Free goes no where. We tried it, the VCs poured money into it. None came out and the stockes crashed. Learn from this. If you want to see Darwin 2.0 then it can never be RMS' idea of "free" because Apple would go the way of VA Linux.
Really? Then how come I am using a Free operating system now, and am currently downloading a 55Mb update to it (Debian)?
Just because the corporations don't make money, does not mean that Free Software is a failure.
It's a success because I, like hundreds of thousands of other users are using it successfully and will continue to do so while people like the kernel developers and Debian are around. And because they are in it for something other than money, then there is more chance of them riding the next stock market crash.
I work for a company in the finance industry. I have been working in IT (administration and support) for three years.
It's not a big company, 2000 users. But let me use this as evidence that I understand the behaviour of 'large groups of lusers'.
They will be upset when something goes wrong. Very upset, they will whine and complain, and they will appear at times close to tears.
However, as soon as they are shown a solution, ANY solution, the tears dry up. They think you are a god. Your solution might be implementing a twice-daily scheduled reboot of the print servers in order to prevent them falling over and screwing up the vast amounts of correspondence the lusers produce. They won't care that it's a half assed solution. All they care is, they can print enough to do their job.
Microsoft have been banking on this for years. The user is happy with any solution, as long as it's a solution and appears reasonable. So when the users install XP, and the MP3s sound bad, and Microsoft say, "Don't use that, use WMA!" or whatever their flavour of the month format is, the users will lap it up.
I don't like this any more than you do, but I have to be pedantic about one thing:
Market forces are about the consumer.
Market forces actually come in two types, forces from the suppliers and forces from the consumers. The market culminates in a deal when both parties think that the forces are either fair, or in their favour.
The problem with todays markets is that there are a small number of extremely powerful suppliers and a vast number of very weak consumers. This gives the suppliers a whole swathe of advantages over the consumer. One of the biggest ones is that the consumers do not have the time nor inclination to ensure they are as well informed as they could be. Therefore they supplier is constantly hoodwinking the consumer. In this, I believe, we agree.
This is why our markets need reformed. I am not sure which way; although I think the 'libertarian' idea of a free market (no controls, no checks, no measures) would be destined to degrade into some form of 'controlled' market, because suppliers will always form alliances, whereas consumers have 'better things to do with their time'.
Well, I don't teach or illustrate, so I don't think they'll be giving me the means for copying.
An earlier post analysed this quite well. The DMCA is getting all types of criticism from libraries and academic institutions for rendering fair use copying impossible. The EU are including a fair use clause to avoid this criticism. And OK, schools and libraries may very well get such means to copy.
But do you seriously believe that copyright holders who choose to encrypt their content are going to hand out 'circumvention devices' to everyone who has a fair use right to copy? i.e. everyone?
Thing is, stopping smoking is actually not as hard as we lead ourselves to believe.
Smokers are addicted to nicotine. Hicotine doesn't do anything for a healthy person, only for an addict. So the first cigarette doesn't do anything for the novice smoker. But after a while, when the nicotine starts to leave the system, they start to feel slightly bad. A tiny little bit depressed.
Another cigarette alleviates the bad feeling a bit; not completely, just a bit. But it's enough to make the smoker think, that cigarette made me feel better. Only, a while later, they are feeling just a little more depressed than the first one made them. Just an imperceptible amount, but the desire for the next cigarette is now stronger than ever before.
And so it goes on.
The thing is, all a smoker has to do to stop is:
1. Understand that cigarettes do NOTHING for you; you are not giving anything up, you are not making any sacrafice.
2. Don't smoke another cigarette
3. Relish being a non-smoker. Understand that you will quickly be healthier, fitter, more attractive, wealthier.
Quite easy really, and step 3 makes it fun.
Now, this may seem off topic, but ditching Windows in favour of Freedom is much easier than people are led to believe.
1. Understand that Windows does NOTHING for you; you are not giving anything up, you are not making any sacrafice.
2. Don't run Windows again
3. Relish being free. Understand that you will quickly be more satisfied, you will reap more reward from life, you get to go around with a smug internal grin all the time.
I see what you are saying. Maybe I'm missing something.
A 'fully peer to peer system' would require that NO system is 'enumerated on the network in some fashion'. I presume you are implying some kind of central database of participants in the peer-to-peer system.
Without such a central database, there are two options for joining the system:
+ You try out candidates to see if they are participants
+ Someone tells you a participant by some offline method
I was thinking along the lines that, in the first case, it would be considerably more efficient to only have IP addresses to 'try' rather than IP addresses and port numbers.
In the second case the system becomes 'members only'.
Hmmm. I think I'll go and read the Freenet documentation again....
For Napster, at least, I find ipmasqadm portfw works very well, i.e. port redirection from the firewall to the machine running the napster software.
This works best in a quasi-P2P system like Napster, which employs central servers, so you can let everyone know which redirected port to connect to. If you have multiple participating machines behind your firewall, you allocate them their own ports and configure the software to give out that port number.
In a fully P2P system, which would require a fixed port for incoming transactions, you can only have one participating machine behind the firewall. The participating machine would then act as a server for the P2P system for the rest of the network. For home systems, this isn't a problem, unless you want to decentralise your family/flatmates too:)
1. Find you
2. Ensure you have what I want
3. Request you to send it to me
This is a very laborious process. The point about computers is that the do these processes for us. The new "P2P" systems are automating these steps away. Older systems don't do that.
So, P2P is probably the wrong name, but I can't think of a better one:) The point is, the automation of the three steps is a real revolution.
If an attacker gets root access, they can wipe not only your user files but all your files
Granted the system files are not secrets and are easy to recreate. But if you've got backups then it's much easier and faster to restore your home directory than it is to rebuild the machine.
So, for someone with backups, yes, loss of user files hurts, but loss of everything is going to hurt a whole lot more.
Worse still, if an attacker has root, they can do a lot more damage covertly than just wiping files. They could be snooping your local network, if you have one. They could be silently changing your system files so that you don't notice that they've set up a cron job to email your password and shadow files to them every week. Or whatever the Win32 equivalent is. These things are easier to do silently as root than as a user; as root you can modify log files and so on, modify the ps executable so no-one knows you are there, etc. etc.
Huh? Why would the inkjet need to send data back to the computer? AFAIK, bidirectionality (in the case of printers) is only used for sending back the name of the printer. Cute, but not vital for operation.
Actually, useful status information can be (and is; see the Epson Stylus series as an example. Not that I like Epson printers; in fact most modern inkjet printers are a complete pain in the backside. But that's another story.) returned to the computer, like whether the printer is out of paper, ink is running low if there is a paper jam, etc.
The answer is yes, I am running Debian Woody with XFree 4.0.2, hardware accelereated Voodoo 3 3000 under the DRI.
You need to run your apps in OpenGL mode, though, not Glide if that's what they expect. For instance, Myth 2 does not natively support OpenGL, only Glide and 2D, but there is a patch at Loki's site.
Slashdot Mirror
What the students should do is protest,
Cast your mind back to June 4th 1989.
Caution: the above link may cause some people distress.
Free goes no where. We tried it, the VCs poured money into it. None came out and the stockes crashed. Learn from this. If you want to see Darwin 2.0 then it can never be RMS' idea of "free" because Apple would go the way of VA Linux.
Really? Then how come I am using a Free operating system now, and am currently downloading a 55Mb update to it (Debian)?
Just because the corporations don't make money, does not mean that Free Software is a failure.
It's a success because I, like hundreds of thousands of other users are using it successfully and will continue to do so while people like the kernel developers and Debian are around. And because they are in it for something other than money, then there is more chance of them riding the next stock market crash.
Nicely put.
Why would you want to do that? To incite false ridicule?
:)
But still, you scored me some kharma, so thanks
I've read neither author before, but after reading these extracts, I might well read one of them. Clue: it's not Jeter.
Kind of a good example of fair use in action too. Thanks.
Didn't they just...
and so did the fscking moderators.
It's a crying shame.
Hehe, an AOL user telling Linus how to code...
:)
OK, so I don't know who's right, but that's not the point
I work for a company in the finance industry. I have been working in IT (administration and support) for three years.
It's not a big company, 2000 users. But let me use this as evidence that I understand the behaviour of 'large groups of lusers'.
They will be upset when something goes wrong. Very upset, they will whine and complain, and they will appear at times close to tears.
However, as soon as they are shown a solution, ANY solution, the tears dry up. They think you are a god. Your solution might be implementing a twice-daily scheduled reboot of the print servers in order to prevent them falling over and screwing up the vast amounts of correspondence the lusers produce. They won't care that it's a half assed solution. All they care is, they can print enough to do their job.
Microsoft have been banking on this for years. The user is happy with any solution, as long as it's a solution and appears reasonable. So when the users install XP, and the MP3s sound bad, and Microsoft say, "Don't use that, use WMA!" or whatever their flavour of the month format is, the users will lap it up.
I always wondered why my Beautiful South CD always comes out hot....
I don't like this any more than you do, but I have to be pedantic about one thing:
Market forces are about the consumer.
Market forces actually come in two types, forces from the suppliers and forces from the consumers. The market culminates in a deal when both parties think that the forces are either fair, or in their favour.
The problem with todays markets is that there are a small number of extremely powerful suppliers and a vast number of very weak consumers. This gives the suppliers a whole swathe of advantages over the consumer. One of the biggest ones is that the consumers do not have the time nor inclination to ensure they are as well informed as they could be. Therefore they supplier is constantly hoodwinking the consumer. In this, I believe, we agree.
This is why our markets need reformed. I am not sure which way; although I think the 'libertarian' idea of a free market (no controls, no checks, no measures) would be destined to degrade into some form of 'controlled' market, because suppliers will always form alliances, whereas consumers have 'better things to do with their time'.
Seemed like a while to me....
But then again, I had a very boring day yesterday....
Well, I don't teach or illustrate, so I don't think they'll be giving me the means for copying.
An earlier post analysed this quite well. The DMCA is getting all types of criticism from libraries and academic institutions for rendering fair use copying impossible. The EU are including a fair use clause to avoid this criticism. And OK, schools and libraries may very well get such means to copy.
But do you seriously believe that copyright holders who choose to encrypt their content are going to hand out 'circumvention devices' to everyone who has a fair use right to copy? i.e. everyone?
No. I didn't think you did.
Note to self - do not post to Slashdot using Netscape 6.0 for Windows.
Point taken, but this is the first I knew about this happening©
Where did I find out? Reading about it in the trash free newspaper on the bus on my way to work this morning©
If I'd known, I would have written© I signed the anti-software-patent petition, and would have done the same thing against this had I known©
Oh yes, I am fully aware of that, but Timpothy said "I sure hope this isn't a death knell for USB 2©0, but the argument that there just aren't that many USB devices seems valid, if circular©"
Which, as I point out, is incorrect these days©
Better to sign up to something like CERT advisories than rely on random postings to Slashdot.
Really.
This was announced on their list about 14 hours ago.
Yep, I think I'm going to start doing it. Easy karmah. Then I can mod the other fsckers down.
Sigh. Don't read him so literally.
Every country has a majority for whom certain taboos are sacrosanct.
Thing is, stopping smoking is actually not as hard as we lead ourselves to believe.
:)
Smokers are addicted to nicotine. Hicotine doesn't do anything for a healthy person, only for an addict. So the first cigarette doesn't do anything for the novice smoker. But after a while, when the nicotine starts to leave the system, they start to feel slightly bad. A tiny little bit depressed.
Another cigarette alleviates the bad feeling a bit; not completely, just a bit. But it's enough to make the smoker think, that cigarette made me feel better. Only, a while later, they are feeling just a little more depressed than the first one made them. Just an imperceptible amount, but the desire for the next cigarette is now stronger than ever before.
And so it goes on.
The thing is, all a smoker has to do to stop is:
1. Understand that cigarettes do NOTHING for you; you are not giving anything up, you are not making any sacrafice.
2. Don't smoke another cigarette
3. Relish being a non-smoker. Understand that you will quickly be healthier, fitter, more attractive, wealthier.
Quite easy really, and step 3 makes it fun.
Now, this may seem off topic, but ditching Windows in favour of Freedom is much easier than people are led to believe.
1. Understand that Windows does NOTHING for you; you are not giving anything up, you are not making any sacrafice.
2. Don't run Windows again
3. Relish being free. Understand that you will quickly be more satisfied, you will reap more reward from life, you get to go around with a smug internal grin all the time.
That's it
I see what you are saying. Maybe I'm missing something.
A 'fully peer to peer system' would require that NO system is 'enumerated on the network in some fashion'. I presume you are implying some kind of central database of participants in the peer-to-peer system.
Without such a central database, there are two options for joining the system:
+ You try out candidates to see if they are participants
+ Someone tells you a participant by some offline method
I was thinking along the lines that, in the first case, it would be considerably more efficient to only have IP addresses to 'try' rather than IP addresses and port numbers.
In the second case the system becomes 'members only'.
Hmmm. I think I'll go and read the Freenet documentation again....
For Napster, at least, I find ipmasqadm portfw works very well, i.e. port redirection from the firewall to the machine running the napster software.
:)
This works best in a quasi-P2P system like Napster, which employs central servers, so you can let everyone know which redirected port to connect to. If you have multiple participating machines behind your firewall, you allocate them their own ports and configure the software to give out that port number.
In a fully P2P system, which would require a fixed port for incoming transactions, you can only have one participating machine behind the firewall. The participating machine would then act as a server for the P2P system for the rest of the network. For home systems, this isn't a problem, unless you want to decentralise your family/flatmates too
No, IRC and email require me to manually:
:) The point is, the automation of the three steps is a real revolution.
1. Find you
2. Ensure you have what I want
3. Request you to send it to me
This is a very laborious process. The point about computers is that the do these processes for us. The new "P2P" systems are automating these steps away. Older systems don't do that.
So, P2P is probably the wrong name, but I can't think of a better one
Who cares if you can get root access?
If an attacker gets root access, they can wipe not only your user files but all your files
Granted the system files are not secrets and are easy to recreate. But if you've got backups then it's much easier and faster to restore your home directory than it is to rebuild the machine.
So, for someone with backups, yes, loss of user files hurts, but loss of everything is going to hurt a whole lot more.
Worse still, if an attacker has root, they can do a lot more damage covertly than just wiping files. They could be snooping your local network, if you have one. They could be silently changing your system files so that you don't notice that they've set up a cron job to email your password and shadow files to them every week. Or whatever the Win32 equivalent is. These things are easier to do silently as root than as a user; as root you can modify log files and so on, modify the ps executable so no-one knows you are there, etc. etc.
Don't give out root!
Huh? Why would the inkjet need to send data back to the computer? AFAIK, bidirectionality (in the case of printers) is only used for sending back the name of the printer. Cute, but not vital for operation.
Actually, useful status information can be (and is; see the Epson Stylus series as an example. Not that I like Epson printers; in fact most modern inkjet printers are a complete pain in the backside. But that's another story.) returned to the computer, like whether the printer is out of paper, ink is running low if there is a paper jam, etc.
The answer is yes, I am running Debian Woody with XFree 4.0.2, hardware accelereated Voodoo 3 3000 under the DRI.
You need to run your apps in OpenGL mode, though, not Glide if that's what they expect. For instance, Myth 2 does not natively support OpenGL, only Glide and 2D, but there is a patch at Loki's site.