I don't know if you're a developer, but maybe it's an idea which hasn't been discussed. The developer's dilemma.... it's been rehashed on a bunch of lists (KDE included) many times.... do you enable all the cool stuff (at least in the first release it's there) so that people can learn about it and start using it, or do you disable it by default and run the risk that 90% of the people who would be helped by it never find out that it exists.
Take a look at open office. When I first started the (beta) version of OO and wrote something just for getting the feel of it, it suddenly capitalized the first word I typed. At the same time, a light bulb was shown down right on the screen.
"Arrgh,", I thought, "so the adapted the annoying everytime-I-have-to-search-half-an-hour-to-disable -that shit autocorrect functions of word and the same kind of annoying assistant stuff"
Wrong. When I klicked on the bulb, a help page was shown to explain what just happend (auto-correcting) and what it is. It also asked me if I wanted to use that in the future or not, and showed where to configure it at a later time.
That's great! Show all features on first use, but also explain them and make it easy to disable them right after the first occurance.
As long as someone doesn't have a criminal record, is sane, and knows how to use a firearm safely, they are probably more compitent to determine their own needs, individually, than the People, collectively, would be.
Hmm, did you know that a vast majority of people with criminal records started their life without a criminal record?
One critical problem with mandatory upgrades is that Microsoft will be imposing risk on its customers.
Indeed. And there's another point to that. I'm sure MS would *love* to get to a rental scheme. But, and this is a very big but, where I come from, and I assume it's that way in most contries, rental is a completely different form of contract than buying a license.
From the law of my country it's quite clear that under a rental scheme, MS would be in big trouble, because they had to guarantee the functionality of the item in question. Just like you could cut on your rental fee of your appartment if e.g. the heating is out of order, the same could happen to microsoft. Also, IIRC, warranty issues would arise when a virus hits or stuff. Oh, and it's _not_ up to MS to decide when a contract constitutes rental, so they may well get into that situation just because a judge looks at their license and decides it is rental. Take for instance mandatory upgrades (really mandatory, not just upgrades driven by discounts).
Sure, the GPL is the GPL is the GPL. *BUT*, when you have a distro with a closed-source installer and configuration utilities, with a license that only allows installing it on one system, you've still got to pay the per seat license to install it on all your boxes. You're still welcome to twiddle the Open Source/Free Software stuff, but the stuff that makes your distro what it is is untouchable.
Yes, but:
What has this to do with United Linux?
I fear most people have not really understood what this is. SuSE already had said that "We plan on having a downloadable developer's version as well," [and] "We are absolutely committed to working with the community to produce this product under the GPL."
So either they lie, or the majority is wrong. Oh, and please, SuSE's YAST is _not_ closed source, binary only, etc. Whoever thinks that should read its license. Therefore, YAST is not an example for something to come with UL. In fact, publishing UL's installer under GPL might make the collaboration easier.
Indeed, and I really wonder about the hostility against united linux.
Ok, they have caldera+ransom love onboard, that may explain it.
But the notion that LSB is enough to get a common base for installing binary software is complete nonsens. Yeah, it works in theory, but in practice, for enterprise ready software, you _want_ to test on an actual platform, not hope that everyone will play well along the standards. LSB is a good thing, but nicely written standards don't compensate for excessive regression testing on a real environment (which is what united linux gives us) Especially with such a complex beast like a GNU/linux/whatever environment - hell, this mindset fails with simple things like tcp and http. What does MDK think "reference implementations" are for?
And please, can we stop all this nonsens about "monopolisation", "per seat license" and stuff in combination with united linux? The GPL is the GPL is the GPL
Ok, you're right, looked at the source of the last file they released, apache-nosejob.c, and they claim apache+linux2.4 to be vulnerable, also Sun Solaris 6-8 (sparc/x86).
Ok, my server run on 2.2, so I'm safe (just joking;-)).
You're trusting the same organisation that told us that the Apache bug wasn't exploitable on x86 Linux (and we later found out it was), that this is a trustable workaround?
Minor correction (only AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong): ISS told us that the bug was not exploitable on any 32bit plattform, later we found out that this bug is exploitable on 32bit BSDs (free* and open* IIRC). It's not exploitable on x86 linux.
I second that. Plus, I would think about getting paid zope consulting to get you of from the ground and continue yourself later on. Let someone build the hard parts (business logic etc.) and do the easy parts yourself (presentation logic).
Whatever sales droids of proprietary content management system may tell you, they don't work out of the box - at least not more than zope does. You'll always find things which don't work the way you want them to, making custumization needed, like adaption to your business' processes or whatever. In reality, many of the important CM makers make most of their money by consulting etc. Take a look at zopes content management framework which is an add-on more tailored to typical content management use cases - oh, and ignore the ugly side, something new is in the works.
It all comes down to: $total_cost = $cost_of_license + $cost_of_consulting + $cost_of_own_time
With zope, $cost_of_license == 0 at least, and I guarantee that zope gives a very good start to get the others quite low.
Perhaps that's a bit too harsh, but Scientific American has come down in the world quite a bit since the late eighties or early nineties. As I recall, they got a new editor many years ago and he was hell bent on dumbing the magazine down, fluffing it up with low-attention-theshold filler, and generally reducing it to a level of depth, insight, and relevance typical of USA Today or Omni Magazine.
You are completely correct. The first time I noticed this was when they began publishing articles about computer security from a person named Carolyn Meinel. You might know her name.
If not, go to google and search for "Carolyn Meinel" and "Scientific American".
You'll find for instance:
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/1998/N ov / 040.html
One thing that adds to the realism (besides the damage when being hit) is that you can walk or drive over whole islands with several small towns on them. These areas (the whole game takes place on three islands) are enourmous - several kms diameter.
Well, setting a standard costs money. Lots of, from the perspective of an open source project. And it costs more, far far more the any fees for licence bodys. How much had microsoft to pay for IE till today, to get its functionaliy to a quasi standard. Note, I said "quasi", but seemingly both Netscape & MS back then thought they might loose if they are "only" standards comliant. And they surely both invested a lot in that wsr.
Unless you define entities like IBM etc. also as members of the OSS community, chances are rare that the OSS community can achieve something like that. It happend, but it's unlikely. On the bright sight, companies see the power of open source in setting standards (IBM says so since some time), and now things like openoffice make it interesting again. Man I really hope and think OpenOffice/Staroffice can get big.
I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but it should be exactly what you mention in your point 1 and someway covers 3 too. Extremely realistic damages (1 hit can kill you, 2 will), enourmous areas - each level is on one of three islands, which have several towns and can be travelled freely. Yes, you can cross the whole island by feed, but it will take half an hour or so. You will have to drive cars, planes, tanks etc, and can do that in the game at your will. Just enter a parking car (if you have the keys) and drive away. Tanks need three people for using them optimally (commander, driver, cannon). Mix in the multiplayer mode, and you are there.
Yes, I also suspect (hope), that we all underestimate the importance of Open Office. It might be, that in the long term, Open Office might be worse for MS than java (was it bad for MS at all?... I think so).
Open Office is _not_ "only" about and office package, it's much more. It has a standardized, documented, cross plattform API (as far as I read) and bindings are beginning to get developed for different languages (I know of a python one). IIRC the name of the API is UNO.
What does that mean? It means that we (non-MS developers) now finally have a quite good possibility to do something on the server side which was quite difficult/impossible before. Think content/document management systems, (MS) office integration for intranet publishing etc.
If the open source community gets to speed with this and integrates the open office API in products like zope, midgard etc., we will have an enormously strong contender against proprietary systems like SiteServer etc. "Oh, and our doc.management system will automagically convert your clobbert MS-Office documents in a fully open , future proof XML-standard compliant format."
Gah! Why, oh why would you want to re-implement SMB for Windoze?!?!?!
To have an backwards compatible version for the day when WINDOWS YQ (or ZR) will not interoperate with SMB/CIFS anymore, because MS wants its monopoly back in the windows fileserving world. Think about it, it's the next logical move they will pull in order to hold up the pressure for upgrading. Presumably YQ will have a compability mode and ZR will not be compatible anymore.
I don't know slashcode, but it should be possible to find out the semantics of the adserver URI. slashdot should publicize it. Then we could write "plugins" for junkbuster, webwasher, squid... We could set a whole new trend, supporting the sites _we_ want to support when surfing. Ah, we need a name,...
As for ways to do long-running requests, I fail to see how a stateful connection in this case is anymore beneficial than a dated message sent via a stateless protocol to a service. In fact, questions about uptime, data transmission integrity, and security have me thinking the stateless message is better.
Amen, add to that
load balancing (ok, related to uptime)
resource consumption (stateful firewalls and the servers themselves)
Also from a theoretical point of view, I don't think that the asymmetric nature is not suitable for most kind of webservices I can imagine. Why should webservices include P2P for chrissake?
Also, I don't want to expose my internal network to incoming requests of this nice new symmetric protocol, just to be able to use some future possible webservices like online banking.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you're a developer, but maybe it's an idea which hasn't been discussed. .... it's been rehashed on a bunch of lists (KDE included) many times .... do you enable all the cool stuff (at least in the first release it's there) so that people can learn about it and start using it, or do you disable it by default and run the risk that 90% of the people who would be helped by it never find out that it exists.
e -that shit autocorrect functions of word and the same kind of annoying assistant stuff"
The developer's dilemma
Take a look at open office. When I first started the (beta) version of OO and wrote something just for getting the feel of it, it suddenly capitalized the first word I typed.
At the same time, a light bulb was shown down right on the screen.
"Arrgh,", I thought, "so the adapted the annoying everytime-I-have-to-search-half-an-hour-to-disabl
Wrong. When I klicked on the bulb, a help page was shown to explain what just happend (auto-correcting) and what it is. It also asked me if I wanted to use that in the future or not, and showed where to configure it at a later time.
That's great! Show all features on first use, but also explain them and make it easy to disable them right after the first occurance.
Ok AC,
you killed me.
hillarious.
Where did you steal that?
As long as someone doesn't have a criminal record, is sane, and knows how to use a firearm safely, they are probably more compitent to determine their own needs, individually, than the People, collectively, would be.
Hmm, did you know that a vast majority of people with criminal records started their life without a criminal record?
One critical problem with mandatory upgrades is that Microsoft will be imposing risk on its customers.
Indeed. And there's another point to that.
I'm sure MS would *love* to get to a rental scheme. But, and this is a very big but, where I come from, and I assume it's that way in most contries, rental is a completely different form of contract than buying a license.
From the law of my country it's quite clear that under a rental scheme, MS would be in big trouble, because they had to guarantee the functionality of the item in question. Just like you could cut on your rental fee of your appartment if e.g. the heating is out of order, the same could happen to microsoft.
Also, IIRC, warranty issues would arise when a virus hits or stuff.
Oh, and it's _not_ up to MS to decide when a contract constitutes rental, so they may well get into that situation just because a judge looks at their license and decides it is rental. Take for instance mandatory upgrades (really mandatory, not just upgrades driven by discounts).
Sure, the GPL is the GPL is the GPL. *BUT*, when you have a distro with a closed-source installer and configuration utilities, with a license that only allows installing it on one system, you've still got to pay the per seat license to install it on all your boxes. You're still welcome to twiddle the Open Source/Free Software stuff, but the stuff that makes your distro what it is is untouchable.
Yes,
but:
What has this to do with United Linux?
I fear most people have not really understood what this is.
SuSE already had said that
"We plan on having a downloadable developer's version as well," [and] "We are absolutely committed to working with the community to produce this product under the GPL."
So either they lie, or the majority is wrong.
Oh, and please, SuSE's YAST is _not_ closed source, binary only, etc. Whoever thinks that should read its license. Therefore, YAST is not an example for something to come with UL. In fact, publishing UL's installer under GPL might make the collaboration easier.
Indeed, and I really wonder about the hostility against united linux.
Ok, they have caldera+ransom love onboard, that may explain it.
But the notion that LSB is enough to get a common base for installing binary software is complete nonsens. Yeah, it works in theory, but in practice, for enterprise ready software, you _want_ to test on an actual platform, not hope that everyone will play well along the standards.
LSB is a good thing, but nicely written standards don't compensate for excessive regression testing on a real environment (which is what united linux gives us)
Especially with such a complex beast like a GNU/linux/whatever environment - hell, this mindset fails with simple things like tcp and http. What does MDK think "reference implementations" are for?
And please, can we stop all this nonsens about "monopolisation", "per seat license" and stuff in combination with united linux?
The GPL is the GPL is the GPL
Ok, you're right, looked at the source of the last file they released, apache-nosejob.c, and they claim apache+linux2.4 to be vulnerable, also Sun Solaris 6-8 (sparc/x86).
;-)).
Ok, my server run on 2.2, so I'm safe (just joking
You're trusting the same organisation that told us that the Apache bug wasn't exploitable on x86 Linux (and we later found out it was), that this is a trustable workaround?
Minor correction (only AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong):
ISS told us that the bug was not exploitable on any 32bit plattform, later we found out that this bug is exploitable on 32bit BSDs (free* and open* IIRC).
It's not exploitable on x86 linux.
I second that.
Plus, I would think about getting paid zope consulting to get you of from the ground and continue yourself later on.
Let someone build the hard parts (business logic etc.) and do the easy parts yourself (presentation logic).
Whatever sales droids of proprietary content management system may tell you, they don't work out of the box - at least not more than zope does.
You'll always find things which don't work the way you want them to, making custumization needed, like adaption to your business' processes or whatever.
In reality, many of the important CM makers make most of their money by consulting etc.
Take a look at zopes content management framework which is an add-on more tailored to typical content management use cases - oh, and ignore the ugly side, something new is in the works.
It all comes down to:
$total_cost = $cost_of_license + $cost_of_consulting + $cost_of_own_time
With zope, $cost_of_license == 0 at least, and I guarantee that zope gives a very good start to get the others quite low.
Perhaps that's a bit too harsh, but Scientific American has come down in the world quite a bit since the late eighties or early nineties. As I recall, they got a new editor many years ago and he was hell bent on dumbing the magazine down, fluffing it up with low-attention-theshold filler, and generally reducing it to a level of depth, insight, and relevance typical of USA Today or Omni Magazine.
N ov / 040.html
/. introduced spaces min the URI)
You are completely correct. The first time I noticed this was when they began publishing articles about computer security from a person named Carolyn Meinel. You might know her name.
If not, go to google and search for "Carolyn Meinel" and "Scientific American".
You'll find for instance:
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/1998/
(beware the
FYI,
...
I'd bet it's not the real Moshe Bar you replied to. Take a look at it's posting history
amazing link, thanks alot - meanwhile I'm going to clean my keyboard and monitor
Yeah! Sensible Soccer
...
You're absolutely right, this really is the best existing soccer game. Too bad it has a bit of a problem on post 1998 puters.
I loved it. It hadn't much to do with real soccer, but it showed that game design is what matters, not realism
take a look at
operation flashpoint.
One thing that adds to the realism (besides the damage when being hit) is that you can walk or drive over whole islands with several small towns on them.
These areas (the whole game takes place on three islands) are enourmous - several kms diameter.
Well, setting a standard costs money.
Lots of, from the perspective of an open source project. And it costs more, far far more the any fees for licence bodys.
How much had microsoft to pay for IE till today, to get its functionaliy to a quasi standard. Note, I said "quasi", but seemingly both Netscape & MS back then thought they might loose if they are "only" standards comliant.
And they surely both invested a lot in that wsr.
Unless you define entities like IBM etc. also as members of the OSS community, chances are rare that the OSS community can achieve something like that. It happend, but it's unlikely.
On the bright sight, companies see the power of open source in setting standards (IBM says so since some time), and now things like openoffice make it interesting again.
Man I really hope and think OpenOffice/Staroffice can get big.
You really should take a look at
Operation Flashpoint
I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but it should be exactly what you mention in your point 1 and someway covers 3 too.
Extremely realistic damages (1 hit can kill you, 2 will), enourmous areas - each level is on one of three islands, which have several towns and can be travelled freely.
Yes, you can cross the whole island by feed, but it will take half an hour or so.
You will have to drive cars, planes, tanks etc, and can do that in the game at your will. Just enter a parking car (if you have the keys) and drive away.
Tanks need three people for using them optimally (commander, driver, cannon).
Mix in the multiplayer mode, and you are there.
Yes, I also suspect (hope), that we all underestimate the importance of Open Office. ... I think so).
...
It might be, that in the long term, Open Office might be worse for MS than java (was it bad for MS at all?
Open Office is _not_ "only" about and office package, it's much more. It has a standardized, documented, cross plattform API (as far as I read) and bindings are beginning to get developed for different languages (I know of a python one). IIRC the name of the API is UNO.
What does that mean? It means that we (non-MS developers) now finally have a quite good possibility to do something on the server side which was quite difficult/impossible before.
Think content/document management systems, (MS) office integration for intranet publishing etc.
If the open source community gets to speed with this and integrates the open office API in products like zope, midgard etc., we will have an enormously strong contender against proprietary systems like SiteServer etc. "Oh, and our doc.management system will automagically convert your clobbert MS-Office documents in a fully open , future proof XML-standard compliant format."
And this is still an very interesting market
For example, if the law is followed, the entire history of the resistance in Europe during World War II should be prohibited.
Not to mention all episodes of McGyver
Gah! Why, oh why would you want to re-implement SMB for Windoze?!?!?!
To have an backwards compatible version for the day when WINDOWS YQ (or ZR) will not interoperate with SMB/CIFS anymore, because MS wants its monopoly back in the windows fileserving world.
Think about it, it's the next logical move they will pull in order to hold up the pressure for upgrading. Presumably YQ will have a compability mode and ZR will not be compatible anymore.
ha, you also noticed that.
/ about.moz"
Just ran strings on mshtml.dll, mozilla even has it's own registry key from IE:
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\AboutURLs","mozilla",2,"res://mshtml.dll
hmm, does anyone else get a blue(sic!) screen when typing about:mozilla in internet explorer?
about:xyz doesn't do that.
funny
does anybody know how to disable that stupid html rendering of mails completely? i hate that.
I don't know slashcode, but it should be possible to find out the semantics of the adserver URI. ... ...
...
slashdot should publicize it. Then we could write "plugins" for junkbuster, webwasher, squid
We could set a whole new trend, supporting the sites _we_ want to support when surfing.
Ah, we need a name,
let me think
oh, thats it:
smart ads(TM)
Tata
better yet, download /. ads for every add on every site you visit, instead of the native ads ....
Amen, add to that
load balancing (ok, related to uptime)
resource consumption (stateful firewalls and the servers themselves)
Also from a theoretical point of view, I don't think that the asymmetric nature is not suitable for most kind of webservices I can imagine.
Why should webservices include P2P for chrissake?
Also, I don't want to expose my internal network to incoming requests of this nice new symmetric protocol, just to be able to use some future possible webservices like online banking.
I want it asymmetric, dammit.