My company specialises in search engine technology (for almost a decade now). I've worked quite in-depth with all the big boys (Verity, Autonomy, FAST,...) and many of the smaller players too (Ultraseek, ISYS, Blue Angel,...)
I can't recall the last time this kind of attack wasn't mentioned in the documentation for the product, along with instructions on how to disable it. If you choose to ignore the product documentation, you get what you deserve.
It's quite simple folks. Don't open the search engine. ACL query connections. Sanitize queries like you (should?) do other CGI applications. Authenticate queries and results. If you can't be bothered, hire someone who can.
A phrase you'll soon become familiar with is "Four seasons in one day". This is Melbourne.
Summers can get over 40C in some parts. You don't want to know about windchill. I thought Canberra was bad (with a direct path from the Snowy Mountains) but that's nothing like an antarctic blast that can hit any southern town. And being in Melbourne, you can be standing in nice warm sunny little bourke street and a few seconds later its freezing and about to bucket down. But Melbourne is a very nice city, I love visiting it, and I'd consider moving there if they played real football *wink*
An old place I used to live in had a very squeaky sliding door at the back. It happened to be very similar in tone & timbre to the call made by the robots with the chainguns just before they would beat the living daylights out of you. Suffice to say after a long Descent session (can't remember how many days;) one housemate happened to be walking past the door when the other came in, and he crapped his pants to the point of physically moving extremely quickly, spinning around, looking for the robots, concerned for his personal safety.
Another friend who used to practically live with us he was over that often to game or watch tv/movies actually fell off his chair while physically attempting to strafe to "see around the side of the monitor". He took his joystick, keyboard, and half the contents of the table with the PC with him. Very funny to watch, and funnier still after his explanation;)
After a long time DM'ing with Quakeworld I got caught by a group of close friends turning around, strafing, and attempting to pull a "rocket launcher" out to fire into the bottom of the stairwell on route between lunch venue and workplace. It seriously looked just like a common camping spot in one of the popular maps! Very embarrassing.
Recently I had a solid session (12 hrs+) of NFSU2 and had to fight the urge to actually drive like that immediately afterwards. I think the scariest thing about this one was the fact my car is not controlled with an xbox controller pad, but there was no discernable difference in my mind - the driving style just came naturally and transcended controls.
As many other people have said - all these are good signs you need to give it up for a while. Even a single day should help.
LSB rpms depend by their very nature NOT on other stuff... forcing administrators to hold multiple disparate copies of the same libraries, and have to keep track of the security of each individual copy. Or perhaps every lsb app is simply statically linked?
No, because they go to/opt/ and nowhere else.
The LSB standard doesn't guarantee this. It only suggests, and recommends that there be documentation of other modifications made. It does not prevent modification. (Chapter 5)
You haven't yet understand the purpose of LSB, have you?
Yes I have. LSB is a way for Redhat to impose vendor lock-in and attempt to hijack the Linux market. Too many distributions were popping up using dpkg instead of rpm because it was better, and they had to do something to stop their eroding marketshare. So they form a standards committee with HP, Sun, and other Microsoft friends, and try to brainwash the Linux community into thinking this is a great idea because standards are good, right? They make their filesystem layout the "standard", their package management tool the "standard", etc and then make everyone feel guilty for not following the "standard".
I have no guilt. Redhat are a pawn of Microsoft, being used to drive Linux into the ground with technically inferior "standards" and user interfaces that are just like M$ Windows but not quite good enough so desktop users don't feel compelled to switch. They could have used their old monopoly to further enhance Linux, instead they appear to have used it to buy up kernel developers so they can't speak publically against the company line, and to prevent good things getting into the kernel as long as possible (eg, reiserfs, devfs,...)
Their idea of a "community" seems to be "people who will do marketing for us for free!" as they have a proven track record of ignoring horrific bugs in their packages (both code/patch and packaging) that had been fixed by third-party rpms distributed via their own "community" mailing lists long before release of the next distribution version. Quality is second to profit. Wait, no, third to maintaining reputation.
I don't trust their business practices, their commitment to the real open source community nor their ability to create unbiased standards for that community, hence I won't use their distributions, nor advocate their standards, and urge the community to do likewise.
Doing this atrocity will break your system at some stage. RPM's notoriously pathetic attempt at package dependencies means that should I install on my Debian system rpm foo from a vendor who think's they're doing the right thing by following the LSB, said rpm will depend on other rpms, all of which I will have to install because Redhat follow different names to everyone else. Said RPM's could overwrite any file on my system, as rpm must be run as root. Any files, including the correct libraries for all the other applications on the system.
As we all know Redhat apply patches out the arse to make their libraries incompatible with all the other distributions, the system is left in a state where two package managers assume they have control of the system and are installing incompatible things willy-nilly, overwriting other stuff.
This does not sound like it solves the problem the LSB is at heart trying to address, and it's why I have constantly, and will continue to constantly, protest against the hijacking of the LSB by Redhat to enforce their standards on everyone else. If I wanted to run Redhat Linux, its easy enough - all I have to do is pay $3000 or so for a license (price taken from my local retailer) but I actually prefer to have some time free in the day to do something with my computer other than solve package dependency issues; so I run a distribution that doesn't have those problems at all and lets me spend my time doing real work.
Making RPM the "standard package tool" entices vendors to use Redhat Linux as their base, along with its incompatible file locations and other problems; so even if all the overwriting problems were solved, parts of the applications will be calling other bits on the system that don't exist (like chkconfig). I've seen it. This is a huge mistake we must avoid at all costs.
The LSB committee is stacked with Redhat employees or partners. The only way to avoid this problem is to make a proper open standard for Linux that isn't biased towards one minor distribution.
Windows includes older Dlls and the OS links to the proper ones when it detects its an older program. Linux should do something similiar.
Where do you think M$ Windows stole this idea from?
Library sonames dictate what library to link against. When you break the ABI, you change the soname (aka increment the version number) and older apps will happily stay linked against the older libraries and still work.
With open source software you can even recompile against the new libraries, solving the case where the executable format changes (eg, aout to ELF)
This is complete rubbish. Open Source is a development model, not some kind of support contract. If the contractor supplying the service does not deliver - or their service fails - guess who you can blame? It is completely irrelevant whether they have used an open source solution or some proprietary solution - they have been contracted to supply something and are hence legally obligated.
The lie that is "there's no-one to blame" is FUD from closed-source vendors who know the truth which is that, should an open source solution fail, you have the source code and can fix it or hire someone to fix it. When you have some closed-source solution and it fails, you're up shit creek with no means of forward propulsion, and the damage this can cause (or, if you prefer, the depth of the creek) increases as time goes on.
It *might* not be your fault, but it's certainly someone's fault if illegal actvity happens on your forums. It's just hard to tell who's fault it is.
No it isn't.
If somebody is doing something illegal, it is their fault - the only exception to this I'm aware of is duress.
The difficulty may come in finding this person, but that's a police matter just like it is for other crimes.
The ISP are providing a service, just like Kelloggs or Uncle Tobys (or whoever) supplied the perp with his breakfast, and Bonds provided the underwear he had on at the time, Telstra provided the comms equipment used, and so forth. Might as well sue all of them too, otherwise justice certainly isn't being done.
I hope George Lucas doesn't live near this county, otherwise Star Wars could end up as crap as ST:TNG.
Darth Vader exhaling "now I am the Primary!" (or whatever the watered down, "inoffensive" replacement for 'Master' is) isn't terrifying, it's ridiculous. Any nearby Jedi would certainly die alright, they'd be rolling on the floor laughing so hard they'd fall off the gangways into open space!
And "Sir Yoda" (or whatever inoffensive title replacing 'Master') saying stuff like "Always two there are, a Teacher and a Student" (since we can't use Master, and Apprentice is most likely an evil term also) makes me think when 300 years old he reached, wise as good he is not;)
Altering language is a standard tactic used by occupying invaders to strip a people of any sense of emotion, self-respect, and community - since ineffectual pansies too scared to even say something "out of place" (let alone do) are a lot easier to control and keep submissive.
It's not like teenagers aren't aware that freely downloading copyrighted music is illegal
And even if they were, ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law.
What disturbed me about the article was that the author seemed to suggest that young kids and the elderly should somehow be considered exempt from laws the rest of us have to follow, simply because of their age. If this isn't discrimination I don't know what is. Should kids and the elderly also likewise be exempt from being charged for other crimes? What makes this crime any different to another?
There's not much point getting up the RIAA over this one, there's simply not enough information given (ie, were those 1500 files music she created herself, music others created and freely distribute? Or were they RIAA-copyrighted works?)
BTW I don't think the RIAA is entitled to sue you for breach of copyright over anything they're not the copyright holders of, only the copyright holders have that right (responsibility?).
I think you're onto something. Getting the "perfect" desktop environment means customisation, and customisation takes time, and sometimes time is the one thing the company cannot afford; especially when there's obviously more than one option to persue and some of those options are "good enough" out of the box.
I've come across few Linux distributions that have really, honestly tried to give a desktop environment that worked well. Redhat have tried, but their constant shift in focus over the years (hey we don't need one!, hey its enlightenment, hey its sawfish/gnome, hey its metacity/gnome2) and their attitude of "well, its good enough" (when, really, it wasn't) come release time have made the default very lacklustre. SuSE polished, but unfortunately I didn't give it enough time for me to say anything more. I haven't tried Mandrake. Debian doesn't have a focus - believing that they should instead give all the options possible and let the sysadmin sort it out;) None of the BSD's really believe in X11, let alone a decent X11 desktop. I haven't tried Gentoo (though I want to, I like the FreeBSD ports system and I think this distro really has promise - Debian needs a real competitor anyway).
Perhaps what UserLinux needs to do is forget about trying to give every possible option (yes, 12,000-odd packages in the standard Debian install is not what you want anyone to wade through) but instead, pick the common stuff people want - maybe take a hint from the default options for Windows XP and MacOS X - use the best open source software possible that provides that functionality (and this will mean being very critical, and no doubt irritate folks) - then value-add it with the common stuff that's extra in those, like an Office suite, gnucash, evolution with synching to phones and pdas, and perhaps even cater a little to niche markets that utilise computers a lot, eg give the Gimp and Blender and Rosegarden and stuff like that. Then make the whole UI schmick. Have everything fit together like it was made to.
Each further release, refine what's already there. Is there a new market that needs addressing? Is there now a better application that can supercede The Gimp (for example)? Was including FooApp a bad idea? What are the users asking for wrt. the UI itself? Is there something that addresses those needs or do (we) have to develop something specific? Or, even, are we currently somewhere in-between and some project could use some help? Does one of the previously-catered markets no longer exist, and hence those apps can be removed?
Oh, and for Pete's sake, don't equate "schmick" with "cannot be broken by grandma" or "hey, lets duplicate Apple/Microsoft/Be/QNX/etc" or "we're geeks, lets enforce star trek or matrix (or anime or natalie portman or britney spears...) on them". We're geeks. We have grandmas and back in their day things were tough! They didn't break just because someone used them, and even if they did there were a hundred other uses for the pieces even if it couldn't be fixed easily. We have some good ideas to draw from from other geeks, but also bad things to avoid. Our interests transcend SciFi, cartoons, attractive men/women, music.
At a guess these are actual users as opposed to "power users" or "tweakers". People who just want to be able to use a machine. Not fiddle about with it's settings, install software, etc.
True. Installing software was left to us, though that was more out of convenience than anything else. They did do the usual things regular people want to do with their workstations - ie customise the look & layout to something that suited them, some got in & made keybinds to common operations they did, that was about it. They weren't running custom startup scripts grabbing stock options every hour and tickering them along the screen or anything like that.
How long would it take someone familiar with 95/98 to get used to XP?
In my experience, it depends. I was involved in a rollout across a large organisation (a few thousand users) and we ended up doing a few weeks of post-rollout support instead of a few days as originally scheduled. Most of that was due to hardware problems (custom devices the client conveniently forgot to mention they had and hence were not supported by XP), extra machines discovered to exist, actual system failure, etc. Anyway, on the human front, there were certainly many users that could see past the tellytubbies and recognise the desktop wasn't actually significantly different, however there were also many who were completely dumbfounded and confused. Note here I'm taking "get used to XP" to mean be as familiar with the same things common to both 98 and XP (since XP has extra functionality over 98 and of course that'll involve some extra effort to get used to). Now, if you want to include other changes, they also went up a few versions of Office/Outlook and a few other apps (for XP compatibility), and had some workflow changes imposed by management. Many users noted it would take them some time to get used to the whole new desktop environment.
Notice that these questions do not include installing XYZ piece of hardware, downloading software, reinstalling the operating system, etc. Even though "MS geeks" consider these things important...
These things are important to any geek. But just as you don't let a street busker install an intercooled turbo in your vehicle - preferring to use a qualified auto mechanic - non-geeks shouldn't be installing operating systems or even software in a controlled environment. You can argue hardware, one would hope that the workplace delivers all the hardware the user needs and they receive adequate training in how to install/uninstall it (and with most things being USB or firewire these days its reasonable to expect non-geeks to not have too much trouble doing so). But I wouldn't expect an end-user to diagnose a fault in the motherboard and perform a "heart transplant". This is what geeks are for;)
Earlier this week, we saw Microsoft announce they were offering a online music service next year, kinda like what Apple are already offering now with iTunes and what the rest of the community have been doing with Napster et al for years.
They also did a spoof of the Matrix (the original), just like Borland did a while ago, and of course every man and his dog has since the original was released years ago.
And now they are introducing a news service just like Google's already perfectly good one.
What further "innovation" will we see from Redmond? I can hardly wait.
Insightful instead of Troll? Where are all the quality moderators today?
Typical Linux Geek thinking ease-of-use = dumbing down and that a good interface means pretty icons.
Strange, the typical Linux geek (and, being one, I should know) thinks ease-of-use = productive and a good interface means a shell prompt:)
Ease of use means making the computer work the way PEOPLE think, not forcing people to work the way COMPUTERS think.
That's right, but what I think you're missing is that everyone thinks differently, and the whole reason we can work together as a population is because we have that ability to adapt. Computers, on the other hand, do not posess such an ability. Now, lets put this back into the current topic, user interfaces. What a "typical linux geek" would call "dumbing down" is not "ease of use", as you incorrectly stated, but "inflexibility". Dumbed-down interfaces cannot be made to work the way the end-user thinks. They can be made to work the way a small subset of end-users think, perhaps, though as others have stated this could simply be due to conditioning and/or low expectations. But they won't suit everyone.
Linux geeks and other developers, who have been conditioned to think like the computer because of the work they do, have the mistaken notion that advanced computer user means a user who has learned to force the natural human way of doing things into the artificial machine way a computer does things.
Any interface that doesn't force this paradigm is "dumbed down."
Repeating previously unproven allegations doesn't make them more true. I haven't met any geeks or developers who actually classify people this way. Most developers would look at their software as either it works, or it doesn't. The closest thing to thinking like a computer as you allege that I've ever seen is this binary view of the world. I guess if I were to think about it for a while, I'd say an advanced user is someone who has gotten over the fear that they will break something if they think outside the box, do something other than the defaults.
The truth is, the Linux geek has simply been conditioned to do things the difficult way, not the natural way.
This is insane. I have benchmarked standard operations and on FASTER machines Microsoft Windows has been, on average, orders of magnitude slower performing standard operations (copying files, making changes to text files, finding files, finding text in files), heck, even bringing up the users standard work desktop environment! (startup apps, windows ordered in some fashion).
I say its certain people who have been conditioned into doing things the difficult way. That's just human nature. They're probably the same people who select entire file contents for a cut/copy/paste operation using the mouse instead of hitting a keybind like ctrl-a, or park the farthest away from the mall entrance, or hundreds of other dumb things.
Saying this trait exists only in "Linux geeks" is extremely insulting and factually deficient.
Designing the interface to do things the natural way is not dumbing it down, it's making the Linux Geek's paradigm obsolete.
I guess that depends on your point of view. Designing the interface to do things the natural way may be making the Linux geeks "paradigm" implemented. I assume you've already created a single set of golf clubs that can be played "the natural way" and everyone, right or left handed, is happy, no?
Of course, the Linux Geek doesn't like this, so in a fit of human ego, he looks his nose down on anything that points out the stupidity of his position (working the way the computer demands; being the tool of the computer), and calls it "dumbing down."
This is hilarious. Show me any Linux UI that makes the end user more of a "tool of the computer", "working the way the computer demands" than what Microsoft Windows does. Even in the mo
The desktop is the primary problem, IMHO. The current Linux desktop does NOT pass the Granny test. But getting back to main point, the Linux Desktop, in the form of KDE or Gnome, is still not ready for primetime.
I thought I'd do some masterful cut & paste there to illustrate a point. You're not the only one to mention KDE & GNOME in respect to problems with the Linux desktop. I mention this simply because 4 years ago my then employer had Linux systems as the desktop for regular joe users (english majors, part-time housewives, etc - no geek factors) and the users thought they were wonderful, and were extremely irate when office politics meant they were replaced with MS Windows (the usual MS tactic - internal MS fanatic disconnected from majority of users but with enough IT background to be considered credible by management constantly in management's ear about how a shift to Windows would be good and Linux is evil)
If 4 years ago Linux on the desktop made users extremely happy, what has changed? I believe it is the focus on these desktop environments, and their focus on duplicating the warts of Windows. The maths is quite simple - Linux w/ WindowMaker = happy users, Windows = sad/cranky/frustrated/disillusioned users. And now, we see Linux users w/ Windows workalike = sad/cranky/frustrated/disillusioned users.
Don't get me wrong, it did take the best part of a week for the users who had no prior non-Windows exposure to familiarise themselves with the new desktop they had. But it wasn't long after that they were working out for themselves some of the "power features" and asking questions along those veins to make their day more productive, including using virtual desktops, the keyboard bindings for navigation & application execution, saving sessions, etc. The answer to pretty much all "this is nice, but could we also/instead do XXX" questions was "yes" (of course, it also helped to have an in-house WM developer;) And of course the comments constantly flowed about how awesome Linux was on the desktop, how much easier it was to use once you got the hang of it, how the learning curve wasn't steep, etc.
I've constantly read over the years countless articles on how "bad" Linux is on the desktop, and I've never really taken the time to consider why (as I, my friends, and my users, are all perfectly happy and have been all that time) until now. All those articles concentrate on GNOME and/or KDE, usually from some default configuration, usually from some mediocre distribution like Redhat. It's like the Mindcraft benchmarks - start bad, make no effort whatsoever, and hey presto!, instant failure just like you set out to achieve. Well, duh.
And that's precisely why Fedora is useless as a replacement for either the Red Hat Professional or Standard distributions.
It's not meant to be a replacement for them. Go read the goals over at the Fedora home page. This was my point - comparing it with other things its not is pointless. I get home every week in a Saab 340, and it goes much faster than my friend's Saab 3000. Do you draw the conclusion that if you want a Saab, you should get a 340?
The 340 is a turboprop aircraft. The 3000 is a (albeit turbocharged;) car.
I don't think average users are meant to like Fedora. Not yet, anyway. Of course, we can debate till the bovines arrive back at their humble abodes the exact definition of an "average" user and get nowhere. Instead, lets take a step back and look at the issue of advocating Linux to your company. AFAIC there are simply 2 factors which matter when deciding what Linux setup to use - the business goals, and the experience of the IT guys who have to administer these things. Joe User has a place in driving the business goals, they don't have a place in administrating the systems. If Joe User requires an office suite, guess what? It matters SFA whether their desktop is Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, or George the Company Sysadmin's Hacked Together From Scratch Custom Distro For FooBar Inc - OpenOffice will likely meet the business goals on all of them.
Recommendations based solely on brand name is how we end up with huge companies like Mcdonalds, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola. And where does it get us? Cruddy food, cruddier software, and awesome softdrinks;)
In the grand scheme of things, who honestly gives a crap what Linux distribution their company runs? Let the sysadmins decide. It's their problem. They know what's best for them. It's their job to make it work for you. If you want to see Linux on your desktop, advocate Linux. Advocate hamburgers. Cola. Software that works. Don't limit yourself to Brand A Linux, you're simply imposing a pointless glass ceiling.
Desktop linux is now unimportant to Redhat, so we should expect any efforts from them in that market to be dismal, at best.
I don't think this is quite true... the "enterprise" includes desktops.
Fedora is, and always will be, a *beta* *test* *unstable* distribution. Treating it as anything else is silly. It's purpose is to use the existing loyal Redhat community as guinea pigs for what will become the next version of their commercial products.
This is good in one sense, their commercial products will benefit greatly from this. In another sense it is bad, as journalists who see the Linux community in the old "we like both styles of music" joke way - (Redhat AND SuSE) - will treat Fedora like its meant to be something its not - a stable Linux distribution for end users.
I'm not saying it won't be *in practice* - heck, I run Debian unstable personally as my "stable" desktop - but marketing-wise you need to draw lines in the sand when comparing things so there's some basis on which you can make sure you've got jonothans and granny smiths, and not granny smiths and navels.
The only beef I have with Debian is the install process, but even that's ok.
And a new installer system in the works, to address this much-debated issue.
My only prob with Debian's current installer has been that there's been that much useful software to install, it becomes either:
a) really tempting to install things you don't need that just sound interesting b) a chore, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to find the things you *do* need (though thankfully dselect has search funtionality built in, handy when you know the debian package names;) Yes, I know I can automate it but I'm not blatting down identical images all the time, so automating it isn't necessarily beneficial to me.
Anything you can do, SCO can do also SCO can do anything anyone else does Can they code? No they can't Can they sell? No they can't Can they litigate? Yes they can, Yes they can!
SCO can get SMP just as soon as Linux does They can implement a journaled filesystem after IBM Even inflate their stock prices To pump and dump? Of course That's what I thought
Slashdot Mirror
My company specialises in search engine technology (for almost a decade now). I've worked quite in-depth with all the big boys (Verity, Autonomy, FAST, ...) and many of the smaller players too (Ultraseek, ISYS, Blue Angel, ...)
I can't recall the last time this kind of attack wasn't mentioned in the documentation for the product, along with instructions on how to disable it. If you choose to ignore the product documentation, you get what you deserve.
It's quite simple folks. Don't open the search engine. ACL query connections. Sanitize queries like you (should?) do other CGI applications. Authenticate queries and results. If you can't be bothered, hire someone who can.
But the Government can make a fist!
According to Wikipedia one form of dark matter is something called MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects)
I simply refer to it as the "Xbox"
A phrase you'll soon become familiar with is "Four seasons in one day". This is Melbourne.
Summers can get over 40C in some parts. You don't want to know about windchill. I thought Canberra was bad (with a direct path from the Snowy Mountains) but that's nothing like an antarctic blast that can hit any southern town. And being in Melbourne, you can be standing in nice warm sunny little bourke street and a few seconds later its freezing and about to bucket down. But Melbourne is a very nice city, I love visiting it, and I'd consider moving there if they played real football *wink*
An old place I used to live in had a very squeaky sliding door at the back. It happened to be very similar in tone & timbre to the call made by the robots with the chainguns just before they would beat the living daylights out of you. ;) one housemate happened to be walking past the door when the other came in, and he crapped his pants to the point of physically moving extremely quickly, spinning around, looking for the robots, concerned for his personal safety.
;)
Suffice to say after a long Descent session (can't remember how many days
Another friend who used to practically live with us he was over that often to game or watch tv/movies actually fell off his chair while physically attempting to strafe to "see around the side of the monitor". He took his joystick, keyboard, and half the contents of the table with the PC with him. Very funny to watch, and funnier still after his explanation
After a long time DM'ing with Quakeworld I got caught by a group of close friends turning around, strafing, and attempting to pull a "rocket launcher" out to fire into the bottom of the stairwell on route between lunch venue and workplace. It seriously looked just like a common camping spot in one of the popular maps! Very embarrassing.
Recently I had a solid session (12 hrs+) of NFSU2 and had to fight the urge to actually drive like that immediately afterwards. I think the scariest thing about this one was the fact my car is not controlled with an xbox controller pad, but there was no discernable difference in my mind - the driving style just came naturally and transcended controls.
As many other people have said - all these are good signs you need to give it up for a while. Even a single day should help.
LSB rpms depend by their very nature NOT on other stuff ... forcing administrators to hold multiple disparate copies of the same libraries, and have to keep track of the security of each individual copy. Or perhaps every lsb app is simply statically linked?
/opt/ and nowhere else.
...)
No, because they go to
The LSB standard doesn't guarantee this. It only suggests, and recommends that there be documentation of other modifications made. It does not prevent modification. (Chapter 5)
You haven't yet understand the purpose of LSB, have you?
Yes I have. LSB is a way for Redhat to impose vendor lock-in and attempt to hijack the Linux market. Too many distributions were popping up using dpkg instead of rpm because it was better, and they had to do something to stop their eroding marketshare. So they form a standards committee with HP, Sun, and other Microsoft friends, and try to brainwash the Linux community into thinking this is a great idea because standards are good, right? They make their filesystem layout the "standard", their package management tool the "standard", etc and then make everyone feel guilty for not following the "standard".
I have no guilt. Redhat are a pawn of Microsoft, being used to drive Linux into the ground with technically inferior "standards" and user interfaces that are just like M$ Windows but not quite good enough so desktop users don't feel compelled to switch. They could have used their old monopoly to further enhance Linux, instead they appear to have used it to buy up kernel developers so they can't speak publically against the company line, and to prevent good things getting into the kernel as long as possible (eg, reiserfs, devfs,
Their idea of a "community" seems to be "people who will do marketing for us for free!" as they have a proven track record of ignoring horrific bugs in their packages (both code/patch and packaging) that had been fixed by third-party rpms distributed via their own "community" mailing lists long before release of the next distribution version. Quality is second to profit. Wait, no, third to maintaining reputation.
I don't trust their business practices, their commitment to the real open source community nor their ability to create unbiased standards for that community, hence I won't use their distributions, nor advocate their standards, and urge the community to do likewise.
False.
Doing this atrocity will break your system at some stage. RPM's notoriously pathetic attempt at package dependencies means that should I install on my Debian system rpm foo from a vendor who think's they're doing the right thing by following the LSB, said rpm will depend on other rpms, all of which I will have to install because Redhat follow different names to everyone else. Said RPM's could overwrite any file on my system, as rpm must be run as root. Any files, including the correct libraries for all the other applications on the system.
As we all know Redhat apply patches out the arse to make their libraries incompatible with all the other distributions, the system is left in a state where two package managers assume they have control of the system and are installing incompatible things willy-nilly, overwriting other stuff.
This does not sound like it solves the problem the LSB is at heart trying to address, and it's why I have constantly, and will continue to constantly, protest against the hijacking of the LSB by Redhat to enforce their standards on everyone else. If I wanted to run Redhat Linux, its easy enough - all I have to do is pay $3000 or so for a license (price taken from my local retailer) but I actually prefer to have some time free in the day to do something with my computer other than solve package dependency issues; so I run a distribution that doesn't have those problems at all and lets me spend my time doing real work.
Making RPM the "standard package tool" entices vendors to use Redhat Linux as their base, along with its incompatible file locations and other problems; so even if all the overwriting problems were solved, parts of the applications will be calling other bits on the system that don't exist (like chkconfig). I've seen it. This is a huge mistake we must avoid at all costs.
The LSB committee is stacked with Redhat employees or partners. The only way to avoid this problem is to make a proper open standard for Linux that isn't biased towards one minor distribution.
Windows includes older Dlls and the OS links to the proper ones when it detects its an older program. Linux should do something similiar.
Where do you think M$ Windows stole this idea from?
Library sonames dictate what library to link against. When you break the ABI, you change the soname (aka increment the version number) and older apps will happily stay linked against the older libraries and still work.
With open source software you can even recompile against the new libraries, solving the case where the executable format changes (eg, aout to ELF)
When open source fails there is no-one to blame
This is complete rubbish. Open Source is a development model, not some kind of support contract. If the contractor supplying the service does not deliver - or their service fails - guess who you can blame? It is completely irrelevant whether they have used an open source solution or some proprietary solution - they have been contracted to supply something and are hence legally obligated.
The lie that is "there's no-one to blame" is FUD from closed-source vendors who know the truth which is that, should an open source solution fail, you have the source code and can fix it or hire someone to fix it. When you have some closed-source solution and it fails, you're up shit creek with no means of forward propulsion, and the damage this can cause (or, if you prefer, the depth of the creek) increases as time goes on.
Beaver with Botox
I just don't wanna know.
It *might* not be your fault, but it's certainly someone's fault if illegal actvity happens on your forums. It's just hard to tell who's fault it is.
No it isn't.
If somebody is doing something illegal, it is their fault - the only exception to this I'm aware of is duress.
The difficulty may come in finding this person, but that's a police matter just like it is for other crimes.
The ISP are providing a service, just like Kelloggs or Uncle Tobys (or whoever) supplied the perp with his breakfast, and Bonds provided the underwear he had on at the time, Telstra provided the comms equipment used, and so forth. Might as well sue all of them too, otherwise justice certainly isn't being done.
I can't say anything else I didn't already say here.
I hope George Lucas doesn't live near this county, otherwise Star Wars could end up as crap as ST:TNG.
;)
Darth Vader exhaling "now I am the Primary!" (or whatever the watered down, "inoffensive" replacement for 'Master' is) isn't terrifying, it's ridiculous. Any nearby Jedi would certainly die alright, they'd be rolling on the floor laughing so hard they'd fall off the gangways into open space!
And "Sir Yoda" (or whatever inoffensive title replacing 'Master') saying stuff like "Always two there are, a Teacher and a Student" (since we can't use Master, and Apprentice is most likely an evil term also) makes me think when 300 years old he reached, wise as good he is not
Altering language is a standard tactic used by occupying invaders to strip a people of any sense of emotion, self-respect, and community - since ineffectual pansies too scared to even say something "out of place" (let alone do) are a lot easier to control and keep submissive.
Puke like you drank a liter of vodka.
Now, why would you do that?
What, drink vodka, or puke after only 1 litre?
It's not like teenagers aren't aware that freely downloading copyrighted music is illegal
And even if they were, ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law.
What disturbed me about the article was that the author seemed to suggest that young kids and the elderly should somehow be considered exempt from laws the rest of us have to follow, simply because of their age. If this isn't discrimination I don't know what is. Should kids and the elderly also likewise be exempt from being charged for other crimes? What makes this crime any different to another?
There's not much point getting up the RIAA over this one, there's simply not enough information given (ie, were those 1500 files music she created herself, music others created and freely distribute? Or were they RIAA-copyrighted works?)
BTW I don't think the RIAA is entitled to sue you for breach of copyright over anything they're not the copyright holders of, only the copyright holders have that right (responsibility?).
I think you're onto something. Getting the "perfect" desktop environment means customisation, and customisation takes time, and sometimes time is the one thing the company cannot afford; especially when there's obviously more than one option to persue and some of those options are "good enough" out of the box.
;) None of the BSD's really believe in X11, let alone a decent X11 desktop. I haven't tried Gentoo (though I want to, I like the FreeBSD ports system and I think this distro really has promise - Debian needs a real competitor anyway).
...) on them".
I've come across few Linux distributions that have really, honestly tried to give a desktop environment that worked well. Redhat have tried, but their constant shift in focus over the years (hey we don't need one!, hey its enlightenment, hey its sawfish/gnome, hey its metacity/gnome2) and their attitude of "well, its good enough" (when, really, it wasn't) come release time have made the default very lacklustre. SuSE polished, but unfortunately I didn't give it enough time for me to say anything more. I haven't tried Mandrake. Debian doesn't have a focus - believing that they should instead give all the options possible and let the sysadmin sort it out
Perhaps what UserLinux needs to do is forget about trying to give every possible option (yes, 12,000-odd packages in the standard Debian install is not what you want anyone to wade through) but instead, pick the common stuff people want - maybe take a hint from the default options for Windows XP and MacOS X - use the best open source software possible that provides that functionality (and this will mean being very critical, and no doubt irritate folks) - then value-add it with the common stuff that's extra in those, like an Office suite, gnucash, evolution with synching to phones and pdas, and perhaps even cater a little to niche markets that utilise computers a lot, eg give the Gimp and Blender and Rosegarden and stuff like that. Then make the whole UI schmick. Have everything fit together like it was made to.
Each further release, refine what's already there. Is there a new market that needs addressing? Is there now a better application that can supercede The Gimp (for example)? Was including FooApp a bad idea? What are the users asking for wrt. the UI itself? Is there something that addresses those needs or do (we) have to develop something specific? Or, even, are we currently somewhere in-between and some project could use some help? Does one of the previously-catered markets no longer exist, and hence those apps can be removed?
Oh, and for Pete's sake, don't equate "schmick" with "cannot be broken by grandma" or "hey, lets duplicate Apple/Microsoft/Be/QNX/etc" or "we're geeks, lets enforce star trek or matrix (or anime or natalie portman or britney spears
We're geeks. We have grandmas and back in their day things were tough! They didn't break just because someone used them, and even if they did there were a hundred other uses for the pieces even if it couldn't be fixed easily. We have some good ideas to draw from from other geeks, but also bad things to avoid. Our interests transcend SciFi, cartoons, attractive men/women, music.
At a guess these are actual users as opposed to "power users" or "tweakers". People who just want to be able to use a machine. Not fiddle about with it's settings, install software, etc.
;)
True. Installing software was left to us, though that was more out of convenience than anything else. They did do the usual things regular people want to do with their workstations - ie customise the look & layout to something that suited them, some got in & made keybinds to common operations they did, that was about it. They weren't running custom startup scripts grabbing stock options every hour and tickering them along the screen or anything like that.
How long would it take someone familiar with 95/98 to get used to XP?
In my experience, it depends. I was involved in a rollout across a large organisation (a few thousand users) and we ended up doing a few weeks of post-rollout support instead of a few days as originally scheduled. Most of that was due to hardware problems (custom devices the client conveniently forgot to mention they had and hence were not supported by XP), extra machines discovered to exist, actual system failure, etc. Anyway, on the human front, there were certainly many users that could see past the tellytubbies and recognise the desktop wasn't actually significantly different, however there were also many who were completely dumbfounded and confused. Note here I'm taking "get used to XP" to mean be as familiar with the same things common to both 98 and XP (since XP has extra functionality over 98 and of course that'll involve some extra effort to get used to). Now, if you want to include other changes, they also went up a few versions of Office/Outlook and a few other apps (for XP compatibility), and had some workflow changes imposed by management. Many users noted it would take them some time to get used to the whole new desktop environment.
Notice that these questions do not include installing XYZ piece of hardware, downloading software, reinstalling the operating system, etc. Even though "MS geeks" consider these things important...
These things are important to any geek. But just as you don't let a street busker install an intercooled turbo in your vehicle - preferring to use a qualified auto mechanic - non-geeks shouldn't be installing operating systems or even software in a controlled environment. You can argue hardware, one would hope that the workplace delivers all the hardware the user needs and they receive adequate training in how to install/uninstall it (and with most things being USB or firewire these days its reasonable to expect non-geeks to not have too much trouble doing so). But I wouldn't expect an end-user to diagnose a fault in the motherboard and perform a "heart transplant". This is what geeks are for
I'm really thrilled by this.
Earlier this week, we saw Microsoft announce they were offering a online music service next year, kinda like what Apple are already offering now with iTunes and what the rest of the community have been doing with Napster et al for years.
They also did a spoof of the Matrix (the original), just like Borland did a while ago, and of course every man and his dog has since the original was released years ago.
And now they are introducing a news service just like Google's already perfectly good one.
What further "innovation" will we see from Redmond? I can hardly wait.
Insightful instead of Troll? Where are all the quality moderators today?
:)
Typical Linux Geek thinking ease-of-use = dumbing down and that a good interface means pretty icons.
Strange, the typical Linux geek (and, being one, I should know) thinks ease-of-use = productive and a good interface means a shell prompt
Ease of use means making the computer work the way PEOPLE think, not forcing people to work the way COMPUTERS think.
That's right, but what I think you're missing is that everyone thinks differently, and the whole reason we can work together as a population is because we have that ability to adapt. Computers, on the other hand, do not posess such an ability. Now, lets put this back into the current topic, user interfaces. What a "typical linux geek" would call "dumbing down" is not "ease of use", as you incorrectly stated, but "inflexibility". Dumbed-down interfaces cannot be made to work the way the end-user thinks. They can be made to work the way a small subset of end-users think, perhaps, though as others have stated this could simply be due to conditioning and/or low expectations. But they won't suit everyone.
Linux geeks and other developers, who have been conditioned to think like the computer because of the work they do, have the mistaken notion that advanced computer user means a user who has learned to force the natural human way of doing things into the artificial machine way a computer does things.
Any interface that doesn't force this paradigm is "dumbed down."
Repeating previously unproven allegations doesn't make them more true. I haven't met any geeks or developers who actually classify people this way. Most developers would look at their software as either it works, or it doesn't. The closest thing to thinking like a computer as you allege that I've ever seen is this binary view of the world. I guess if I were to think about it for a while, I'd say an advanced user is someone who has gotten over the fear that they will break something if they think outside the box, do something other than the defaults.
The truth is, the Linux geek has simply been conditioned to do things the difficult way, not the natural way.
This is insane. I have benchmarked standard operations and on FASTER machines Microsoft Windows has been, on average, orders of magnitude slower performing standard operations (copying files, making changes to text files, finding files, finding text in files), heck, even bringing up the users standard work desktop environment! (startup apps, windows ordered in some fashion).
I say its certain people who have been conditioned into doing things the difficult way. That's just human nature. They're probably the same people who select entire file contents for a cut/copy/paste operation using the mouse instead of hitting a keybind like ctrl-a, or park the farthest away from the mall entrance, or hundreds of other dumb things.
Saying this trait exists only in "Linux geeks" is extremely insulting and factually deficient.
Designing the interface to do things the natural way is not dumbing it down, it's making the Linux Geek's paradigm obsolete.
I guess that depends on your point of view. Designing the interface to do things the natural way may be making the Linux geeks "paradigm" implemented.
I assume you've already created a single set of golf clubs that can be played "the natural way" and everyone, right or left handed, is happy, no?
Of course, the Linux Geek doesn't like this, so in a fit of human ego, he looks his nose down on anything that points out the stupidity of his position (working the way the computer demands; being the tool of the computer), and calls it "dumbing down."
This is hilarious. Show me any Linux UI that makes the end user more of a "tool of the computer", "working the way the computer demands" than what Microsoft Windows does. Even in the mo
The desktop is the primary problem, IMHO.
;) And of course the comments constantly flowed about how awesome Linux was on the desktop, how much easier it was to use once you got the hang of it, how the learning curve wasn't steep, etc.
The current Linux desktop does NOT pass the Granny test.
But getting back to main point, the Linux Desktop, in the form of KDE or Gnome, is still not ready for primetime.
I thought I'd do some masterful cut & paste there to illustrate a point. You're not the only one to mention KDE & GNOME in respect to problems with the Linux desktop. I mention this simply because 4 years ago my then employer had Linux systems as the desktop for regular joe users (english majors, part-time housewives, etc - no geek factors) and the users thought they were wonderful, and were extremely irate when office politics meant they were replaced with MS Windows (the usual MS tactic - internal MS fanatic disconnected from majority of users but with enough IT background to be considered credible by management constantly in management's ear about how a shift to Windows would be good and Linux is evil)
If 4 years ago Linux on the desktop made users extremely happy, what has changed? I believe it is the focus on these desktop environments, and their focus on duplicating the warts of Windows. The maths is quite simple - Linux w/ WindowMaker = happy users, Windows = sad/cranky/frustrated/disillusioned users. And now, we see Linux users w/ Windows workalike = sad/cranky/frustrated/disillusioned users.
Don't get me wrong, it did take the best part of a week for the users who had no prior non-Windows exposure to familiarise themselves with the new desktop they had. But it wasn't long after that they were working out for themselves some of the "power features" and asking questions along those veins to make their day more productive, including using virtual desktops, the keyboard bindings for navigation & application execution, saving sessions, etc. The answer to pretty much all "this is nice, but could we also/instead do XXX" questions was "yes" (of course, it also helped to have an in-house WM developer
I've constantly read over the years countless articles on how "bad" Linux is on the desktop, and I've never really taken the time to consider why (as I, my friends, and my users, are all perfectly happy and have been all that time) until now. All those articles concentrate on GNOME and/or KDE, usually from some default configuration, usually from some mediocre distribution like Redhat. It's like the Mindcraft benchmarks - start bad, make no effort whatsoever, and hey presto!, instant failure just like you set out to achieve. Well, duh.
Since the super computer obviously isn't a food item how would McDonalds be able to sue?
Since the justice system was replaced by the "legal" or "court" system.
Like, last millennium.
To paraphrase a common saying, "don't let the facts spoil a good litigation".
And that's precisely why Fedora is useless as a replacement for either the Red Hat Professional or Standard distributions.
;) car.
;)
It's not meant to be a replacement for them. Go read the goals over at the Fedora home page. This was my point - comparing it with other things its not is pointless. I get home every week in a Saab 340, and it goes much faster than my friend's Saab 3000. Do you draw the conclusion that if you want a Saab, you should get a 340?
The 340 is a turboprop aircraft. The 3000 is a (albeit turbocharged
I don't think average users are meant to like Fedora. Not yet, anyway. Of course, we can debate till the bovines arrive back at their humble abodes the exact definition of an "average" user and get nowhere. Instead, lets take a step back and look at the issue of advocating Linux to your company. AFAIC there are simply 2 factors which matter when deciding what Linux setup to use - the business goals, and the experience of the IT guys who have to administer these things. Joe User has a place in driving the business goals, they don't have a place in administrating the systems. If Joe User requires an office suite, guess what? It matters SFA whether their desktop is Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, or George the Company Sysadmin's Hacked Together From Scratch Custom Distro For FooBar Inc - OpenOffice will likely meet the business goals on all of them.
Recommendations based solely on brand name is how we end up with huge companies like Mcdonalds, Microsoft, and Coca-Cola. And where does it get us? Cruddy food, cruddier software, and awesome softdrinks
In the grand scheme of things, who honestly gives a crap what Linux distribution their company runs? Let the sysadmins decide. It's their problem. They know what's best for them. It's their job to make it work for you. If you want to see Linux on your desktop, advocate Linux. Advocate hamburgers. Cola. Software that works. Don't limit yourself to Brand A Linux, you're simply imposing a pointless glass ceiling.
Desktop linux is now unimportant to Redhat, so we should expect any efforts from them in that market to be dismal, at best.
I don't think this is quite true... the "enterprise" includes desktops.
Fedora is, and always will be, a *beta* *test* *unstable* distribution. Treating it as anything else is silly. It's purpose is to use the existing loyal Redhat community as guinea pigs for what will become the next version of their commercial products.
This is good in one sense, their commercial products will benefit greatly from this. In another sense it is bad, as journalists who see the Linux community in the old "we like both styles of music" joke way - (Redhat AND SuSE) - will treat Fedora like its meant to be something its not - a stable Linux distribution for end users.
I'm not saying it won't be *in practice* - heck, I run Debian unstable personally as my "stable" desktop - but marketing-wise you need to draw lines in the sand when comparing things so there's some basis on which you can make sure you've got jonothans and granny smiths, and not granny smiths and navels.
The only beef I have with Debian is the install process, but even that's ok.
;) Yes, I know I can automate it but I'm not blatting down identical images all the time, so automating it isn't necessarily beneficial to me.
And a new installer system in the works, to address this much-debated issue.
My only prob with Debian's current installer has been that there's been that much useful software to install, it becomes either:
a) really tempting to install things you don't need that just sound interesting
b) a chore, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to find the things you *do* need (though thankfully dselect has search funtionality built in, handy when you know the debian package names
*rofl*
How about:
Anything you can do, SCO can do also
SCO can do anything anyone else does
Can they code?
No they can't
Can they sell?
No they can't
Can they litigate?
Yes they can, Yes they can!
SCO can get SMP just as soon as Linux does
They can implement a journaled filesystem after IBM
Even inflate their stock prices
To pump and dump?
Of course
That's what I thought
[...]