.
And, it doens't say that it's government contracted websites, it seems to imply that it's companies that do buisness with the government. So, if someone in the government want's to buy a copy or Red Hat, then all of the Red Hat sites have to conform? It's not clear, but, again, it's not something that I would put past the government.
I don't like the looks of it still, but I do see more clearly where it's comming from. I would probably say that if the government were to put all thier money and energy into something to accomplish this goal, it might be better served by writing some guidlines that SUGGEST how to make sites better for the disabled, and spending some time working on the disabled side (better browser preformance for disabled, etc).
Legal requirements imposed seems a bit much, and I think I am against it still. Maybe someone should from a privately funded project using GNU/GPL tools, to promote internet access for the disabled, and make things easier for them. Now, that would not only get my support, but it would also get some of my cash.
"Many have cited the efforts of IBM, Sun and HP to contribute to the Open Source pot. I would argue that the only reason they've been able to do so is that they have other business that allows them to fund this development. Think of it this way: if you're a small developer and you have six hours to write code today, would you spend it writing something that you'd give away or something that you could charge someone money for so that you could buy dinner tonight?"
Hehehehehahehahehaehahaha. Yea, OK. Sure. Let's see... He managed to prove that he STILL "just doesn't get it." I suppose he doesn't believe in evolution either, and we just "appeared" on the planet suddenly too.
Software is undergoing an evolution, it's that simple. The cashflow will come from support, not development. That is showing. The percentage of the people in the world that can code a valuable application is going up, and the law of supply and demand only proves that GNU/GPL is going to be the way of the future. Does he believe that there are eventually going to be 1000's of Word Processors that are commercial, and they will all sell for $100 a copy?!?
Talented coders prove thier worth with GNU/GPL, and get hired by companys after they prove themselfs. This is because of economics. Companies can't afford to hire people that are really good to make a shrik-wrap software package forever. But, they are learning very quickly that thier support mechinism is seriously lacking, and thier highschool dropouts with good phone voices aren't hacking it as phone in support techs. Companies will loose buisness selling a fancy product with crappy support. It happens slowly.
There are many companies that still do buisness the "old way," but that is slowly changing. When people order software today, they are more consirned about support. When big buisness orders a software solution now, they are more and more looking at something that can be modified to suit thier specific needs after they get it. It's not fully there yet, but it's clearly moving that way.
Software is evolving, this guy is a dinosaur and doesn't get it. Programmers will bring home good paychecks after this evolution, but it is not going to be for shrinkwraped software, it will be for solid tech support, and custom hacks of open source software to specificly suit a companys need. I don't think dinasours understood Darwins theory of evolution, and I don't think you could teach them either. This guy is a dinasour, don't waste your time listening to his arcane grunting.
Man, please tell me this is a joke. If not, I am going to write my congressman.
The government in the USA seems to regulate EVERYTHING they can thing of for the sole purpose of justifying thier existance. IMHO, thier purpose is to insure that no one infringes on anothers freedoms. And, it's not my god give write to use whatever browser I wish and force companies to comply to writing web pages that I can read.
Given our politicians known backgrounds, I suppose this affects porn sites most.
It's just proof sterotypes are bad.
on
UNIX for Moms
·
· Score: 3
I don't know... I read it. But I am not convinced about the general point behind the statement.
Analyzing the statement "It's not ready for your mom to use it yet" I think the flaw is not the state of readyness, it's the sterotype of what a mom is.
I can honestly say, an iMac isn't ready for my mom yet, she can't even handle point and click only very well. On the other hand, we see this artical where this "mom" is using NetBSD on a laptop. I think the error is not how ready *NIX is, it's the mistake of sterotyping older women (well, technically, a mom can be a 16 year old female, but let's not go there).
So, I think by using a "mom" criteria, the UNIX community is fooling itself. What really needs to be focused on is the real issues.
Ease of installation
Ease of setup/configuration
GUI "friendlyness"
Software avaliablity
Software ease of installation
Where are we now? Well, IMHO, installation and GUI "friendlyness" are moving along just fine. Configuration still has a bit of a way to go (but, setting up IP and modem config on any OS isn't exactly perfect, but that's not an excuse to not make ti better). Software avaliablity is getting there, when Gnome and KDE finish a stable and polished office suite, it will be there. Software installation is still a bear, and one that I think needs a lot of attention, and IMHO I believe the LSB will address that.
So, throw out the "mom" thing, it's a sterotype, and if one were to judge an OS based on a sterotype, we have now read the artical by a "mom" and that would be the end of it. I think there is still a way to go...;-) But I have no doubt progress has been made, and will continue.
I have held this opinion for a few years, and with all the hype recently about what "Open Source" really means, it has only deepened my beliefs. If it's not GNU/GPL or BSD, then it's just "other" and can not be clasified as a well known licence type.
IMHO, "other" will never be able to be classified as "open" because if it was, they would just pick GNU/GPL or BSD. They are somewhat closed, no matter what they are, and must be judged indivually. Each of the "other" licences has it's own set of querks, and drawbacks. They can be good or bad (for example ASPL, JAVA, and Mozilla), but if they want full community support, from the GNU or BSD community, they should have used one of these two existing, well defined standard licences.
I don't agree. For example, if a distribution came with all the Netscape Plug-In's installed and configured, I would be a happy person.
and that's just the first thing I think of. More is better... After all, isn't that why some people still use windows (can't find the right apps for Linux?)?
Netscape, Mozilla (which was the beta netscape, and now I don't know WTF it is), GTK-Mozilla, and now NeoPlanet's hack of Mozilla? How many of these can we even expect to have stable releases? How many are just unstable spin-off ideas from Mozilla.
Is it just me, or does this seem redundant? Someone really should do a head to head, up to date, comparision of all of these, IMHO. And throw in IE, Grail, and anything else for completeness. Compare what features each one has, the themablity, the plugins avaliable, and the platforms avaliable. Anyone know of a comparison like this?
XML, HTML, ActiveX, Java, Shock Wave, etc etc etc... I still can't get the Real Media plugin for Netscape in Linux to work correctly.
I guess I am just going to stick with Linux/Netscape, because everything else seems to be unstable Beta. Anyone here actually got the GTK-Mozilla to work? Is there a URL for a "Linux web browser comparison (oh yea, kde's browser.. forgot that one).
Mostly, I guess I am still deeply confused to the whole "Mozilla" thing. I thought it was just Netscape Beta, but it seems with all the directions they are going and all the diffrent groups working from "Mozilla Source," I just don't see how they could all result in getting one good browser as the finished project.
Mozilla open source was suppose to increase the speed of development of Netscape. I guess it did for a while, but now it looks like all it's doing is causeing the workers to rip off the source and fragment into thier own projects, which is a bad thing IMHO. Can someone give me a quick review of how closely Mozilla is tied to Netscape now that it's part of AOL, and Sun is an AOL partner? Are they even working together on it (SUN would be the ideal place to optimize the Java environment for a browser, a good thing, and the past shows AOL can screw a browser up really good, a bad thing).
I can't get through to the site. I really wish I could, because I would like to see why they think this is a good idea.
I can see a possable need for a couple diffrent systems, two maybe, but right now I have 4 computers running at home, and I run Linux on all four, but one dual boots into NT. I haven't found a need to have more than Linux and NT.
If it's for power, I think a dual or just a more powerfull workstation (SUN, SGI, etc..) would be best. If it's just to do, why not get a few boxes and a monitor/keyboard switch (probably cheaper). Personally, I would perfer to have seperate systems, side by side, so each have thier own keyboard/mouse, and you can work on them side by side.
The only possable thing I can think of that this might be good for is saving some desktop/workarea space. But if you need 3 or more systems, odds are you should have planned the space for them in the first place.
I am also wondering, at what price? If it's more than three seperate systems, I would rather have them seperate anyway to reboot or maintain on them one at a time, while leaving the other ones running.
There are a lot of "one box beowulf clusters" posts and junk here, just filling up space. I would like to read someone actually talk about a potential use for this thing, because I just don't understand it.
Hmm... Anyone remember the IRC - Gulf War connection? I am sure someone can discuss it much better than me. But, if there was a "first internet war" wouldn't that qualify more?
Just reading some IRC history may remind me enought to come back and comment, but, I am supprised no one has already said something significant about it. Anyone?
I don't know if technological jargon is enough to make me vote against someone. I think that's a small part of a larger picture. For example, that he at least shows interest in this stuff is probably good for him.
If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party, where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...
Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.
Open Source is a trademarked term I believe, not a copywright.
Be carefull what you say on the net, history will not teach you how widely you can distribute your ablility to put your foot in your mouth now, and in the future;-)
We are consirned with politics, and a leaders ability to comment on matters intellegently. Tipper's PMRC is probably worse than Al's ability to insult the importance of technology and science.. but both are something to worry about.
Oh, and, speaking for most people in Science, if you have that little respect, please return your light bulbs and any other technology you have at your nearest conveniance.
PS: Secret Codes that you don't understand may exist on your computer monitoring your every move... maybe you should learn them.
-- "Robert W. Current" - email http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu - work stuff http://www.current.nu - personal web site "Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam
That PMRC stuff and related junk was just the maneuvering of a power couple with their eyes on the White House.
Back the truck up, I think we missed a road sign when we ran over that guy....
WHAT? Your saying that censorship and banning content of music and art is acceptable IF it was done to get a position of power?!?
I must have miss understood that, because if that is true, it only makes matters worse. They were all for doing something they knew was wrong so they could gain power to rule more people... Hmm.. Even the worst villian's in history believed what they were doing was right, so, doing something you know is wrong to gain power would be what, super evil?
If Quale put's an E in potato, but know's what a potato is, and how to use it, then at least he only put his foot in his mouth, and shouldn't choke on it.
If Al and Tipper want any respect, they have to realize they are not "our saviour" and because they think something is right, they force it upon us.
Let's redefine Open Source. Let's ban some records. Hmm, not even logically consistant. What if I put profanity and lude statements in the comment lines of my source code? Should we censor open source then too? Why don't Al and Tipper just go burn some books or something they would enjoy as a couple and leave the US population out of it.
I totally agree... I was giving the lowest cost I could possably amagine, to make the point, it's still going to be in the SUN/SGI/DEC price range.
Quad Intel is (IMHO) a very expensive way to go, and in this situation, it's hard to discuss, because the question never mentioned the use of the box, so I don't know if needing Intel is a consideration...
He DID say PII, and although I don't know if it's technically possable, a Quad Celeron overclocked would probably give a pretty good bang for the $, IF you can find a board that will do it for under $400.
I have seen articals about a few tricks that are needed to make Celerons into Dual'able. So, that may be a bit of bang. But I don't know if it's possable HERE Pricewatch shows it's dual boards, and they ain't cheap, and it seems only Xeon boards are listed.
I would tend to say, go with the dual Celeron tricks if your very technically inclined, go with dual PII's if your not, and if you want more, look at non-Intel options.
VA Research is definately going to be the place to go to see just how much you can get an Intel box to do. They are running at the commercial limits of possabilities with Intel systems. If they don't have it, I would be doubtfull of it's existance. But if you notice the prices (*Which are reasonable considering the quality of componants*), they start playing into the SUN/SGI price range with thier bigger systems.
That's my point. Quad's run very high. Intel has the edge for price/preformance on single CPU systems. By the time you spec out a loaded Pentium II thought, your in in the neighborhood of much more heavy duty systems.
Plus, unfortunately, Intel systems don't seem to have the "lifetime" of Sun's, SGI's, IBM AIX, and DEC systems. I haven't seen many 5+ year old systems fail in that group. But, I have seen some pretty "dead" intel boxes scattered in the back rooms of labs.
I suggest you price both systems before you buy... We just pulled in an Origin and an Octane at work, when initally we were just shopping for a Dual PII box. We priced the systems with what we would need, and it seemed that the SGI's were going to really thump the Intel's in that price range.
Now, Dealing with IRIX as opposed to Linux, I would pick Linux 10 to 1 anyday. It's just plain easier to work with (system admin wise).
But you really better get a good idea of what a Quad PIII like this guy was asking is going to cost before you say Intell is cheap. Let's look really fast at just this... Pricewatch (cheapest you will find a PIII CPU) shows lowest price on A PIII 500 at $634/each. That makes the total $2,536 for CPU's alone, not counting the motherboard, RAM, case, etc.. etc... And your not planning on stuffing this all in a $18 bargian basement case, are you? $100 for a case, probably $400-$600 for a mother board (IF you find one), $100 for a vid card, etc etc... Your talking about $3,000+ EASY, probably $4,000 easy.
Then call SGI, Sun, IBM, and Alpha retailers, and see what you can get for the same money. Check Memory I/O, Mega/Giga-flops, SPECS, and I think you will see, we're not playing in Intel's field anymore.
Aside from that, I would take the people mentioning that you can't do Quad PII or PIII seriously, unless it has been confirmed otherwise. I think the Xeon is the only one that might do Quad... If I am wrong on anything, it's that..
But as for bang for the buck, Intel nicely fills the gap between AMD's and the Big Boy's in UNIX with it's Duals, but after that, it's out of it's league.
Maybe I would have to answer your question with a question, Why INTEL?
If your using Windows NT, it probably won't see big gains, AFAIK, it's SMP isn't that great.
If your using Linux (or another *NIX) then your dilluting yourself if your thinking about Quad PIII's insted of something like a SGI Origin, or a Sparc, or even an AIX box...
I guess I don't see any reason to TRY to get a quad Intel box, so, that's probably why there aren't many.
AFAIK, the LP is the only US Political party that not only has a clear stance on technology and cryptology, but also thier own RC5 team.
Has this changed?
At least the LP is running Apache, even if it is on Solaris...
Politics as usual, Democrats try "feel good" stuff, which is all talk with nothing behind it, Republicans don't rate except with the silent majority, so not as much "foot in mouth" syndrome, and the Libertarian Party firmly lives up to it's promises, and therefore goes ignored, because no one knows how to deal with politicians that do and believe what they say...
Ok, now I post everything at 2, based on past preformance. And, I don't think I am comfortable with that (like Bruce's comment). I would prefer to stay at 1, at least for most of my posts.
The pool idea where every +1 contributes a 1/2 point to a users score pool that can be drawn on to later "get on a soap box."
BUT, my over all opinion is this is getting chaotic already. Not the potential to, but it's there. I am very impressed with Malda's mod_perl abilities now, and what he is capable of doing. But, IMHO, we have reached the level of "overkill."
This is my opinion, but I personally liked it when there was a small pool of moderators, people started at 1 (AC's at 0), and things were streight forward.
My suggestion would be gut it all, do half points, or a 1 to 10 scale (because of the larger number of moderators, and potential for several people to +1 something). And leave everyone start on the level field again.
At first I wasn't sure I liked the idea of "earning" moderation points (the ability to moderate)... Now, I think it's probably for the best. That may be the best place to focus Rob's coding efforts.
But I don't think I like the "auto start at level X" stuff. At least not when i don't have the option to 0 or -1 myself! (I guess I wouldn't mind sticking my foot in my mouth more often if I could -1 myself and go somewhat un-noticed unless someone else found my comments interesting).
I guess I still like command line better than GUI, so maybe it's just my natural inclination to not fully apreciate this "automation in moderation" thing?
Of course, that's where it gets fun to think about and read about. The potential for structuring switches... etc...
Not a limitation, but a new field of investigation. Classically, electronics is something that has been looked at very one dimentionally. Consider the switch set to off, and not only are you stoping flow in a liniar direction and influancing one data point, your have a flow of electrons tunneling into bulk, and influancing the behaviour of the whole circut.
Yes, it's not a classical model. But, I don't believe it's an unusable consept. Gates and switches have a much wider base from which to be developed. And, the actual movement of an atom from the tip of an STM is one of the first examples of something with known physical mass actually tunneling! Wahoo... think, this is not as we know it, this is new, and of course it's not classical, by any sence, but, that also means it's not subject to classical limitations.
You actually might just need something like an AFM, if you could get things in the right environment. Zone Electrophoresis (spelling?) to denaturalize the strand and line up the groups as you could predict, then just AFM (Atomic Force Microscope) them... ? K, off the wall idea, maybe not, it's not my field. Sorry.
The potential to rapidly get the sequence of a DNA strand is a very hot field, and very heavily government funded. Based primarily in the Human Genome (spelling?) Project, I believe. So, I don't doubt there is a lot of work on rapidly "reading" DNA.
But, this begs the question, how are you going to accurately build long strands of DNA, sequenced exactly as you would like them to be, in order to store data on them? And, why DNA? Potentially, you could use something easier to detect (cool tagged or marked base pairs if DNA, or something totally diffrent), and easier to build?
Seems that this subject comes up about every six months here on SlashDot. Interesting spin with the DNA this time. I will have to dig a little bit to respond with a 100% confidance factor, but I will tell you right now, I doubt some of this.
I have looked very deeply into the field of "molecular wires" and found several flaws. The published journal articals on this that I know of all use a high level of congugated pi bond interaction as the mechinism for the transport of electrons. Although this produces a remarkable increase in electrical conductivity compared to a "normal" molecule, the ability to conduct electrical current still drops off exponentially as a function of distance. Or, in other words, unless the whole circut is only a few ~30 atoms long, it would require enough juice to totally distroy it to get any electrical flow across it!
Now, there is the possability of "bundleing" these systems, maybe using something such as carbon nanotubes (maybe several of them built one on top of each other) to overcome this, but the fabrication process for doing something like this is more science fiction right now than science. Maybe that's what they are trying with the DNA stuff, but from what I know, it's not possable.
But, AGAIN, I point to a possability that is realistic. If you look at some of the work done in IBM labs, specifically The Almaden Lab and the one in Zurich (don't have the URL on hand, but there is one), you can see something that would be superior on TWO counts. Actually using indivual atoms insted of full molecules. Positioning highly conductive METAL atoms (not carbon molecules) on a semiconductor surface (carbon), it might be possable to create a circut that would stand a much higher chance of working, AND be much smaller. Right now, I believe that IBM is using this technology to try to work towards data storage at an atomic level, which, in theory, could fit the Library of Congress on a postage stamp.;-) But even this work is limited, AFAIK, to very low temperature (like 10K?) and is not truely practical.
But, this shows more hope, as I have seen a few research groups position molecules (buckyball) with STM on a surface at almost room temprature. To me, at least, this is much more realistic, and much much more exciting research.
Slashdot Mirror
1) look at employment ads. (you or will you discredit that too?) Programmers _are_ being hired more and more by companies to work on projects that are not "shrinkwrap software."
2) How can you discredit RedHat, or O'Reilly when it is clear that they do make a profit from thier products, which include GNU/GPL work? It's a fact. Add to that list, VAResearch (yes, they employ people to do programming, but they don't sell shrink wrap software), and now SGI, SuSE, Caldera, ... That is a long long list if you look around, and it's growing. Just because people bring up "Red Hat" as an example frequently does not mean that they are the only one. Would you say Microsoft is the only one making money on shrink wrap software because it's the one that get's talked about the most?
3) Support your comment "Trust me guys, it ain't workin' -- just makes it look like you and your plan can't stand up under scrutiny." Where have you seen the Open Source model fail? Is the open source community getting smaller? Are there less people programming open source software now? Are companies that sell/use/develop open source products loosing money? You accuse the arguments of not being valid, and then don't make any support to your statment that it's not working?
Bob Young doenn't have to code a single line to prove Open Source is effective. What has Bill Gates been coding lately? If he hasn't been coding, does that prove that Closed Source is failing?
Beowulf has no more to do with this than Meept does.
The iMac? I am sorry, please expand on how the iMac proves that Gnome or KDE is never going to succede? I don't get it. You mean industry is moving twards something that is a lot of market hype and "simple" but the GNU/GPL community is getting more complex and harder to use and not getting any public attention? I don't see your point.
Please provide some information about the "not wanting to pay for support" statement. I see no indication that closed source shrink wrap software is any more ready for the computer illeterate than open source is, so I don't see a point your making there. I don't see how people not wanting to spend money on anything makes a point either. Why do people buy the "Offical" SuSE (see, I didn't say RedHat) if they aren't willing to pay for support. Can you explain the profit in Word Perfect if it's not support and documentation that people are buying? (see, I didn't say Red Hat). Can you explain how good programmers are making good money for hardware companys like SGI, IBM, SUN, VAResearch while working on GNU/GPL code?
You can't write these things off as not important if they _ARE_ happening. I would have to say the author of the "there is no such thing as free software" artical made a better case against GNU/GPL than you are. And his main point was that Hardware venders are paying for the development. Even if THAT was the case, it still would mean that hardware vendors see better profit when there is a larger market for thier product, and providing more applications will expand thier market. Still, it would be a plus for the idea of open source, not shrinkwrap.
To close your eyes at the many avenues of revenue companys can make from open source and limit it to the discussion of "support" only is not the point. The fact that open source movement is growning and some people fear it, and some people are blind to seeing it, that, is the point.
I finally got threw to it, and it does say for the disabled. But, I found something very uncomfortable about some of the wording.
Standards, yet, no definition what so ever about how or what is to be standardized. This potentially could mean black in white, with everything written with an H1 tag so it's easy to read. I don't doubt that something that stupid is possable.
And, it doens't say that it's government contracted websites, it seems to imply that it's companies that do buisness with the government. So, if someone in the government want's to buy a copy or Red Hat, then all of the Red Hat sites have to conform? It's not clear, but, again, it's not something that I would put past the government.
I don't like the looks of it still, but I do see more clearly where it's comming from. I would probably say that if the government were to put all thier money and energy into something to accomplish this goal, it might be better served by writing some guidlines that SUGGEST how to make sites better for the disabled, and spending some time working on the disabled side (better browser preformance for disabled, etc).
Legal requirements imposed seems a bit much, and I think I am against it still. Maybe someone should from a privately funded project using GNU/GPL tools, to promote internet access for the disabled, and make things easier for them. Now, that would not only get my support, but it would also get some of my cash.
Hehehehehahehahehaehahaha. Yea, OK. Sure. Let's see... He managed to prove that he STILL "just doesn't get it." I suppose he doesn't believe in evolution either, and we just "appeared" on the planet suddenly too.
Software is undergoing an evolution, it's that simple. The cashflow will come from support, not development. That is showing. The percentage of the people in the world that can code a valuable application is going up, and the law of supply and demand only proves that GNU/GPL is going to be the way of the future. Does he believe that there are eventually going to be 1000's of Word Processors that are commercial, and they will all sell for $100 a copy?!?
Talented coders prove thier worth with GNU/GPL, and get hired by companys after they prove themselfs. This is because of economics. Companies can't afford to hire people that are really good to make a shrik-wrap software package forever. But, they are learning very quickly that thier support mechinism is seriously lacking, and thier highschool dropouts with good phone voices aren't hacking it as phone in support techs. Companies will loose buisness selling a fancy product with crappy support. It happens slowly.
There are many companies that still do buisness the "old way," but that is slowly changing. When people order software today, they are more consirned about support. When big buisness orders a software solution now, they are more and more looking at something that can be modified to suit thier specific needs after they get it. It's not fully there yet, but it's clearly moving that way.
Software is evolving, this guy is a dinosaur and doesn't get it. Programmers will bring home good paychecks after this evolution, but it is not going to be for shrinkwraped software, it will be for solid tech support, and custom hacks of open source software to specificly suit a companys need. I don't think dinasours understood Darwins theory of evolution, and I don't think you could teach them either. This guy is a dinasour, don't waste your time listening to his arcane grunting.
The government in the USA seems to regulate EVERYTHING they can thing of for the sole purpose of justifying thier existance. IMHO, thier purpose is to insure that no one infringes on anothers freedoms. And, it's not my god give write to use whatever browser I wish and force companies to comply to writing web pages that I can read.
Given our politicians known backgrounds, I suppose this affects porn sites most.
Analyzing the statement "It's not ready for your mom to use it yet" I think the flaw is not the state of readyness, it's the sterotype of what a mom is.
I can honestly say, an iMac isn't ready for my mom yet, she can't even handle point and click only very well. On the other hand, we see this artical where this "mom" is using NetBSD on a laptop. I think the error is not how ready *NIX is, it's the mistake of sterotyping older women (well, technically, a mom can be a 16 year old female, but let's not go there).
So, I think by using a "mom" criteria, the UNIX community is fooling itself. What really needs to be focused on is the real issues.
Where are we now? Well, IMHO, installation and GUI "friendlyness" are moving along just fine. Configuration still has a bit of a way to go (but, setting up IP and modem config on any OS isn't exactly perfect, but that's not an excuse to not make ti better). Software avaliablity is getting there, when Gnome and KDE finish a stable and polished office suite, it will be there. Software installation is still a bear, and one that I think needs a lot of attention, and IMHO I believe the LSB will address that.
So, throw out the "mom" thing, it's a sterotype, and if one were to judge an OS based on a sterotype, we have now read the artical by a "mom" and that would be the end of it. I think there is still a way to go... ;-) But I have no doubt progress has been made, and will continue.
I have held this opinion for a few years, and with all the hype recently about what "Open Source" really means, it has only deepened my beliefs. If it's not GNU/GPL or BSD, then it's just "other" and can not be clasified as a well known licence type.
IMHO, "other" will never be able to be classified as "open" because if it was, they would just pick GNU/GPL or BSD. They are somewhat closed, no matter what they are, and must be judged indivually. Each of the "other" licences has it's own set of querks, and drawbacks. They can be good or bad (for example ASPL, JAVA, and Mozilla), but if they want full community support, from the GNU or BSD community, they should have used one of these two existing, well defined standard licences.
I don't agree. For example, if a distribution came with all the Netscape Plug-In's installed and configured, I would be a happy person.
and that's just the first thing I think of. More is better... After all, isn't that why some people still use windows (can't find the right apps for Linux?)?
Is it just me, or does this seem redundant? Someone really should do a head to head, up to date, comparision of all of these, IMHO. And throw in IE, Grail, and anything else for completeness. Compare what features each one has, the themablity, the plugins avaliable, and the platforms avaliable. Anyone know of a comparison like this?
XML, HTML, ActiveX, Java, Shock Wave, etc etc etc... I still can't get the Real Media plugin for Netscape in Linux to work correctly.
I guess I am just going to stick with Linux/Netscape, because everything else seems to be unstable Beta. Anyone here actually got the GTK-Mozilla to work? Is there a URL for a "Linux web browser comparison (oh yea, kde's browser.. forgot that one).
Mostly, I guess I am still deeply confused to the whole "Mozilla" thing. I thought it was just Netscape Beta, but it seems with all the directions they are going and all the diffrent groups working from "Mozilla Source," I just don't see how they could all result in getting one good browser as the finished project.
Mozilla open source was suppose to increase the speed of development of Netscape. I guess it did for a while, but now it looks like all it's doing is causeing the workers to rip off the source and fragment into thier own projects, which is a bad thing IMHO. Can someone give me a quick review of how closely Mozilla is tied to Netscape now that it's part of AOL, and Sun is an AOL partner? Are they even working together on it (SUN would be the ideal place to optimize the Java environment for a browser, a good thing, and the past shows AOL can screw a browser up really good, a bad thing).
I can see a possable need for a couple diffrent systems, two maybe, but right now I have 4 computers running at home, and I run Linux on all four, but one dual boots into NT. I haven't found a need to have more than Linux and NT.
If it's for power, I think a dual or just a more powerfull workstation (SUN, SGI, etc..) would be best. If it's just to do, why not get a few boxes and a monitor/keyboard switch (probably cheaper). Personally, I would perfer to have seperate systems, side by side, so each have thier own keyboard/mouse, and you can work on them side by side.
The only possable thing I can think of that this might be good for is saving some desktop/workarea space. But if you need 3 or more systems, odds are you should have planned the space for them in the first place.
I am also wondering, at what price? If it's more than three seperate systems, I would rather have them seperate anyway to reboot or maintain on them one at a time, while leaving the other ones running.
There are a lot of "one box beowulf clusters" posts and junk here, just filling up space. I would like to read someone actually talk about a potential use for this thing, because I just don't understand it.
Just reading some IRC history may remind me enought to come back and comment, but, I am supprised no one has already said something significant about it. Anyone?
If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party, where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...
Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.
Well, if Open Source can be used how ever they want, can we rename the GNOME project "Windows"
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:04:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: rob@current.nu
To: skelcher@hotmail.com
Subject: That's TM
Just so you know,
Open Source is a trademarked term I believe, not a copywright.
Be carefull what you say on the net, history will not teach you how widely you can distribute your ablility to put your foot in your mouth now, and in the future ;-)
We are consirned with politics, and a leaders ability to comment on matters intellegently. Tipper's PMRC is probably worse than Al's ability to insult the importance of technology and science.. but both are something to worry about.
Oh, and, speaking for most people in Science, if you have that little respect, please return your light bulbs and any other technology you have at your nearest conveniance.
PS: Secret Codes that you don't understand may exist on your computer monitoring your every move... maybe you should learn them.
--
"Robert W. Current" - email
http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu - work stuff
http://www.current.nu - personal web site
"Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam
Back the truck up, I think we missed a road sign when we ran over that guy....
WHAT? Your saying that censorship and banning content of music and art is acceptable IF it was done to get a position of power?!?
I must have miss understood that, because if that is true, it only makes matters worse. They were all for doing something they knew was wrong so they could gain power to rule more people... Hmm.. Even the worst villian's in history believed what they were doing was right, so, doing something you know is wrong to gain power would be what, super evil?
Speeling doesn't mater. ;-)
If Quale put's an E in potato, but know's what a potato is, and how to use it, then at least he only put his foot in his mouth, and shouldn't choke on it.
If Al and Tipper want any respect, they have to realize they are not "our saviour" and because they think something is right, they force it upon us.
Let's redefine Open Source. Let's ban some records. Hmm, not even logically consistant. What if I put profanity and lude statements in the comment lines of my source code? Should we censor open source then too? Why don't Al and Tipper just go burn some books or something they would enjoy as a couple and leave the US population out of it.
Quad Intel is (IMHO) a very expensive way to go, and in this situation, it's hard to discuss, because the question never mentioned the use of the box, so I don't know if needing Intel is a consideration...
+$30 for the board, then the new CPU. But, that's dual.
We're talking quad, and quad boards AFAIK are rare, Xeon only, and in the $1,000+ not $100 area.
Dual PII's fill the gap between Intel and "true workstation hardware" (forgive the term), but when you go to the quad price range, the tables turn.
I have seen articals about a few tricks that are needed to make Celerons into Dual'able. So, that may be a bit of bang. But I don't know if it's possable HERE Pricewatch shows it's dual boards, and they ain't cheap, and it seems only Xeon boards are listed.
I would tend to say, go with the dual Celeron tricks if your very technically inclined, go with dual PII's if your not, and if you want more, look at non-Intel options.
VA Research is definately going to be the place to go to see just how much you can get an Intel box to do. They are running at the commercial limits of possabilities with Intel systems. If they don't have it, I would be doubtfull of it's existance. But if you notice the prices (*Which are reasonable considering the quality of componants*), they start playing into the SUN/SGI price range with thier bigger systems.
Plus, unfortunately, Intel systems don't seem to have the "lifetime" of Sun's, SGI's, IBM AIX, and DEC systems. I haven't seen many 5+ year old systems fail in that group. But, I have seen some pretty "dead" intel boxes scattered in the back rooms of labs.
I suggest you price both systems before you buy... We just pulled in an Origin and an Octane at work, when initally we were just shopping for a Dual PII box. We priced the systems with what we would need, and it seemed that the SGI's were going to really thump the Intel's in that price range.
Now, Dealing with IRIX as opposed to Linux, I would pick Linux 10 to 1 anyday. It's just plain easier to work with (system admin wise).
But you really better get a good idea of what a Quad PIII like this guy was asking is going to cost before you say Intell is cheap. Let's look really fast at just this... Pricewatch (cheapest you will find a PIII CPU) shows lowest price on A PIII 500 at $634/each. That makes the total $2,536 for CPU's alone, not counting the motherboard, RAM, case, etc.. etc... And your not planning on stuffing this all in a $18 bargian basement case, are you? $100 for a case, probably $400-$600 for a mother board (IF you find one), $100 for a vid card, etc etc... Your talking about $3,000+ EASY, probably $4,000 easy.
Then call SGI, Sun, IBM, and Alpha retailers, and see what you can get for the same money. Check Memory I/O, Mega/Giga-flops, SPECS, and I think you will see, we're not playing in Intel's field anymore.
Aside from that, I would take the people mentioning that you can't do Quad PII or PIII seriously, unless it has been confirmed otherwise. I think the Xeon is the only one that might do Quad... If I am wrong on anything, it's that..
But as for bang for the buck, Intel nicely fills the gap between AMD's and the Big Boy's in UNIX with it's Duals, but after that, it's out of it's league.
If your using Windows NT, it probably won't see big gains, AFAIK, it's SMP isn't that great.
If your using Linux (or another *NIX) then your dilluting yourself if your thinking about Quad PIII's insted of something like a SGI Origin, or a Sparc, or even an AIX box...
I guess I don't see any reason to TRY to get a quad Intel box, so, that's probably why there aren't many.
Has this changed?
At least the LP is running Apache, even if it is on Solaris...
Politics as usual, Democrats try "feel good" stuff, which is all talk with nothing behind it, Republicans don't rate except with the silent majority, so not as much "foot in mouth" syndrome, and the Libertarian Party firmly lives up to it's promises, and therefore goes ignored, because no one knows how to deal with politicians that do and believe what they say...
The pool idea where every +1 contributes a 1/2 point to a users score pool that can be drawn on to later "get on a soap box."
BUT, my over all opinion is this is getting chaotic already. Not the potential to, but it's there. I am very impressed with Malda's mod_perl abilities now, and what he is capable of doing. But, IMHO, we have reached the level of "overkill."
This is my opinion, but I personally liked it when there was a small pool of moderators, people started at 1 (AC's at 0), and things were streight forward.
My suggestion would be gut it all, do half points, or a 1 to 10 scale (because of the larger number of moderators, and potential for several people to +1 something). And leave everyone start on the level field again.
At first I wasn't sure I liked the idea of "earning" moderation points (the ability to moderate)... Now, I think it's probably for the best. That may be the best place to focus Rob's coding efforts.
But I don't think I like the "auto start at level X" stuff. At least not when i don't have the option to 0 or -1 myself! (I guess I wouldn't mind sticking my foot in my mouth more often if I could -1 myself and go somewhat un-noticed unless someone else found my comments interesting).
I guess I still like command line better than GUI, so maybe it's just my natural inclination to not fully apreciate this "automation in moderation" thing?
Not a limitation, but a new field of investigation. Classically, electronics is something that has been looked at very one dimentionally. Consider the switch set to off, and not only are you stoping flow in a liniar direction and influancing one data point, your have a flow of electrons tunneling into bulk, and influancing the behaviour of the whole circut.
Yes, it's not a classical model. But, I don't believe it's an unusable consept. Gates and switches have a much wider base from which to be developed. And, the actual movement of an atom from the tip of an STM is one of the first examples of something with known physical mass actually tunneling! Wahoo... think, this is not as we know it, this is new, and of course it's not classical, by any sence, but, that also means it's not subject to classical limitations.
The potential to rapidly get the sequence of a DNA strand is a very hot field, and very heavily government funded. Based primarily in the Human Genome (spelling?) Project, I believe. So, I don't doubt there is a lot of work on rapidly "reading" DNA.
But, this begs the question, how are you going to accurately build long strands of DNA, sequenced exactly as you would like them to be, in order to store data on them? And, why DNA? Potentially, you could use something easier to detect (cool tagged or marked base pairs if DNA, or something totally diffrent), and easier to build?
I have looked very deeply into the field of "molecular wires" and found several flaws. The published journal articals on this that I know of all use a high level of congugated pi bond interaction as the mechinism for the transport of electrons. Although this produces a remarkable increase in electrical conductivity compared to a "normal" molecule, the ability to conduct electrical current still drops off exponentially as a function of distance. Or, in other words, unless the whole circut is only a few ~30 atoms long, it would require enough juice to totally distroy it to get any electrical flow across it!
Now, there is the possability of "bundleing" these systems, maybe using something such as carbon nanotubes (maybe several of them built one on top of each other) to overcome this, but the fabrication process for doing something like this is more science fiction right now than science. Maybe that's what they are trying with the DNA stuff, but from what I know, it's not possable.
But, AGAIN, I point to a possability that is realistic. If you look at some of the work done in IBM labs, specifically The Almaden Lab and the one in Zurich (don't have the URL on hand, but there is one), you can see something that would be superior on TWO counts. Actually using indivual atoms insted of full molecules. Positioning highly conductive METAL atoms (not carbon molecules) on a semiconductor surface (carbon), it might be possable to create a circut that would stand a much higher chance of working, AND be much smaller. Right now, I believe that IBM is using this technology to try to work towards data storage at an atomic level, which, in theory, could fit the Library of Congress on a postage stamp. ;-) But even this work is limited, AFAIK, to very low temperature (like 10K?) and is not truely practical.
But, this shows more hope, as I have seen a few research groups position molecules (buckyball) with STM on a surface at almost room temprature. To me, at least, this is much more realistic, and much much more exciting research.