Why should we allow the government to handle data using software which cannot be certified as accurate, reliable, portable and secure by anyone other than the vendor who is biased?
Should NASA take it on faith that the nav system bought from Rocketech, Inc. is trustworthy?
Should the GAO just trust Excel with billions of dollars?
When the next y2k type problem arises, should anyone be dependent on possibly bankrupt software companies for the fixes?
Should we just hope that software vendors will provide needed upgrades in a timely fashion, and that those upgrades will not force us to change more than necessary? Can we expect that the implementation of those upgrades will be reasonably priced?
What if the "best tool for the job" is closed-source and produced in a foreign country? Should we take their word that there's no back door in there? Should foreign governments trust U.S. companies? Should the U.S. government trust U.S. companies?
Having free (beer) readers is not the only important consideration.
And this is precisely why both sets of opinions need to be taken into account. Also, as an engineer myself, I can attest that, given reasonable documentation and input from people who have used a certain program, I'm quite capable of making technical decisions on whether or not it's good to use it whether I have the source or not. (Wow, that's a horrible run-on sentence:)
I agree that both sets of opinions need to be taken into account (that was my point), but only in their appropriate contexts. Carpenters and designers are both needed to build a house, but i wouldn't use inadequate building materials just because they look nicer to the designer.
Your claim that you can make sound technical decisions about "good to use" is too broad to be believable. How can you claim to know that the program doesn't have a back door if all you have is the word of users and the vendor's documentation?
The person who likes using Windows isn't being a zealot. They've just gotten to the point that they're comfortable using Windows, and they're trying to do their job.
And that they are unwilling to make a change. I'd call that being zealous. If there's a compelling reason (like a missing critical feature) that a particular program isn't viable, then it isn't viable. Unwillingness to adapt to something new isn't a compelling reason. Ordinary people were using computers in their jobs quite successfully for decades before anyone ever heard of Windows.
Contrast that with the software engineer who's trying to do his job but being denied access to the source code. It's isn't a question of just "being more comfortable by having the source code".
I'm not sure if you're a Linux user, but if you are, be honest... did you wade through the kernel source before deciding to use it? If you did, you're in a tiny minority. I myself just read about it and heard about it from other people. I don't have the time to poke through millions of lines of code.
This discussion isn't about my personal or professional needs, it's about the needs of a huge government who's charter is to look after the well-being of it's citizens.
That being said, I do use Linux and although i didn't scrutinize the source code before deciding to use it, i had the benefit of knowing that others (independent of the vendor) had. In the four years i've been using Linux, there have been several times where having the source code has meant the difference between success and failure.
It should just be an educated decision made by engineers and regular users,
Right.
"regular users" can make educated decisions about their ability to use the software, but in general, they cannot make educated decisions about the technical merits and defficiencies of the software.
Engineers can't make educated decisions about a regular user's ability to use the software, but they can make educated decisions about the technical merits of the software, IF they have the source code.
"regular users" never deal with SOFTware. It's not SOFT to them because they don't know how to modify it. To them it's no more decipherable than X86 assembly code. With all due respect to the needs of the "regular user", they are simply not qualified to comment on this issue.
The person who says "Why are you forcing this on me? I liked my Windows just fine." is the one who is being zealous. Engineers who say "if it isn't source, it isn't software" are just being practical.
Problem: The "no popups" feature needs to be turned off for some sites:-( Bringing up the prefs box each time you want to change the setting is a minor, but chronic pain.
The Galeon developers recognized this fact and put a toggle for it in the toolbar. One quick gesture to enable/disable.
Another nicety is "open popups in tabs". When javascript opens a new window, it just creates a new tab. There's also a setting for "jump to new tabs automatically".
Allowing the popups to open in tabs, but not automatically switching to them can also be a nice way to browse. You'll notice the new tab appearing, but it won't obscure your current page of interest.
Solaris gets the very best out of the Sparc architecture. Actually, it took Solaris a long time to approach the performance levels of the old SunOS. 2.1 thru 2.3 were real dogs.
This seems to be the best thread to throw in my two cents.
Aunt Ginny could use vfat for/home/ginny. It would be case insensitive, but there would be no preservation of the case as everything would be mapped to lower.
It's a filesystem issue. There's a function for ext2 filesystems called ext2_match() which is used to lookup existing files. Making it case insensitive would be trivial. Voila, ginnyfs.
0.3% of the files on my system would clash if the fs were case-insensitive. It would screw up a lot of stuff if used for all filesystems.
"Waah waah Solaris is hard, it doesn't ship with GNU utilities...let's replace it with linux."
But in the case of the Solaris expert who first experiences the niceties of Linux or BSD, the reaction is "Why doesn't Solaris have [insert name of app, shell or library here]?".
Reliability and convenience are not mutually exclusive.
Sun has excellent products in both the hw and os arenas, but Sparc/Solaris isn't for everyone.
By not fully embracing Sparc/Linux and x86/Solaris, Sun was cutting its own throat.
Sun ought to make the new software products as Free as they possibly can in order to gain some mindshare. For example, I think they should give us an easy, free download of x86/Solaris for non-commercial use.
I bet that in five years, we'll have robots (read a bungee cord and a brick) trouncing humans at nascar. I'll take a piece of that action. And why wait five years? Bricks and bungee cords are available now.
The streets are jam-packed with thousands of vehicles travelling in irregular serpentine patterns.
None of these machines (except mine, of course) contain any type of human intelligence, but it's interesting to watch the AI at work. At night the roads look like Conway's Game of Life running on a computer with bad RAM.
Expert systems allow some vehicles to negotiate left turns from right lanes and to outbrake school busses when entering a rotary.
Fuzzy logic is essential for speed control, stop lights, parking and many other mission-critical tasks.
Genetic algorithms tend to select the maneuvers which are least expected by other vehicles.
Task scheduling is done according to driver convenience. For example, turn signals are always lower priority than dialing a call on the mobile phone.
Most communications between vehicles is a crude form of "digital" communication.
Unfortunately, most of the vehicles are Windows-based which results in a high rate of crashes. Mack trucks seem to be better than average.
The simplicity of the rfb concept is what's so appealing. The client side doesn't a DTD, gui toolkit library, fonts, renderers, etc. All of those things are breeding grounds for incompatibily.
I've never seen rfb (server to client) used to tranmit anything other than visual data, but regions of pixels *could* be used to represent xml data where appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
If God had meant for us to fly, we would have been born with tinfoil hats.
Your comment is informative, but what good are auto-update scripts when there are no updates?
Pedro says "Psst! Listen >>>Here>>> gringo!"
Why should we allow the government to handle data using software which cannot be certified as accurate, reliable, portable and secure by anyone other than the vendor who is biased?
Should NASA take it on faith that the nav system bought from Rocketech, Inc. is trustworthy?
Should the GAO just trust Excel with billions of dollars?
When the next y2k type problem arises, should anyone be dependent on possibly bankrupt software companies for the fixes?
Should we just hope that software vendors will provide needed upgrades in a timely fashion, and that those upgrades will not force us to change more than necessary? Can we expect that the implementation of those upgrades will be reasonably priced?
What if the "best tool for the job" is closed-source and produced in a foreign country? Should we take their word that there's no back door in there? Should foreign governments trust U.S. companies? Should the U.S. government trust U.S. companies?
Having free (beer) readers is not the only important consideration.
And this is precisely why both sets of opinions need to be taken into account. Also, as an engineer myself, I can attest that, given reasonable documentation and input from people who have used a certain program, I'm quite capable of making technical decisions on whether or not it's good to use it whether I have the source or not. (Wow, that's a horrible run-on sentence :)
I agree that both sets of opinions need to be taken into account (that was my point), but only in their appropriate contexts. Carpenters and designers are both needed to build a house, but i wouldn't use inadequate building materials just because they look nicer to the designer.
Your claim that you can make sound technical decisions about "good to use" is too broad to be believable. How can you claim to know that the program doesn't have a back door if all you have is the word of users and the vendor's documentation?
The person who likes using Windows isn't being a zealot. They've just gotten to the point that they're comfortable using Windows, and they're trying to do their job.
And that they are unwilling to make a change. I'd call that being zealous. If there's a compelling reason (like a missing critical feature) that a particular program isn't viable, then it isn't viable. Unwillingness to adapt to something new isn't a compelling reason. Ordinary people were using computers in their jobs quite successfully for decades before anyone ever heard of Windows.
Contrast that with the software engineer who's trying to do his job but being denied access to the source code. It's isn't a question of just "being more comfortable by having the source code".
I'm not sure if you're a Linux user, but if you are, be honest... did you wade through the kernel source before deciding to use it? If you did, you're in a tiny minority. I myself just read about it and heard about it from other people. I don't have the time to poke through millions of lines of code.
This discussion isn't about my personal or professional needs, it's about the needs of a huge government who's charter is to look after the well-being of it's citizens.
That being said, I do use Linux and although i didn't scrutinize the source code before deciding to use it, i had the benefit of knowing that others (independent of the vendor) had. In the four years i've been using Linux, there have been several times where having the source code has meant the difference between success and failure.
It should just be an educated decision made by engineers and regular users,
Right.
"regular users" can make educated decisions about their ability to use the software, but in general, they cannot make educated decisions about the technical merits and defficiencies of the software.
Engineers can't make educated decisions about a regular user's ability to use the software, but they can make educated decisions about the technical merits of the software, IF they have the source code.
"regular users" never deal with SOFTware. It's not SOFT to them because they don't know how to modify it. To them it's no more decipherable than X86 assembly code. With all due respect to the needs of the "regular user", they are simply not qualified to comment on this issue.
The person who says "Why are you forcing this on me? I liked my Windows just fine." is the one who is being zealous. Engineers who say "if it isn't source, it isn't software" are just being practical.
how do I remove WMP?
Format c:
Galeon is even better in this area.
:-( Bringing up the prefs box each time you want to change the setting is a minor, but chronic pain.
Problem: The "no popups" feature needs to be turned off for some sites
The Galeon developers recognized this fact and put a toggle for it in the toolbar. One quick gesture to enable/disable.
Another nicety is "open popups in tabs". When javascript opens a new window, it just creates a new tab. There's also a setting for "jump to new tabs automatically".
Allowing the popups to open in tabs, but not automatically switching to them can also be a nice way to browse. You'll notice the new tab appearing, but it won't obscure your current page of interest.
If you go running with a spinning disc, it may create an undesirable gyroscope effect and force you under the wheels of a bus.
If Dell were to interpret the term 'OS' the same way MS does, they could just ship machines with the screens painted blue. AC line cord optional.
Lessig gives some compelling reasons to believe, to really believe, in the truth of the "refrain".
1. Creativity and innovation always
builds on the past.
2. The past always tries to control
the creativity that builds on it.
3. Free societies enable the future
by limiting [the power of] the past.
4. Ours is less and less a free society.
Hang around outside and see if you can find a cheap one with low miles on it.
Solaris gets the very best out of the Sparc architecture.
Actually, it took Solaris a long time to approach the performance levels of the old SunOS. 2.1 thru 2.3 were real dogs.
This seems to be the best thread to throw in my two cents.
/home/ginny. It would be case insensitive, but there would be no preservation of the case as everything would be mapped to lower.
Aunt Ginny could use vfat for
It's a filesystem issue. There's a function for ext2 filesystems called ext2_match() which is used to lookup existing files. Making it case insensitive would be trivial. Voila, ginnyfs.
0.3% of the files on my system would clash if the fs were case-insensitive. It would screw up a lot of stuff if used for all filesystems.
"Waah waah Solaris is hard, it doesn't ship with GNU utilities...let's replace it with linux."
But in the case of the Solaris expert who first experiences the niceties of Linux or BSD, the reaction is "Why doesn't Solaris have [insert name of app, shell or library here]?".
Reliability and convenience are not mutually exclusive.
a scooter
Sun has excellent products in both the hw and os arenas, but Sparc/Solaris isn't for everyone.
By not fully embracing Sparc/Linux and x86/Solaris, Sun was cutting its own throat.
Sun ought to make the new software products as Free as they possibly can in order to gain some mindshare. For example, I think they should give us an easy, free download of x86/Solaris for non-commercial use.
Trivia: James Bond was the author of the book "Birds of the West Indies". Ian Flemming claimed that he borrowed the name for 007.
But it's a "compelling retort" when *you* use it?
If you want compelling evidence that MS's gains have not been "well gotten" refer to the DOJ vs MS cases.
I bet that in five years, we'll have robots (read a bungee cord and a brick) trouncing humans at nascar.
I'll take a piece of that action. And why wait five years? Bricks and bungee cords are available now.
The streets are jam-packed with thousands of vehicles travelling in irregular serpentine patterns.
None of these machines (except mine, of course) contain any type of human intelligence, but it's interesting to watch the AI at work. At night the roads look like Conway's Game of Life running on a computer with bad RAM.
Expert systems allow some vehicles to negotiate left turns from right lanes and to outbrake school busses when entering a rotary.
Fuzzy logic is essential for speed control, stop lights, parking and many other mission-critical tasks.
Genetic algorithms tend to select the maneuvers which are least expected by other vehicles.
Task scheduling is done according to driver convenience. For example, turn signals are always lower priority than dialing a call on the mobile phone.
Most communications between vehicles is a crude form of "digital" communication.
Unfortunately, most of the vehicles are Windows-based which results in a high rate of crashes. Mack trucks seem to be better than average.
All MS's gains are well gotten gains.
What have you been smoking?
I did some y2k work for an investment company in 1998. At the time, Dow10k was another "worry".
I'm glad you cleared that up. I thought the guy was standing on his head.
The simplicity of the rfb concept is what's so appealing. The client side doesn't a DTD, gui toolkit library, fonts, renderers, etc. All of those things are breeding grounds for incompatibily.
I've never seen rfb (server to client) used to tranmit anything other than visual data, but regions of pixels *could* be used to represent xml data where appropriate.
rfb is fundamental.