While I agree with you critical view on some typical slashdot reactions, I would really like you to explain how this software could be better than teachers being informed and having some common sense. This silly invention is just there to save some teachers the torture of thinking on their own and acting responsible. If they really wanted to do a test, I propose do a test for teachers, where they are given some cases and have to decide how to act. For instance I learned to know many teachers who gave a shit when they clearly could see some kid in emotional trouble, being always alone on the school yard and/or showing real sights of panic after getting bad rates. These ignorant beings are the last ones which I would describe as - as you say - "capable hands".
And about "statistical analysis". I read about a guy who always was taken aside and examined very closely at the airport when he wanted to fly somewhere. He sued the airline, and they had to confess they had used "statistical analysis" (i.e. data mining) to develop a model of the typical hijacker, and this poor guy fitted in. Statistical analysis which can have real (and bad) consequences for innocent individuals should be illegal IMO.
Very informative post, thank you. One impression I always have is that intel chips are constantly underrated. Yes, the architecture is old, yes there are some chips like alpha and g4 which are faster under some circumstances. But theres one thing which some friends of mine, who do numbercrunching on clusters allways tell me, that is the compiler aspect. For instance they say the alpha looks in fact very good theoretically, but they also say that the compilers job in optimizing for the alpha is harder than for ia32. The real-world performance of ia32 seems to be nearer at the theoretical (benchmark) performance. I have seen some tests in magazines which tell me the same. And even on the intel plattform theres a huge difference depending on what compiler one uses, i.e. ms VC on nt was up to 30 % faster than gcc on linux. That was an older benchmark, newer ones I saw seem to indicate gcc has closed the gap or is even faster than ms compiler. IMO this numbers indicate cleary that comparing prozessor architecures on the basis of theoretical or artifical (benchmarks) aspects is a bit naive, because compiler builders also might want to optimize their product to handle benchmarks well, and that doesnt describe the real world.
I did one such talk, and they offered a NDA without being asked for that. They explained such NDA would secure them too, cause they wanted to give some insight in their strucure, and I liked this. If I were your friend, I would first wait if they offer a NDA. If they don't, I would be very carefull. If I still wanted to talk to them, I would ask them whether they could offer me a NDA. If they can't, I would forget them, this can't be serious. Every serious investment venture capital firm will always have to use one. If they do have a preprinted NDA, I would check it very carefull, and ask lawyer if I'm uncertain.
Right from linux-kernel, this seems to have nothing to do with gcc, a modification in the kernel sources should do it (it was mentioned in a threat about 2.2.13pre18). from Matthias Hanisch: Try to increase the HEAP_SIZE constant to 0x3000 in linux/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c (as set in current 2.3.x kernels).
Just to clarify, I also don't think we should glorify him for what he has done. But I can't say I would damn him. I don't have any ethical opinions watching this whole thing. It was a deal between him and MTV. He cheated, MTV lost, but they lost more or less conscious. MTV had every chance to avoid this, it would have been so easy to uncover the truth. This outcome is better IMO than a 14 year old boy ruining his live by breaking into bank computer in front of a running camera.
I believe the media just want to make sure (more or less) that they cannot found guilty for lying. If he had told them the truth, they later wouldn't have been able to present themselves unknowing. If you don't explicitly tell it, they're save. I don't know whether you have heard about the scandal with the false Hitler's diaries and the german newspaper "Stern", but this story illustrates perfectly what I think about mass media.
This MTV special wasn't meant to be a joke for hackers, it was meant to be a story to give outsiders insight into what the life of a hacker is like. Nope, it wasn't, that's the problem. They pointed MTV to the real sources, he explicitly states this. MTV had their chance, but it was clear they didn't want to give any insight, they wanted a story. He gave them the story. The only difference is that he didn't let mtv blow a big bubble for themselves but he "helped" them without their knowledge.
I have asked this under the last story too, but I'm really interested in this and nobody answered. Perhaps you can enlighten me, didn't apple have contracts with motorola which assure either motorola delivering in time or paying big bucks? If not, isn't this very bad management on apples side to make big advertising and take preorders without being sure to be able to deliver? I mean, the graphic boards manufacturers are dependend on i.e. nvidia, but I haven't seen such a disaster there. And creative,elsa or others seem to have a much bigger incentive to market and release early because the products are generally very similiar.
While I think you're right in most cases, this one is special. There seem to have been misleading press releases or statements by apple itself. In the past, only the relativly few people who have done the actual ordering would have been aflicted by this confusion. When a company does something like this nowadays, they feel the wrath a thousend times stronger than just some angry calls for the sales people. So, this particular case shows IMO a good development.
The guy has been in the right place at the right time. If a bee-master buys a new bee-hive and hangs it in his garden, the one bee first to find the neighbours big field of flowers will also be called a genius from her brothers and sisters since then.
Now serious, I think he has done clever, but I think also at that time it was inevitable something like that would happen. Once you control the os market you have make big mistakes not to grow into other markets.
Well, one may have heard something similar before, but 38 years seems to be enough time even for intel to get out 64bit architectures, where the problem doesn't exist anymore AFAIK. But you're right, if easy to accomplish, this problem should be corrected now, esp. considering linus' "linux for embedded systems" offensive
There's something I don't get here, if I'm agreeing to deliver a product to a client at a guaranted deadline and have suppliers I'm depended on to meet the deadline, I demand deadlines from them, too. I make contracts with my suppliers where I write down fees for not delivering in time. I set the fees at least as high as the fees I will have to pay because I cannot meet the timing. Or I get a phrase in the suppliers contract which states that they have to cover my costs which arise when they fail to deliver in time.
Either apple is dumber than me in doing contracts (which I heavily doubt) or motorola denies to sign such terms. If the first is true - apple, you know where to find me;-) - if the second is true, well they should have been more careful with their pre-anouncements, methinks. Oh, I forgot one possibility, perhaps motorola apple has to pay fees to apple and apple just wants to keep them for themselves. (big;-)) Even in the very turbulent graphic boards market I haven't seen such corporate behaviour before. Announcing vaporware - yes, for sure, but taking orders for vaporware (in the sense of being not ready for delivery) - no, never.
It's their code, they are a company, they can do whatever they want without explanation, but
1. The argument is that [with SCSL] the [open source] community makes Sun rich. Well, the community makes Red Hat rich -- no community member has really joined in that.
The argument isn't that the community makes sun rich, the argument is that the community makes sun rich without getting something back other than bugfixes or features sun should have delivered anyway, and with no guarantee how long the developer will be able to see the source in the future. In contrast redhat has in no way total influence to the linux kernel or other gpl'ed software they put on their dist, so when redhats future plans differ from the communities regarding the software, redhat looses. And redhat (and suse and others) activly contribute code under the same license back to the community. To summarize, redhat and suse etc. help the community without drawbacks while sun does not.
2. Sun, as a commercial company whose products include intellectual property licensed from multiple sources, needs that control, because it's completely impossible to give away the whole lot without the agreement of everybody who actually owns it.
Just showing the source code has this problems too, this point is void. In addition, everybody (at least I) would understand sun holding back portions of the source which they don't own or even just don't want to license under (l)gpl, as long as it doesn't violate the free license. Look at the interview with John Carmack, sun.
3. "One big problem with GPL is that it's hard to give the customer indemnification and product warranties." So long as open source software really is open source then this oughtn't to be much of a problem, but where are the guarantees that it is? "You can submit source that's been stolen," he says.
huh? I can contribute stolen code under the SCSL too, can't I. The only way to prevent this is not to accept source from the outside, so better stay closed, sun. And wouldn't letting the copyright in the hands of the contributor assure his liability of said code? IANAL, but wouldn't it be possible to use the GPL and force a contributer to sign a kind of guarantee for the code's legality if this code is included in the "offical" star office distribution?
4. So long as it isn't possible to sure about all of the ownership of the code, it's foolhardy for suppliers to give customers guarantees and indemnities about it.
This is completly bogus, IMO. Thanks to today's patent chaos, no one can be really sure to buy a software or hardware which is completly safe from coming under fire by an patent imfringement lawsuit. How many gif creation tools are out there, and I bet there are many commercial closed source products, whose use for gif creation is illegal. If I remember correctly, apple sued microsoft for windows copiing MACos, nvidia had some lawsuits, netscape and so on.
I for one would be thankfull if someone from sun would have the guts to tell us: "If we use the GPL now and want to change our mind (and our license) in a year or two, we are screwed cause people could just fork off the latest gpl'ed version and compete with us."
I know that there are many people out there who make one ashamed to "confess" liking linux and open source (yeah, really). But you have to realize that whether the open source community thinks of microsoft and sun as their enemy or not, these corporations and esp. ms HAVE TO think of linux as an enemy. And their actions against linux are sometimes tiresome and do feed some hostility. For one, there are certain corporate webpages or benchmarks, I could ignore these, my clients till now hadt read them anyway. But document formats (office), missing interoperability (just imagine having to use a mssql backend with a linux webserver), ignoring of standarts ("we want to send our corporate mail with fancy logos in it, dont tell us it isnt possible, my son does it all the time with outlook") - these are the problems which make me desire the downfall of certain companies.
I dont mind which os someone uses, but at the same time, I want to have the chance to do it at my will as well. It seems big companies pose the biggest threat against this desire, and thats why I personally fear them and many hate them.
I'm a bit late to post, but anyway perhaps you'll see that, slashdot is getting a bit hectic lately. My post was not meant in favour of ms, just an observation - thats why I wrote down the dd command;-). New features one can recognice at the first view (like Office Agents, bah) are not necessary for calling something "new version". That's commercial software's world thinking. Be sure that microsoft has used the service packs not only to fix bugs (that would be very depressing assuming the amount of new code, wouldn't it), but to improve the code, too (mostly speedwise I would guess). I seem to remember reading something like that even on linux-kernel. So the poster I responded to is completely false in stating that nt4+sp5 is 1996's technology, it is in fact the latest and greatest microsoft has to deliver in _1999_. So comparing linux 2.2 to nt4+sp5 is in fact completely valid.
This is a good one originally from ms (i.e. it works this way if nothing bad happens...)
A summary, look at the original, you will fall from your chair, because the are more trapdoors than a suse-distro has packages. And remember, for every point you see above there's an average of one reboot (my guesstimate). First a bunch of pre-installation tips in the form of do not install ms-software xy version a.bcd together with mss 3.0, otherwise you're screwed, and then this:
Install Windows NT-Server 4.0
Install Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3.
Install Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 2 using the Standard installation.
Install the Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Option Pack.
Install Index Server, Windows Scripting Host, and under the IIS options, install the SMTP server.
Install the updated FrontPage 98 Server Extensions, version 3.0.2.1706.
Install Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack
Install Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0. For this configuration, Internet Explorer 5.0 is required.
Install Microsoft SQL Server 7.0.
Install SQL Server 7.0 Service Pack 1. Q232570.[...}Installing SQL 7.0 SP1 can take up to 30 minutes, which does not include the time it takes to download the service pack.
Configure the SQL Server client default Network Library to Named Pipes.
Verify that the MSDTC service is started and that MSDTC is configured to start automatically.
Configure database connectivity.
Install Site Server 3.0.
(Optional) Install Commerce Server.
(Optional) Install Visual Studio 6.0 or Visual Studio 97.[...] If you installed Visual Studio, apply Visual Studio 97 Service Pack 3 or Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 3 appropriately.
Install Site Server 3.0 Service Pack 2.
(Optional) Install Commerce Interchange Pipeline Manager (CIPM) for Site Server 3.0, Commerce Edition.
Install MDAC version 2.1.2.4202.3, which is also known as MDAC 2.1 SP2.
Install ADSI 2.5.
Install Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 5.
After that there follow 8 "post-installation instructions, i.e. bugfixes and workarounds".
This cracked me up too. The purpose of this is security, and to ensure a bad application can't steal all resources from a given hardware device.
Let's imagine a nt-webserver:
HAL: "Hey IIS, stop it, you're stealing all the system and net resource, calm down" IIS: "But, this is ok, we have much traffic, I HAVE to use this much resources" HAL: "FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP IT OR I KILL YOU" IIS: "No, I can't, pleeease" (IIS continues doing his work...) HAL kills IIS.
Just to clarify, you just should (in ms's view) do each install by hand. The installer creates a unique sid for this installation, and if nt detects the same sid on the net, you have a problem. Pure diskimages will not work. Look at www.sysinternals.com for a free solution.
While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT, most of your agruments are moot with Windows 2000 (NT5). It may make your agruments easier to compare the 1996 version of NT4 with the latest version of Linux, but we don't want to spread FUD, do we? You think it is vaporware? You can buy the pre-release copy to test with, etc.
May I offer you a clue? I had to set up a test system and had to make compressed disc images of standart nt installations, nt, nt+sp3, nt+sp4. (dd if=/dev/hda1 | gzip windowsnt+sp4.gzip;) The size of the nt+sp4 gzip is more than the two time of the pure nt-gzip. This isn't the same OS as 1996 at all!!
You get a standart installed winnt, I get standart red hat 6.1.
I download the 21 rpms and install them,you download 1 sp5 and install it. We neglect the fact that my system is as secure as possible while your system has may of some nice (and they are really nice) hotfixes missing (ODBC/RDS, go figure).
Guess who's faster.
A hint: Number of files is no measure for complexity - Number of kbytes to download and reboots to do are.
Absolutly, as other said too this is neither new nor does it make much sense. Internet, as we know it today is more like a book if you compare the method of perception (sp?). I mean it's mostly reading and thinking. But many all are working heavily to change this.
We have to face it, the big bad corporations want to turn the internet in a big bad 24x7 transcontinental shopping channel for information and goods. They will succeed in one way or another, but only for the people who don't know or want better (the majority).This is the driving force for ideas like that, intel and nokia (and a pile of others) want to join indirectly, these two try to control the technical side.
Linux and mozilla gives them the the ability to leave out a third player which otherwise would control the technical software infrastructure. OTOH - I don't remember mozillas license for such causes, but shouldn't we expect netscape i.e. AOL joining the gang?
I think the most important aspect is that this is really a bad change for microsoft's strategy. Two global players openly demonstrate a relativly big future vision which clearly would lock microsoft out off a field where microsoft OTOH is aggressivly heading.
nope, see my post somewhat down, they clearly state that in pcweek:
Larsen's idea: Change the OS security model and take advantage of Linux's open source code. He ripped out Linux's security kernel, rewrote it "180 degrees" and made access dependent on processes running on the system, rather than on the user
Haha, great idea, take advantage of open source...
Have you looked at the product, does it make any sense? I doubt it, and the gpl infringment seems very clear if they really don't provide source code and follow the gpl. Looking on their business modell they will never be able to. Hey Bruce, if you ever looked for an easy target, they seem to be. I tried to find out more from their website, but the marketing bubble there didn't describe more than a normally configured internet host should accomplish. (i.e. Web server with Custom Gateway Interface (CGI) server-side programming,SMTP anti spamming - Restricts access to mail server from unauthorized users sic!) But look at an article at zdnet He ripped out Linux's security kernel, rewrote it "180 degrees" and made access dependent on processes running on the system, rather than on the user. The president and CTO of brickhouse tells such brilliant security enhancing ideas like not to have you business data on your webserver or not to start your webserver as root. (first link on the links section) And following some link at the links-section, I found a story (at www.amarillonet.com) where the newspaper had to print a correction cause cpm had given some unprofable statements about some hackers in order to promote the product. If I was SAGE, I would get some other promoters.
THIS is an important thing, smelling so bad I can hardly breath. I went to the website and poked around and saw "antionline says this, happyhacker that about our product" and decided to start up the old whois. Seems to me that if your story is true, there is another pile of people who would happily use this to make someone's day bad. UUH, wait, it gets better (from the website): High-tech author and engineer Carolyn Meinel, whose Happy Hacker Web site has been hacked on several occasions, commented, "Hackers wanting to take down my Web site are out of luck. These digital vandals, who have recently hacked several prominent corporate and government Web sites, continue their onslaught against my site, but they've been unsuccessful since I've implemented BRICKHouse."
whois www.3rdpig.com:
Registrant: Systems Advisory Group Enterprises, Inc (SAGE) (3RDPIG-DOM) 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1001 Amarillo, TX 79109 US
As always, a comment like this shouldn't get an answer, but then... This is not only offtopic, this is completly absurd. First, technokrat is no copy of slashdot, it has an similar look. So what, this look is a proven way to deliver this kind of information. Technocrat delivers A DIFFERENT KIND OF INFORMATION. Second, why do you whine about copiing in a threat about GPL. You haven't understood anything. Third, HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED AT THE HEADERS OF AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE POSTERS ON SLASHDOT? THEY ALL ADVERTISE AN URL!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with you critical view on some typical slashdot
reactions, I would really like you to explain how this
software could be better than teachers being informed
and having some common sense.
This silly invention is just there to save some teachers the
torture of thinking on their own and acting responsible.
If they really wanted to do a test, I propose do a test for
teachers, where they are given some cases and have to
decide how to act.
For instance I learned to know many teachers who gave
a shit when they clearly could see some kid in emotional
trouble, being always alone on the school yard and/or
showing real sights of panic after getting bad rates.
These ignorant beings are the last ones which I would
describe as - as you say - "capable hands".
And about "statistical analysis". I read about a guy who
always was taken aside and examined very closely at
the airport when he wanted to fly somewhere.
He sued the airline, and they had to confess they had
used "statistical analysis" (i.e. data mining) to develop
a model of the typical hijacker, and this poor guy
fitted in.
Statistical analysis which can have real (and bad)
consequences for innocent individuals should be
illegal IMO.
Very informative post, thank you.
One impression I always have is that intel chips are
constantly underrated. Yes, the architecture is old, yes there
are some chips like alpha and g4 which are faster under some
circumstances.
But theres one thing which some friends of mine, who do
numbercrunching on clusters allways tell me, that is the
compiler aspect.
For instance they say the alpha looks in fact very good
theoretically, but they also say that the compilers job
in optimizing for the alpha is harder than for ia32.
The real-world performance of ia32 seems to be nearer
at the theoretical (benchmark) performance. I have seen
some tests in magazines which tell me the same.
And even on the intel plattform theres a huge difference
depending on what compiler one uses, i.e. ms VC on nt was
up to 30 % faster than gcc on linux. That was an older
benchmark, newer ones I saw seem to indicate gcc has
closed the gap or is even faster than ms compiler.
IMO this numbers indicate cleary that comparing prozessor
architecures on the basis of theoretical or artifical (benchmarks)
aspects is a bit naive, because compiler builders also might
want to optimize their product to handle benchmarks well, and
that doesnt describe the real world.
I did one such talk, and they offered a NDA without being asked for that.
They explained such NDA would secure them too, cause they wanted to give some insight in their strucure, and I liked this.
If I were your friend, I would first wait if they offer a NDA. If they don't, I would be very carefull.
If I still wanted to talk to them, I would ask them whether they could offer me a NDA.
If they can't, I would forget them, this can't be serious. Every serious investment venture capital firm will always have to use one.
If they do have a preprinted NDA, I would check it very carefull, and ask lawyer if I'm uncertain.
Right from linux-kernel, this seems to have nothing to do with gcc,
a modification in the kernel sources should
do it (it was mentioned in a threat about 2.2.13pre18).
from Matthias Hanisch:
Try to increase the HEAP_SIZE constant to 0x3000 in
linux/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c (as set in current 2.3.x kernels).
Just to clarify, I also don't think we should glorify him for what he has done. But I can't say I would damn him. I don't have any ethical opinions watching this whole thing. It was a deal between him and MTV. He cheated, MTV lost, but they lost more or less conscious. MTV had every chance to avoid this, it would have been so easy to uncover the truth. This outcome is better IMO than a 14 year old boy ruining his live by breaking into bank computer in front of a running camera.
I believe the media just want to make sure (more or less) that they cannot found guilty for lying. If he had told them the truth, they later wouldn't have been able to present themselves unknowing. If you don't explicitly tell it, they're save.
I don't know whether you have heard about the scandal with the false Hitler's diaries and the german newspaper "Stern", but this story illustrates perfectly what I think about mass media.
This MTV special wasn't meant to be a joke for hackers, it was meant to be a story to give outsiders insight into what the life of a hacker is like.
Nope, it wasn't, that's the problem.
They pointed MTV to the real sources, he explicitly states this. MTV had their chance, but it was clear they didn't want to give any insight, they wanted a story.
He gave them the story.
The only difference is that he didn't let mtv blow a big bubble for themselves but he "helped" them without their knowledge.
I have asked this under the last story too, but I'm really interested in this and nobody answered.
Perhaps you can enlighten me, didn't apple have contracts with motorola which assure either motorola delivering in time or paying big bucks?
If not, isn't this very bad management on apples side to make big advertising and take preorders without being sure to be able to deliver?
I mean, the graphic boards manufacturers are dependend on i.e. nvidia, but I haven't seen such a disaster there. And creative,elsa or others seem to have a much bigger incentive to market and release early because the products are generally very similiar.
While I think you're right in most cases, this one is special.
There seem to have been misleading press releases or statements by apple itself.
In the past, only the relativly few people who have done the actual ordering would have been aflicted by this confusion.
When a company does something like this nowadays, they feel the wrath a thousend times stronger than just some angry calls for the sales people.
So, this particular case shows IMO a good development.
The guy has been in the right place at the right time.
If a bee-master buys a new bee-hive and hangs it in his garden, the one bee first to find the neighbours big field of flowers will also be called a genius from her brothers and sisters since then.
Now serious, I think he has done clever, but I think also at that time it was inevitable something like that would happen. Once you control the os market you have make big mistakes not to grow into other markets.
Well, one may have heard something similar before, but 38 years seems to be enough time even for intel to get out 64bit architectures, where the problem doesn't exist anymore AFAIK.
But you're right, if easy to accomplish, this problem should be corrected now, esp. considering linus' "linux for embedded systems" offensive
There's something I don't get here,
;-) - if the second is true, well they should have been more careful with their pre-anouncements, methinks. ;-))
if I'm agreeing to deliver a product to a client at a guaranted deadline and have suppliers I'm depended on to meet the deadline, I demand deadlines from them, too.
I make contracts with my suppliers where I write down fees for not delivering in time.
I set the fees at least as high as the fees I will have to pay because I cannot meet the timing.
Or I get a phrase in the suppliers contract which states that they have to cover my costs which arise when they fail to deliver in time.
Either apple is dumber than me in doing contracts (which I heavily doubt) or motorola denies to sign such terms. If the first is true - apple, you know where to find me
Oh, I forgot one possibility, perhaps motorola apple has to pay fees to apple and apple just wants to keep them for themselves. (big
Even in the very turbulent graphic boards market I haven't seen such corporate behaviour before.
Announcing vaporware - yes, for sure, but taking orders for vaporware (in the sense of being not ready for delivery) - no, never.
1. The argument is that [with SCSL] the [open source] community makes Sun rich. Well, the community makes Red Hat rich -- no community member has really joined in that.
- The argument isn't that the community makes sun rich, the argument is that the community makes sun rich without getting something back other than bugfixes or features sun should have delivered anyway, and with no guarantee how long the developer will be able to see the source in the future. In contrast redhat has in no way total influence to the linux kernel or other gpl'ed software they put on their dist, so when redhats future plans differ from the communities regarding the software, redhat looses. And redhat (and suse and others) activly contribute code under the same license back to the community. To summarize, redhat and suse etc. help the community without drawbacks while sun does not.
2. Sun, as a commercial company whose products include intellectual property licensed from multiple sources, needs that control, because it's completely impossible to give away the whole lot without the agreement of everybody who actually owns it.- Just showing the source code has this problems too, this point is void. In addition, everybody (at least I) would understand sun holding back portions of the source which they don't own or even just don't want to license under (l)gpl, as long as it doesn't violate the free license. Look at the interview with John Carmack, sun.
3. "One big problem with GPL is that it's hard to give the customer indemnification and product warranties." So long as open source software really is open source then this oughtn't to be much of a problem, but where are the guarantees that it is? "You can submit source that's been stolen," he says.- huh? I can contribute stolen code under the SCSL too, can't I. The only way to prevent this is not to accept source from the outside, so better stay closed, sun. And wouldn't letting the copyright in the hands of the contributor assure his liability of said code? IANAL, but wouldn't it be possible to use the GPL and force a contributer to sign a kind of guarantee for the code's legality if this code is included in the "offical" star office distribution?
4. So long as it isn't possible to sure about all of the ownership of the code, it's foolhardy for suppliers to give customers guarantees and indemnities about it.- This is completly bogus, IMO. Thanks to today's patent chaos, no one can be really sure to buy a software or hardware which is completly safe from coming under fire by an patent imfringement lawsuit. How many gif creation tools are out there, and I bet there are many commercial closed source products, whose use for gif creation is illegal. If I remember correctly, apple sued microsoft for windows copiing MACos, nvidia had some lawsuits, netscape and so on.
I for one would be thankfull if someone from sun would have the guts to tell us: "If we use the GPL now and want to change our mind (and our license) in a year or two, we are screwed cause people could just fork off the latest gpl'ed version and compete with us."I know that there are many people out there who make one ashamed to "confess" liking linux and open source (yeah, really).
But you have to realize that whether the open source community thinks of microsoft and sun as their enemy or not, these corporations and esp. ms HAVE TO think of linux as an enemy.
And their actions against linux are sometimes tiresome and do feed some hostility.
For one, there are certain corporate webpages or benchmarks, I could ignore these, my clients till now hadt read them anyway.
But document formats (office), missing interoperability (just imagine having to use a mssql backend with a linux webserver), ignoring of standarts ("we want to send our corporate mail with fancy logos in it, dont tell us it isnt possible, my son does it all the time with outlook") - these are the problems which make me desire the downfall of certain companies.
I dont mind which os someone uses, but at the same time, I want to have the chance to do it at my will as well.
It seems big companies pose the biggest threat against this desire, and thats why I personally fear them and many hate them.
I'm a bit late to post, but anyway perhaps you'll see that, slashdot is getting a bit hectic lately. My post was not meant in favour of ms, just an observation - thats why I wrote down the dd command ;-).
New features one can recognice at the first view (like Office Agents, bah) are not necessary for calling something "new version". That's commercial software's world thinking.
Be sure that microsoft has used the service packs not only to fix bugs (that would be very depressing assuming the amount of new code, wouldn't it), but to improve the code, too (mostly speedwise I would guess). I seem to remember reading something like that even on linux-kernel.
So the poster I responded to is completely false in stating that nt4+sp5 is 1996's technology, it is in fact the latest and greatest microsoft has to deliver in _1999_. So comparing linux 2.2 to nt4+sp5 is in fact completely valid.
This is a good one originally from ms (i.e. it works this way if nothing bad happens
A summary, look at the original, you will fall from your chair, because the are more trapdoors than a suse-distro has packages. And remember, for every point you see above there's an average of one reboot (my guesstimate).
First a bunch of pre-installation tips in the form of do not install ms-software xy version a.bcd together with mss 3.0, otherwise you're screwed, and then this:
If you installed Visual Studio, apply Visual Studio 97 Service Pack 3 or Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 3 appropriately.
After that there follow 8 "post-installation instructions, i.e. bugfixes and workarounds".
This cracked me up too.
The purpose of this is security, and to ensure a bad application can't steal all resources from a given hardware device.
Let's imagine a nt-webserver:
HAL: "Hey IIS, stop it, you're stealing all the system and net resource, calm down"
IIS: "But, this is ok, we have much traffic, I HAVE to use this much resources"
HAL: "FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP IT OR I KILL YOU"
IIS: "No, I can't, pleeease"
(IIS continues doing his work...)
HAL kills IIS.
Just to clarify, you just should (in ms's view) do each install by hand.
The installer creates a unique sid for this installation, and if nt detects the same sid on the net, you have a problem. Pure diskimages will not work.
Look at www.sysinternals.com for a free solution.
While you are talking about the 1996 version of NT, most of your agruments are moot with Windows 2000 (NT5). It may make your agruments easier to compare the 1996 version of NT4 with the latest version of Linux, but we don't want to spread FUD, do we? You think it is vaporware? You can buy the pre-release copy to test with, etc.
May I offer you a clue?
I had to set up a test system and had to make compressed disc images of standart nt installations, nt, nt+sp3, nt+sp4. (dd if=/dev/hda1 | gzip windowsnt+sp4.gzip;)
The size of the nt+sp4 gzip is more than the two time of the pure nt-gzip.
This isn't the same OS as 1996 at all!!
uhm I mean ..your system may have some nice ....
Ok, a challenge:
You get a standart installed winnt, I get standart red hat 6.1.
I download the 21 rpms and install them,you download 1 sp5 and install it.
We neglect the fact that my system is as secure as possible while your system has may of some nice (and they are really nice) hotfixes missing (ODBC/RDS, go figure).
Guess who's faster.
A hint:
Number of files is no measure for complexity -
Number of kbytes to download and reboots to do are.
Absolutly, as other said too this is neither new nor does it make much sense. Internet, as we know it today is more like a book if you compare the method of perception (sp?). I mean it's mostly reading and thinking. But many all are working heavily to change this.
We have to face it, the big bad corporations want to turn the internet in a big bad 24x7 transcontinental shopping channel for information and goods. They will succeed in one way or another, but only for the people who don't know or want better (the majority).This is the driving force for ideas like that, intel and nokia (and a pile of others) want to join indirectly, these two try to control the technical side.
Linux and mozilla gives them the the ability to leave out a third player which otherwise would control the technical software infrastructure.
OTOH - I don't remember mozillas license for such causes, but shouldn't we expect netscape i.e. AOL joining the gang?
I think the most important aspect is that this is really a bad change for microsoft's strategy.
Two global players openly demonstrate a relativly big future vision which clearly would lock microsoft out off a field where microsoft OTOH is aggressivly heading.
nope, see my post somewhat down, they clearly state that in pcweek:
Larsen's idea: Change the OS security model and take advantage of Linux's open source code. He ripped out Linux's security kernel, rewrote it "180 degrees" and made access dependent on processes running on the system, rather than on the user
Haha, great idea, take advantage of open source...
Have you looked at the product, does it make any sense? I doubt it, and the gpl infringment seems very clear if they really don't provide source code and follow the gpl. Looking on their business modell they will never be able to. Hey Bruce, if you ever looked for an easy target, they seem to be.
I tried to find out more from their website, but the marketing bubble there didn't describe more than a normally configured internet host should accomplish. (i.e. Web server with Custom Gateway Interface (CGI) server-side programming,SMTP anti spamming - Restricts access to mail server from unauthorized users sic!)
But look at an article at zdnet He ripped out Linux's security kernel, rewrote it "180 degrees" and made access dependent on processes running on the system, rather than on the user.
The president and CTO of brickhouse tells such brilliant security enhancing ideas like not to have you business data on your webserver or not to start your webserver as root. (first link on the links section)
And following some link at the links-section, I found a story (at www.amarillonet.com) where the newspaper had to print a correction cause cpm had given some unprofable statements about some hackers in order to promote the product.
If I was SAGE, I would get some other promoters.
THIS is an important thing, smelling so bad I can hardly breath. I went to the website and poked around and saw "antionline says this, happyhacker that about our product" and decided to start up the old whois.
Seems to me that if your story is true, there is another pile of people who would happily use this to make someone's day bad.
UUH, wait, it gets better (from the website):
High-tech author and engineer Carolyn Meinel, whose Happy Hacker Web site has been hacked on several occasions, commented, "Hackers wanting to take down my Web site are out of luck. These digital vandals, who have recently hacked several prominent corporate and government Web sites, continue their onslaught against my site, but they've been unsuccessful since I've implemented BRICKHouse."
whois www.3rdpig.com:
Registrant:
Systems Advisory Group Enterprises, Inc (SAGE) (3RDPIG-DOM)
2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1001
Amarillo, TX 79109
US
Domain Name: 3RDPIG.COM
Administrative Contact:
Barreras, Rhonda (RB6088) rhonda@SAGE-INC.COM
806-354-8185 (FAX) 806-354-8366
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Knight, Chris (CK5577) chris@SAGE-INC.COM
806-354-8185 (FAX) 806-354-8366
Billing Contact:
Geiger, Lynn (LG4869) lynng@SAGE-INC.COM
806-354-8185 (FAX) 806-354-8366
Record last updated on 24-Mar-99.
Record created on 11-Jul-97.
Database last updated on 11-Oct-99 03:52:52 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS1.WURLD.NET 206.61.52.11
DNS2.WURLD.NET 206.61.52.12
and whois www.happyhacker.org
Registrant:
Happy Hacker (HAPPYHACKER3-DOM)
PO Box 1520
Cedar Crest, NM 87008-1520
US
Domain Name: HAPPYHACKER.ORG
Administrative Contact:
Meinel, Carolyn (CM5166) cpm@RT66.COM
505.281.9675 (FAX) 505.281.9269
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Knight, Chris (CK5577) chris@SAGE-INC.COM
806-354-8185 (FAX) 806-354-8366
Billing Contact:
Meinel, Carolyn (CM5166) cpm@RT66.COM
505.281.9675 (FAX) 505.281.9269
Record last updated on 23-Mar-99.
Record created on 29-Oct-97.
Database last updated on 11-Oct-99 03:52:52 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
DNS1.WURLD.NET 206.61.52.11
DNS2.WURLD.NET 206.61.52.12
As always, a comment like this shouldn't get an answer, but then ...
This is not only offtopic, this is completly absurd.
First, technokrat is no copy of slashdot, it has an similar look. So what, this look is a proven way to deliver this kind of information.
Technocrat delivers A DIFFERENT KIND OF INFORMATION.
Second, why do you whine about copiing in a threat about GPL. You haven't understood anything.
Third, HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED AT THE HEADERS OF AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE POSTERS ON SLASHDOT? THEY ALL ADVERTISE AN URL!!!!