From the new protocol, can anyone gather what and more importantly why Yahoo changed? Was it security reasons? Or was it simply to lock other clients out?
As a third party software developer, I'd like to know what will be guaranteed to remain static within a given release of Fedora and its updates. If I write software that's dependent on, say gtk2-2.2.5 and which will break down (hypothetically) with a newer version of the gtk2 package, will I be guaranteed that this won't be the case with updates to a specific version of Fedora?
One concern of software developers is guaranteeing minimum requirements for the software they develop. Look around you and you'll see developers stating their software "works with RH 9" or whatever. If Fedora becomes too much of a moving target, it will be a headache to develop software for it.
In the plans of China, Japan and Korea to develop their own system based on Linux, did they at any time mention establishing proprietart, local interoperability standards? As far as I can tell, they would develop their own OS and support software and adhere to global standards such as TCP/IP and other open standards (such as XML, etc.)
Does Intel know something about these local developments that we're not aware of?
Another good question is who decides on what becomes a global standard. It most certainly isn't Intel. This just boosts the need to have an international organization that is open to ALL countries without prejudice. So that countries like the aforementioned can participate in open standards development, yet not remain reliant on foreign software developers.
My own take on this as a customer is that I DON'T want my service provider to provide me with indemnification. I've a brain and that's how I run my company. No, indemnification from my services provider isn't what I want. What I want is for them to sue any company that threatens me with unfounded claims.
Fortunately, IBM is doing just that. We will do business with IBM. HP isn't.
Since 1997, all my machines have been AMD's. The K6-2 is still alive, actually. One of them (a Duron 600) has been running 24x7 for the last 3 years. My gaming rig's a dual Athlon MP2000+. My current workstation's an Athlon XP2400+. I've NEVER had any problems with them, either hardward or software (Linux).
My biggest problem is what to do with the old mobos and processors that I put aside due to upgrading.
No, I've never had a reason to spend more for so little (it's even arguable whether you get more for spending more... I know. I've administered Intel-based servers).
I used to upgrade everyime a release would be made. In fact, just before 1.4, I would do CVS updates every now and then. Since 1.4 was released, I haven't had that much need to upgrade. I've got a VERY stable browser with all the features that I would use on a day-to-day basis.
I'm glad for the work to add more features, however, so long as they don't fall prey to the bloatware effect. Perhaps I will upgrade one more time, but only out of curiosity because I'm very satisfied with Mozilla 1.4
then that's a lousy way to protect us (yes, my company is a client of HP's). We don't need HP financing and supporting SCO's bogus claims. I want my solutions provider to SUE SCO. That's the indemnification I want.
As of now, any of my renewals for HP equipment (ePC's, etc.) are on hold until this is clarified. If they did acquire a license from SCO, they just lost some business.
If keithp isn't with the Xouvert project, I would be gravely disappointed. He's a great technologis, innovator and software writer (can't comment on his project organizational skills, though so joining a project instead of leading it might bet better).
How would your cost add up to ~$350k? Could you give use numbers. That may sounds like a big number, but it's also relative. If you end up with a cluse the size of LLNL, I would call $350k low. And what would you be paying $350k for? Would it be worth it if you did? Statements like yours where you make it seem like switching distros is the only solution have to be clarified.
Would someone please, PLEASE go to http://www.petitiononline.com/ and start a petition for HP to sue SCO? I can't seem to "start a new petition". I've also talked with a few colleagues who're in talks with HP to ask them to sue SCO if HP wants to continue doing business with them.
Perhaps it's just a transition thing. Slowly wean them away from MS Office, etc. They still have the existing software license. They can use them till they're done.
a) we're geeks. We pick apart things. Especially wild claims like "99% of geeks use Acme Rockets" that are patently untrue anyway.
Or, more accurately, because they're male geeks. Do you know how most males are competetive and try to show that they're better than others? The alpha male? Well, this is the male geeks' equivalent. You can still smell the testosterone. They just want to show how smart they are.
b) You asked what we standardized on. Who really cares? Your standards are yours. They apply to noone outside your organization.
Apparently the submitter and this reader cares. I'm sure we're not alone in wanting to know this statistic.
c) You probably should have asked a more intelligent question...
For a geek, you certainly are short-sighted. It was clear in the question that the poster was looking for additional input from his/her peers before making a learned decision. Even if that was a falsehood, I'd say most slashdot reader would also like to know that. If only we didn't have to wade through the cruft. You know how a huge percentage of Slashdot posters just post for the sake of doing so.
I've seen critics of ask slashdot inquiries before and have wanted to post a reply saying (sahdes of Bambi) "if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all". This is my first (and prolly last time) to actually do it.
d) You could have just as easily done a search on google if you were looking for opinions on the answer to the question I posed in c).
Here's one time when Googling for a question won't give as good a result as doing the actual survey. Now seriously: Google???
No. He doesn't have to say anything. Or if he has to, then extol on the virtues of his product. Instead of making prophecies which make him sounds stupid.
Of course, we all know he isn't stupid. Just annoying.
I have worked for an ISP that serviced individual as well as corporate clients nationwide and we used a combination of Linux servers and Cisco equipment. The servers were rock-solid, with or without patching, I could (and did) administer any of the devices (router or server) via a dialup, any customization we needed we could because we had the source, never had a problem with lock-in, all the software conformed to standards, and nothing could rival the techsupport given by the community. Try it - even though it costs no moent to run (oh, boo hoo $0 bucks...) it works with everything.
If the judge or jury decides in favor of SCO, they are going to be EXTREMELY unpopular with people around the world. Much more so than Judge Kollar-Kotelly (spelled right? Is she still on the chair? I was hoping she wouldn't).
Well, that is if the judgment isn't delayed until people tone down a bit. That's okay, we can stoke the fire later on. People, don't allow yourselves to be manipulated into indifference.
That's one of the problems with current number systems: they're based SOLELY on what humans relate to easilly rather than a well thought-out system. We have 5 fingers on one hand, 2 sets of hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. All of a sudden, base-10 and base-2 become our first choice when thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of concepts haven't been discovered simply because of our predisposition to those number systems.
Anyway, for a 4-coin, sub-dollar system, I still stand by 1-, 3-, 9- and 30-cent pieces since it's not too weird.
Why was the for operator enhanced instead of introducing a new keyword (such as "foreach") which would lessen the confusion, build on the understanding that most programmers who've seen other languages have, and make much more sense in general?
One of the advantages of using M$ products according to M$ itself is that with Windows, there's someone always liable for the product (as opposed to, say, Free and Opensource Software).
I'd find it REALLY neat if some game write would write a game for Linux which will compile without much change for Linux/XBox as well as Linux/PS2 (and even Linux/PC). Or are there games out there now? I wouldn't mind buying an XBox or PS2 if someone would release/sell Linux games for it.
(They'd have to use the game controller, of course)
Nothing wrong with being corporate-controlled, per se. Regardless, Keith's suggestion for governance seems to shift the choice to the community (or, at least to those people who'd care enough to participate).
Besides, it's not about ideology or even the type of government. More important are the characters of the leaders. All the different ideologies did well and poorly depending on the leaders of those bodies. In this case, I believe Keith Packard, Jim Gettys and the whole gang forming xwin to be honorable and community-oriented people.
I wonder how probable it is for technology as good as this HD DVD codec to be developed by individuals working together without any kind of funding. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if free and open source software users like myself only deserve second-rate technology because of our ideology. Sure freely developed and licensed audio codecs like Ogg Vorbis exist, but it seems in the video world, proprietary and well-funded seems to leave open and free in the dust. Or am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
From the new protocol, can anyone gather what and more importantly why Yahoo changed? Was it security reasons? Or was it simply to lock other clients out?
As a third party software developer, I'd like to know what will be guaranteed to remain static within a given release of Fedora and its updates. If I write software that's dependent on, say gtk2-2.2.5 and which will break down (hypothetically) with a newer version of the gtk2 package, will I be guaranteed that this won't be the case with updates to a specific version of Fedora?
One concern of software developers is guaranteeing minimum requirements for the software they develop. Look around you and you'll see developers stating their software "works with RH 9" or whatever. If Fedora becomes too much of a moving target, it will be a headache to develop software for it.
In the plans of China, Japan and Korea to develop their own system based on Linux, did they at any time mention establishing proprietart, local interoperability standards? As far as I can tell, they would develop their own OS and support software and adhere to global standards such as TCP/IP and other open standards (such as XML, etc.)
Does Intel know something about these local developments that we're not aware of?
Another good question is who decides on what becomes a global standard. It most certainly isn't Intel. This just boosts the need to have an international organization that is open to ALL countries without prejudice. So that countries like the aforementioned can participate in open standards development, yet not remain reliant on foreign software developers.
My own take on this as a customer is that I DON'T want my service provider to provide me with indemnification. I've a brain and that's how I run my company. No, indemnification from my services provider isn't what I want. What I want is for them to sue any company that threatens me with unfounded claims.
Fortunately, IBM is doing just that. We will do business with IBM. HP isn't.
Since 1997, all my machines have been AMD's. The K6-2 is still alive, actually. One of them (a Duron 600) has been running 24x7 for the last 3 years. My gaming rig's a dual Athlon MP2000+. My current workstation's an Athlon XP2400+. I've NEVER had any problems with them, either hardward or software (Linux).
... I know. I've administered Intel-based servers).
My biggest problem is what to do with the old mobos and processors that I put aside due to upgrading.
No, I've never had a reason to spend more for so little (it's even arguable whether you get more for spending more
I used to upgrade everyime a release would be made. In fact, just before 1.4, I would do CVS updates every now and then. Since 1.4 was released, I haven't had that much need to upgrade. I've got a VERY stable browser with all the features that I would use on a day-to-day basis.
I'm glad for the work to add more features, however, so long as they don't fall prey to the bloatware effect. Perhaps I will upgrade one more time, but only out of curiosity because I'm very satisfied with Mozilla 1.4
then that's a lousy way to protect us (yes, my company is a client of HP's). We don't need HP financing and supporting SCO's bogus claims. I want my solutions provider to SUE SCO. That's the indemnification I want.
As of now, any of my renewals for HP equipment (ePC's, etc.) are on hold until this is clarified. If they did acquire a license from SCO, they just lost some business.
If keithp isn't with the Xouvert project, I would be gravely disappointed. He's a great technologis, innovator and software writer (can't comment on his project organizational skills, though so joining a project instead of leading it might bet better).
How would your cost add up to ~$350k? Could you give use numbers. That may sounds like a big number, but it's also relative. If you end up with a cluse the size of LLNL, I would call $350k low. And what would you be paying $350k for? Would it be worth it if you did? Statements like yours where you make it seem like switching distros is the only solution have to be clarified.
Would someone please, PLEASE go to http://www.petitiononline.com/ and start a petition for HP to sue SCO? I can't seem to "start a new petition". I've also talked with a few colleagues who're in talks with HP to ask them to sue SCO if HP wants to continue doing business with them.
Perhaps it's just a transition thing. Slowly wean them away from MS Office, etc. They still have the existing software license. They can use them till they're done.
This news item on the same Slashdot page as the news on M$ and Homeland Security. I'm glad I don't live in the US.
a) we're geeks. We pick apart things. Especially wild claims like "99% of geeks use Acme Rockets" that are patently untrue anyway.
Or, more accurately, because they're male geeks. Do you know how most males are competetive and try to show that they're better than others? The alpha male? Well, this is the male geeks' equivalent. You can still smell the testosterone. They just want to show how smart they are.
b) You asked what we standardized on. Who really cares? Your standards are yours. They apply to noone outside your organization.
Apparently the submitter and this reader cares. I'm sure we're not alone in wanting to know this statistic.
c) You probably should have asked a more intelligent question...
For a geek, you certainly are short-sighted. It was clear in the question that the poster was looking for additional input from his/her peers before making a learned decision. Even if that was a falsehood, I'd say most slashdot reader would also like to know that. If only we didn't have to wade through the cruft. You know how a huge percentage of Slashdot posters just post for the sake of doing so.
I've seen critics of ask slashdot inquiries before and have wanted to post a reply saying (sahdes of Bambi) "if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all". This is my first (and prolly last time) to actually do it.
d) You could have just as easily done a search on google if you were looking for opinions on the answer to the question I posed in c).
Here's one time when Googling for a question won't give as good a result as doing the actual survey. Now seriously: Google???
No. He doesn't have to say anything. Or if he has to, then extol on the virtues of his product. Instead of making prophecies which make him sounds stupid.
Of course, we all know he isn't stupid. Just annoying.
I hope Motorola joins in, as well. Then there's the Embedded Linux Consortium. I do hope they consolidate their resources.
On a different note, any news on the Motorola A760?
It's nice seeing on slashdot's frontpage stories like Bill Gates' interview about Linux going nowhere and this story about Linux going everywhere.
I swear, Bill Gates must be the worst technologist/visionary/prophet if he only sees Linux as a passing fad.
I have worked for an ISP that serviced individual as well as corporate clients nationwide and we used a combination of Linux servers and Cisco equipment. The servers were rock-solid, with or without patching, I could (and did) administer any of the devices (router or server) via a dialup, any customization we needed we could because we had the source, never had a problem with lock-in, all the software conformed to standards, and nothing could rival the techsupport given by the community. Try it - even though it costs no moent to run (oh, boo hoo $0 bucks...) it works with everything.
If the judge or jury decides in favor of SCO, they are going to be EXTREMELY unpopular with people around the world. Much more so than Judge Kollar-Kotelly (spelled right? Is she still on the chair? I was hoping she wouldn't).
Well, that is if the judgment isn't delayed until people tone down a bit. That's okay, we can stoke the fire later on. People, don't allow yourselves to be manipulated into indifference.
That's one of the problems with current number systems: they're based SOLELY on what humans relate to easilly rather than a well thought-out system. We have 5 fingers on one hand, 2 sets of hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. All of a sudden, base-10 and base-2 become our first choice when thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of concepts haven't been discovered simply because of our predisposition to those number systems.
Anyway, for a 4-coin, sub-dollar system, I still stand by 1-, 3-, 9- and 30-cent pieces since it's not too weird.
Why was the for operator enhanced instead of introducing a new keyword (such as "foreach") which would lessen the confusion, build on the understanding that most programmers who've seen other languages have, and make much more sense in general?
One of the advantages of using M$ products according to M$ itself is that with Windows, there's someone always liable for the product (as opposed to, say, Free and Opensource Software).
Well MS asked for it.
Does anyone know if it runs on RedHat 9 now which uses NPTL?
I'd find it REALLY neat if some game write would write a game for Linux which will compile without much change for Linux/XBox as well as Linux/PS2 (and even Linux/PC). Or are there games out there now? I wouldn't mind buying an XBox or PS2 if someone would release/sell Linux games for it.
(They'd have to use the game controller, of course)
Nothing wrong with being corporate-controlled, per se. Regardless, Keith's suggestion for governance seems to shift the choice to the community (or, at least to those people who'd care enough to participate).
Besides, it's not about ideology or even the type of government. More important are the characters of the leaders. All the different ideologies did well and poorly depending on the leaders of those bodies. In this case, I believe Keith Packard, Jim Gettys and the whole gang forming xwin to be honorable and community-oriented people.
I wonder how probable it is for technology as good as this HD DVD codec to be developed by individuals working together without any kind of funding. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if free and open source software users like myself only deserve second-rate technology because of our ideology. Sure freely developed and licensed audio codecs like Ogg Vorbis exist, but it seems in the video world, proprietary and well-funded seems to leave open and free in the dust. Or am I missing something?