I really don't think Microsoft understands the issue. Security isn't something that can be just "added" later like some feature. It has to be built into the overall architecture. It's like trying to bolt on some metal bars on the side of your crappy car to make if safe. It must be engineered from within. It just doesn't work that way. It's really about _how_ you build things.
one more reason why open source is a good thing.
on
Spyware in Audio Galaxy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I prefer Open Source because of this sort of trojan/spyware apps on closed source. I admit I don't examine every line of the source code before I compile it but I tend to trust it more just because everything is out in the open. I'm sure there has been cases where even open source app had some questionable hidden code but I bet it's exposed fairly quickly. I just think it's one more positive aspect of Open Source.
It seems that everyone believe that "fair use" is a right. In fact, it is not a right but it's really a exclusion from prosecution. What this means is that if you use legally licenced copyrighted material (music, book, software, etc..) in a "fair use" manner, you cannot be prosecuted for violation of copyright. This does not mean that if you purchase a CD, you have the inalienable right to make a backup copy. There is a subtle but distinct difference.
Having said all this, record industry does have the right to implement copy protection. I'm not saying that it's good, I'm just saying that they have legal right to do so. Under current law, record company is not obligated to grant you the ability to use the material in "fair use" manner. At the same time, you are not obligated to buy copy protected CDs.
I compiled and ran 2.4.15 for few hours and now I'm back to 2.4.14. As for me it appears my file system is intact. At least I don't think I did. How do I know for sure my files won't disappear on me? What kind of error messages would I see if my file system is corrupt? How do I correct it?
Here are some possible reasons why Microsoft helping Ximian on Mono:
Petreley theory - Microsoft will wait till Mono gets entrenched and then pull the plug on the it with introduction to non-interoperable Passport and Hailstorm. Since the code is portable, Mono users will have to buy Windows Server.
Waste time - Open Source programmer working on Mono isn't working on GNOME, Linux or other useful stuff that can threaten Microsoft.
Kill Ximian & FUD - Microsoft knows that Mono will be a very large project. By draining resources, they can kill off Ximian. Microsft can use the failure of Ximian as an FUD example to say how open source is bad for business.
Marketing - Microsft's marketing department can say things like ".NET is 'open architecture' and 'cross platform'". The kicker is that they get this marketing slogan for free.
More marketing - Microsoft knows that.NET on Windows will run faster than Mono. Reason is that they tune their NT kernel to run.NET faster by making it part of the kernel. You and I know that this is bad idea and will never happen on linux. In the end, they can say "Linux is terrible OS. Look at the.NET benchmark and you'll see.NET will run on Windows faster".
They kinda had to - Microsoft basically had two options when Ximian started Mono. Yes we'll help you and no we won't help you. The latter can get them in trouble with the law so they chose the former.
Waste more time - Everyone who is reading and writing/. article isn't writing code at the moment. Microsoft knows majority of/. readers are open source advocates.:)
possiblity 1 (Petreley) - Ximian and gang of developers spend lot of time developing.NET for linux and it works great. It works so good that it steals market share from Microsoft. Microsoft pulls the bait and switch on passport interoperability protocol. (Microsoft can do this since.NET is "open" standard but has no obligation to reveal the propritary communication protocol to passport.).NET on linux dies abruptly as a result.
Microsoft can get into trouble again with government by doing such a thing. Of course this hasn't stopped them in the past. Microsoft CAN do this but it's somewhat doubtful that this is most likely to happen.
possbility 2 - Ximian and gang of developers spend lot of time developing.NET for linux but doesn't work well so no one uses it.
There are some obvious reason why I think.NET clone won't be as good as the Microsoft's.NET. It's not because open source developers are less talented than Microsoft employees. Essentially Microsft can make.NET as part of the kernel. They can also modify the NT kernel tuned specifically for.NET's performance. Of course this isn't a wise thing to do for linux. It certainly doesn't make sense for Solaris since.NET is in direct competition with Java. Also many of the.NET library seem to have Windows only feel to it. That means many.NET for linux library won't be as straight forward implementation as Windows version. Having compatiblity/emulation layer will inevitably slow things down. Also there will inevitably bugs in.NET. The Ximian developers are then falling into the trap of implemention the bugs just like the Microsoft's.NET. Wine project is an example of this.
possiblity 3 - Ximian runs out of money and goes belly up. Development becomes handed over to public. Other dedicated developers picks up the project but progress is dismal. It's Eazel all over again.
.NET is very large set of library. It is comprised of server side application platform, development tools (compiler, debugger, IDE), and desktop side code that talks to the server. Since Ximian's business model and it's sustanability is somewhat questionable, it is conceivable that they may run out of money before they complete such a large undertaking. Also Microsoft will be releasing more libraries to extend the.NET. Ximian will need to constantly catch up to what Microsoft has done. The project is essentially "reinventing the wheel" type of project which may have trouble attracting developers. I think it would be frustrating to see flaws and mistakes that Microsoft has made and you can't just fix it.
* In all cases Microsoft can claim that.NET is a truely cross platform while the Mono development goes on. The kicker is that Microsoft didn't have to spend a dime for the development (or at least very little money). I bet MS Marketing department is loving this Ximian Mono project.
I think it's best to read the fine print on the license agreement before looking at the code. Who knows what you are signing off by getting the code. You may be giving up your "clean" programmer status. Who knows... if you lay your eyes on Windows code and then work on a Linux related code, Microsoft may come after you for your work. Personally I'm not going to go near that thing because of this reason.
OS X for x86 would be a good thing.
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
I'm wondering what the Slashdot community thinks this would do to Apple, would it adversely affect their hardware sales?
I think it would effect Apple's hardware sales if they were to produce OS X for x86 platform. I suppose the true answer really lies within a book called In the Beginning...Was the Command Line by Neal Stephenson. Despite the worries I think Apple (Steve) should consider the possibility seriously. Right now Apple is hurting because their CPUs are having trouble keeping up with Intel. Their highest clocked PPC chip runs at 733MHz while P4 runs at 1.5GHz. I'd assume everyone knows that clock speed isn't everything but I think average consumer who buys computer at CompUSA doesn't know jack comparing RISC and CISC (some RISC though). Apple's hardware isn't looking very good because of this speed gap. OS X on x86 would solve this problem.
We asked earlier whether you felt if Linux would be threatened by OS X, with the possibility of OS X working on x86 machines, has your answer changed?
This is two-part question. Answer would be No and mostly No. Is Linux threatened on the server side? I doubt that. The Open Source aspect of Linux is key strength in this area. Is Linux threatened on the client desktop side? I would say mostly no. Very slightly yes if you are talking sheer install base. I think the idea of having a powerful, stable, nice looking, user-friendly desktop is good thing. It may initially steal some market share from GNOME, KDE and such. However this can mean a very good thing for desktop side of Linux. It's lot easier to port applications from OS X (x86) to Linux (x86) than OS X (PPC) to Linux (x86). It's very unlikely that commercial software vendors will port OS X (PPC) to Linux (PPC) due to low demand. It would also be interesting to see Linux app ported over to OS X as well.
What about the maximum resolution that human eye can accept? How small does a pixel has to be before start confusing the computer screen with reality? I would venture to say that sound quality is pretty close to faking reality but visual display technology is whole different game.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think Microsoft understands the issue. Security isn't something that can be just "added" later like some feature. It has to be built into the overall architecture. It's like trying to bolt on some metal bars on the side of your crappy car to make if safe. It must be engineered from within. It just doesn't work that way. It's really about _how_ you build things.
I prefer Open Source because of this sort of trojan/spyware apps on closed source. I admit I don't examine every line of the source code before I compile it but I tend to trust it more just because everything is out in the open. I'm sure there has been cases where even open source app had some questionable hidden code but I bet it's exposed fairly quickly. I just think it's one more positive aspect of Open Source.
It seems that everyone believe that "fair use" is a right. In fact, it is not a right but it's really a exclusion from prosecution. What this means is that if you use legally licenced copyrighted material (music, book, software, etc..) in a "fair use" manner, you cannot be prosecuted for violation of copyright. This does not mean that if you purchase a CD, you have the inalienable right to make a backup copy. There is a subtle but distinct difference.
Having said all this, record industry does have the right to implement copy protection. I'm not saying that it's good, I'm just saying that they have legal right to do so. Under current law, record company is not obligated to grant you the ability to use the material in "fair use" manner. At the same time, you are not obligated to buy copy protected CDs.
I compiled and ran 2.4.15 for few hours and now I'm back to 2.4.14. As for me it appears my file system is intact. At least I don't think I did. How do I know for sure my files won't disappear on me? What kind of error messages would I see if my file system is corrupt? How do I correct it?
Actually backend is (or at least once was) a flat text files. I'm not kidding.
Here are some possible reasons why Microsoft helping Ximian on Mono:
.NET on Windows will run faster than Mono. Reason is that they tune their NT kernel to run .NET faster by making it part of the kernel. You and I know that this is bad idea and will never happen on linux. In the end, they can say "Linux is terrible OS. Look at the .NET benchmark and you'll see .NET will run on Windows faster".
/. article isn't writing code at the moment. Microsoft knows majority of /. readers are open source advocates. :)
Petreley theory - Microsoft will wait till Mono gets entrenched and then pull the plug on the it with introduction to non-interoperable Passport and Hailstorm. Since the code is portable, Mono users will have to buy Windows Server.
Waste time - Open Source programmer working on Mono isn't working on GNOME, Linux or other useful stuff that can threaten Microsoft.
Kill Ximian & FUD - Microsoft knows that Mono will be a very large project. By draining resources, they can kill off Ximian. Microsft can use the failure of Ximian as an FUD example to say how open source is bad for business.
Marketing - Microsft's marketing department can say things like ".NET is 'open architecture' and 'cross platform'". The kicker is that they get this marketing slogan for free.
More marketing - Microsoft knows that
They kinda had to - Microsoft basically had two options when Ximian started Mono. Yes we'll help you and no we won't help you. The latter can get them in trouble with the law so they chose the former.
Waste more time - Everyone who is reading and writing
Let's look at the worst case scenarios:
possiblity 1 (Petreley) - Ximian and gang of developers spend lot of time developing .NET for linux and it works great. It works so good that it steals market share from Microsoft. Microsoft pulls the bait and switch on passport interoperability protocol. (Microsoft can do this since .NET is "open" standard but has no obligation to reveal the propritary communication protocol to passport.) .NET on linux dies abruptly as a result.
Microsoft can get into trouble again with government by doing such a thing. Of course this hasn't stopped them in the past. Microsoft CAN do this but it's somewhat doubtful that this is most likely to happen.
possbility 2 - Ximian and gang of developers spend lot of time developing .NET for linux but doesn't work well so no one uses it.
There are some obvious reason why I think .NET clone won't be as good as the Microsoft's .NET. It's not because open source developers are less talented than Microsoft employees. Essentially Microsft can make .NET as part of the kernel. They can also modify the NT kernel tuned specifically for .NET's performance. Of course this isn't a wise thing to do for linux. It certainly doesn't make sense for Solaris since .NET is in direct competition with Java. Also many of the .NET library seem to have Windows only feel to it. That means many .NET for linux library won't be as straight forward implementation as Windows version. Having compatiblity/emulation layer will inevitably slow things down. Also there will inevitably bugs in .NET. The Ximian developers are then falling into the trap of implemention the bugs just like the Microsoft's .NET. Wine project is an example of this.
possiblity 3 - Ximian runs out of money and goes belly up. Development becomes handed over to public. Other dedicated developers picks up the project but progress is dismal. It's Eazel all over again.
.NET is very large set of library. It is comprised of server side application platform, development tools (compiler, debugger, IDE), and desktop side code that talks to the server. Since Ximian's business model and it's sustanability is somewhat questionable, it is conceivable that they may run out of money before they complete such a large undertaking. Also Microsoft will be releasing more libraries to extend the .NET. Ximian will need to constantly catch up to what Microsoft has done. The project is essentially "reinventing the wheel" type of project which may have trouble attracting developers. I think it would be frustrating to see flaws and mistakes that Microsoft has made and you can't just fix it.
* In all cases Microsoft can claim that .NET is a truely cross platform while the Mono development goes on. The kicker is that Microsoft didn't have to spend a dime for the development (or at least very little money). I bet MS Marketing department is loving this Ximian Mono project.
I think it's best to read the fine print on the license agreement before looking at the code. Who knows what you are signing off by getting the code. You may be giving up your "clean" programmer status. Who knows... if you lay your eyes on Windows code and then work on a Linux related code, Microsoft may come after you for your work. Personally I'm not going to go near that thing because of this reason.
I'm wondering what the Slashdot community thinks this would do to Apple, would it adversely affect their hardware sales?
I think it would effect Apple's hardware sales if they were to produce OS X for x86 platform. I suppose the true answer really lies within a book called In the Beginning...Was the Command Line by Neal Stephenson. Despite the worries I think Apple (Steve) should consider the possibility seriously. Right now Apple is hurting because their CPUs are having trouble keeping up with Intel. Their highest clocked PPC chip runs at 733MHz while P4 runs at 1.5GHz. I'd assume everyone knows that clock speed isn't everything but I think average consumer who buys computer at CompUSA doesn't know jack comparing RISC and CISC (some RISC though). Apple's hardware isn't looking very good because of this speed gap. OS X on x86 would solve this problem.
We asked earlier whether you felt if Linux would be threatened by OS X, with the possibility of OS X working on x86 machines, has your answer changed?
This is two-part question. Answer would be No and mostly No. Is Linux threatened on the server side? I doubt that. The Open Source aspect of Linux is key strength in this area. Is Linux threatened on the client desktop side? I would say mostly no. Very slightly yes if you are talking sheer install base. I think the idea of having a powerful, stable, nice looking, user-friendly desktop is good thing. It may initially steal some market share from GNOME, KDE and such. However this can mean a very good thing for desktop side of Linux. It's lot easier to port applications from OS X (x86) to Linux (x86) than OS X (PPC) to Linux (x86). It's very unlikely that commercial software vendors will port OS X (PPC) to Linux (PPC) due to low demand. It would also be interesting to see Linux app ported over to OS X as well.
What about the maximum resolution that human eye can accept? How small does a pixel has to be before start confusing the computer screen with reality? I would venture to say that sound quality is pretty close to faking reality but visual display technology is whole different game.