Well, personally I don't use commercial firewall tools. I use Linux. It makes a great, full-featured firewall if you know how to configure it. It is much more difficult to configure Linux as a firewall than it is to configure commercial "out-of-the-box" solutions, but the added flexibility that Linux gives you can be worth it.
Checkout the Linux Firewall HOW-TO at http://linuxdoc.org for more information.
Ummm...something like this is completely unnecessary. (IANAL)
The "fine print" in the green bar above the comments states that "The following comments are owned by whoever posted them."
This means that Andover.net is divesting itself of all copyright to the comments. Since the original posters own the comments, copyright release would have to come from the original posters.
Now, I believe that I have read somewhere that it was either USENET or bulletin board postings were ruled by the courts to be "reasonably assumed that redistribution is granted" due to the nature of such. I would assume that this would also apply to Slashdot postings, but there is really precedent for it, since Web postings aren't actually redistributed by several different sources the way USENET postings are.
Of course, it makes matters worse if I do something like this:
Copyright (C) 2000 by Rob A. Shinn. All rights reserved. Unauthorized redistribution is a violation of applicable laws.
Now can you redistribute this post or not? This is left as an exercise to the reader.:)
Ummm...paraphrasing is still considered plagiarism. Whether or not this form of plagiarism can be proved to be a flagrant copyright violation is up to the lawyers.
FWIW, the fine print says that the posts are owned by the original posters, which means that they (Andover.net) are divesting themselves of all copyrights to the posts.
What about those without responsible parents? There needs to be goernmental aid and assistance, but on an as-needed basis.
It doesn't work on an "as-needed basis." You have to either ban everything for everyone or ban nothing. You can't simply block porn at Joe and Margie Schmo's house. Censorship a little at a time seems to work at first, but in the long term, it ends up being the same as if you had a wide-ranging law like the CDA. They just censor more one bit at a time.
I call these laws "frog laws." Think about a frog when you drop one in hot boiling water: he's going to try to get out (and probably succeed.) But if you heat the water slowly, a few degress at a time, then the frog will sit there and not put up a struggle. CDA was hot boiling water. These new bills are water being heated slowly. The end result is the same: your rights end up getting cooked and eaten for dinner.
And, FWIW, I think that people who aren't responsible shouldn't be parents. Raising a child is a vast responsibility. If you can't handle it, give the child up for adoption or whatever. But don't come crying to me when you can't be responsible enough to raise your own damn child.
And my brain does NOT use MS/DOS as the article suggests...it runs Linux, although perhaps judging from this post, I should turn the EXPERIMENTAL featurs off.:)
I dunno if I necessarily agree with what you have to say, but to some extent I do.
Yes, computers and the Internet are in much more use today then they were a few users, but the original culture of the Internet, tied to the University and hacker cultures of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is still very much alive today.
Remember that it was the hackers of those times that BUILT the Internet as you see it today. Those people are still alive and very much active today.
This counterculture still exists, and while modern counterculture does make use of the Internet, a lot of counterculture on the Internet is still tied to the original hackers.
I think the results stem from the fact that many people don't see how a break-up would be a good thing.
I don't think that most consumers are quite that saavy. In fact, on last night's "Who Wants to Be A Derrier...err...Millionaire?" (hey, I leave the TV on for noise while I code:) ), less than half the audience knew that "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" was Microsoft's slogan. (Given the choice of IBM, Dell, Compaq or Microsoft.) (The contestant had to burn his "ask the audience" lifeline on this seemingly easy question)
Nay, I think that consumers just either don't know enough about it or they just don't care.
That was exactly my first thought: ***NOT*** a form of EXPRESSION? Excuse me, if it is not a form of expression, then why is computer source code protected under the United States Copyright Act as well as under the International Berne Convention for copyrights? Aren't copyright laws designed to protect copyright holders' rights to their forms of expression????? This Judge wouldn't know the law if it came up and slapped him in the face!!!
And I don't buy the argument about programs being used to infringe on intellectual property rights. Xerox machines and tape records can be used to infringe on IP rights, should be ban those too?
I didn't realise that the goal of Linux was to "beat" anybody. I thought the goal of Linux, in its role as part of the Free Software Foundation's vision, was to provide a free (libre) UNIX-like operating environment that people who valued their freedom had an alternative to closed-sourced environments.
Mmmmm...yes you are missing something.
Sure that was the original goal. But when the media started drooling over our freedom OS, and Linus Torvald's started joking (HHOS) about "World Domination (TM)", well, quite a few people in the community began getting a thirst for blood -- Microsoft's.
This isn't going away. Everyday, Linux look more and more like a solid competition for Windows NT and Windows 2000. We're going to have to FACE it: Linux is going to be compared time and time again against Microsoft's products, and more and more people are viewing this as competition.
If you can't stand commercialization and competition, then go install FreeBSD -- and stop whining.
A business exists in order to serve the needs or desires of a market segment. (First year any Bus. Admin. course) Nobody buys your product because they want to help you make money. They couldn't care less if you go bankrupt provided it doesn't cause them any problems.
True. Marketing and product are the keys to serving your customers. BUT, this illustrates my point about the four cornerstones (see my original post).
If marketing and product are strong, sure you will sell a product, and yes, you will get income. However, if you don't make a profit, 1) your business will eventually fail, and 2) what's the point of running a business that doesn't make a product.
And yes, you cannot make a profit without selling something. If your financials are strong and your product and marketing are weak, you will not turn a profit, and thus your business will eventually fail.
So while your goal is to make a profit, good product and good marketing will get you there. But they will not make your business succeed alone.
The goal is to make a profit, not provide some social service to benefit society. If you get nothing out of it (no profit), you have not succeeded, no matter how much you say that your product is great.
If your goal is not to make a profit, and your goal is to produce a really great product and you don't care about money, then you should build that product, but not as a business, as an employee of someone else's business. Becuase if you don't care about profit, then your business will most likely not make one, and that is what causes many many business failures.
1. I'm not saying that you don't need a solid product that offers value to your customers. I'm saying that product is not the be all end all of running a business.
2. Your outline of a generic business plan shows that you do not understand anything about writing business plans. Typical business plans, the ones used to seek VC, focus highly on the financials and less on the product or service. Details about how you treat your employees or how well respected you are in the business community are almost never in a business plan: treating your employees well and being an upstanding member of the business community are expected, not optional.
The point is that there are many ways to a profit. If profit is your sole goal, do not open a business.
Profit is the point of any business. Sure there are other goals for a business, but any sucessful business' overriding goal is to make a profit. If that is not your main goal, don't run a business: you don't have what it takes to be an entreprenuer.
There are four "cornerstones" a business really needs to be built on: sales/marketing, administration, accounting/finance and production (product or service). If any of these cornerstones are weak, your building (business) will come crashing down.
Most people make the basic mistake of assuming that a great product will make a great business. This is a myth! Look at McDonald's, which is pretty much the world's largest fast food chain. OK: All those who think McDonald's makes the greatest burgers you've ever tasted raise your hands! What? Nobody? (Actually, I'm sure I'm going to get SOME loser who's going to say that McDonald's burgers are awesome. Go away...:)
McDonald's Corporation is big and successful for a few reasons: great marketing is surely one of them. But they also have a business administration system by which any McDonald's franchise is basically guaranteed to make money if they follow the system to the letter. Cost controls are in place. Training, hiring, and managing employees are all part of this system. Accounting systems are part of it. These things are all first-rate and tailored for McDonald's line of business. And these seemingly "boring" business tasks can make or break your organization.
I know what you might say: "But McDonald's make burgers and we're making software!" Software Shchmoftware. A widget is a widget. All businesses are about making money and the product is only a means of doing that. Your key management -- the people in charge of business administration, accounting/finance, and marketing, are people that should not be "in love" with the product. Leave that to your people who are making the software. People who are "in love" with the product will be blinded by it, not seeing the forest for the trees. Those three cornerstones must be as strong as (or even stronger than) your product cornerstone.
I'm a person who's written business plans and seen business startups fail. And I have also seem them succeed. And I can tell you that the most important thing to keep in mind is to realize that when you are building a business, you are putting everything on the line. Build your business on a strong foundation and you will succeed. Ignore one of those cornerstones and you will most certainly fail. Prepare now, because you don't want to be chasing fires later.
I fail to see how KDE is less functional than CDE. I use both on quite a regular basis and I am always saying that CDE is not as functional as KDE.
KDE's panel is very similar to CDE's (this is not by mistake). CDE *does* have the ability to customize it a bit better by hacking scripts (you can have multiple rows of icons and customize their size, for instance), but overall, KDE offers more "point-and-click" functionality right out of the box.
Back the, "portable" would have meant a computer that didn't need to be in a specifically-built, air-conditioned, extra-clean room, and you didn't need to hire a team of specialists from the manufacturer just to move it...
I don't recall Apple as having pawned their Apple ][ off as being "portable." (Apple ][ was introduced in 1977) Neither was the Altair (1975).
Although I suppose I can understand what you mean...:)
Remove language barriers: internationalize all parts of Linux.
This brings up a good point: do you internationalize the source code?
Seriously, think about it: the free software movement is all about bringing access to source code and the ability to modify that source code.
Do you internationlize the source (meaning comments, variable and function names, etc.)?
I think for the sake of complying with the open source movement, I think maybe it needs to be discussed and thought about.
The problem that becomes classic is that international versions of programs tend to be much further behind than current, U.S./English versions. It would be even more so if you decided to internationalize the source code, because while the original source is very much English, international versions would need to be translated.
It would be an interesting discussion. Maybe an Ask Slashdot forum would be appropriate?
Did anyone notice that the article said that it was PORTABLE?! HAH! Has anyone seen the PET 2001? Its portable if your definition of portable is neither bolted to the desk or chained to alarm system!
Believe it or not, CDE is still in wide spread use. The engineering workstations at GM all use CDE (they run Solaris and HP-UX) and I have to agree its GARBAGE.
KDE and GNOME are good steps in the right direction.
I don't think GNUStep/OpenStep/NeXTStep whatever is really going to ever be any sort of standard, IMHO. Nice interface, nice technology, but too far from mainstream interfaces.
Looks like you've got most of the classics covered. Dune, F 451, Martian Chronicles, 2001 and Neuromancer are some of my personal favorites.
Your list seems to be pure science fiction, though, no cyberpunk (think 'The Matrix') or fantasy (think 'Lord of the Rings'). Some might not consider these genres pure science fiction, but they have many elements present in science fiction and are enjoyed by many science fiction readers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, personally I don't use commercial firewall tools. I use Linux. It makes a great, full-featured firewall if you know how to configure it. It is much more difficult to configure Linux as a firewall than it is to configure commercial "out-of-the-box" solutions, but the added flexibility that Linux gives you can be worth it.
Checkout the Linux Firewall HOW-TO at http://linuxdoc.org for more information.
Are you wearing a mini skirt and thigh highs?
:)
Ok!!! YOU WIN!!!
The "fine print" in the green bar above the comments states that "The following comments are owned by whoever posted them."
This means that Andover.net is divesting itself of all copyright to the comments. Since the original posters own the comments, copyright release would have to come from the original posters.
Now, I believe that I have read somewhere that it was either USENET or bulletin board postings were ruled by the courts to be "reasonably assumed that redistribution is granted" due to the nature of such. I would assume that this would also apply to Slashdot postings, but there is really precedent for it, since Web postings aren't actually redistributed by several different sources the way USENET postings are.
Of course, it makes matters worse if I do something like this:
Now can you redistribute this post or not? This is left as an exercise to the reader.
Ummm...paraphrasing is still considered plagiarism. Whether or not this form of plagiarism can be proved to be a flagrant copyright violation is up to the lawyers.
FWIW, the fine print says that the posts are owned by the original posters, which means that they (Andover.net) are divesting themselves of all copyrights to the posts.
Oh yeah...IANAL.
What about those without responsible parents? There needs to be goernmental aid and assistance, but on an as-needed basis.
It doesn't work on an "as-needed basis." You have to either ban everything for everyone or ban nothing. You can't simply block porn at Joe and Margie Schmo's house. Censorship a little at a time seems to work at first, but in the long term, it ends up being the same as if you had a wide-ranging law like the CDA. They just censor more one bit at a time.
I call these laws "frog laws." Think about a frog when you drop one in hot boiling water: he's going to try to get out (and probably succeed.) But if you heat the water slowly, a few degress at a time, then the frog will sit there and not put up a struggle. CDA was hot boiling water. These new bills are water being heated slowly. The end result is the same: your rights end up getting cooked and eaten for dinner.
And, FWIW, I think that people who aren't responsible shouldn't be parents. Raising a child is a vast responsibility. If you can't handle it, give the child up for adoption or whatever. But don't come crying to me when you can't be responsible enough to raise your own damn child.
Oops. brain fart. s/few users/few years ago.
:)
And my brain does NOT use MS/DOS as the article suggests...it runs Linux, although perhaps judging from this post, I should turn the EXPERIMENTAL featurs off.
I dunno if I necessarily agree with what you have to say, but to some extent I do.
Yes, computers and the Internet are in much more use today then they were a few users, but the original culture of the Internet, tied to the University and hacker cultures of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is still very much alive today.
Remember that it was the hackers of those times that BUILT the Internet as you see it today. Those people are still alive and very much active today.
This counterculture still exists, and while modern counterculture does make use of the Internet, a lot of counterculture on the Internet is still tied to the original hackers.
I think the results stem from the fact that many people don't see how a break-up would be a good thing.
:) ), less than half the audience knew that "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" was Microsoft's slogan. (Given the choice of IBM, Dell, Compaq or Microsoft.) (The contestant had to burn his "ask the audience" lifeline on this seemingly easy question)
I don't think that most consumers are quite that saavy. In fact, on last night's "Who Wants to Be A Derrier...err...Millionaire?" (hey, I leave the TV on for noise while I code
Nay, I think that consumers just either don't know enough about it or they just don't care.
That was exactly my first thought: ***NOT*** a form of EXPRESSION? Excuse me, if it is not a form of expression, then why is computer source code protected under the United States Copyright Act as well as under the International Berne Convention for copyrights? Aren't copyright laws designed to protect copyright holders' rights to their forms of expression????? This Judge wouldn't know the law if it came up and slapped him in the face!!!
And I don't buy the argument about programs being used to infringe on intellectual property rights. Xerox machines and tape records can be used to infringe on IP rights, should be ban those too?
I didn't realise that the goal of Linux was to "beat" anybody. I thought the goal of Linux, in its role as part of the Free Software Foundation's vision, was to provide a free (libre) UNIX-like operating environment that people who valued their freedom had an alternative to closed-sourced environments.
Mmmmm...yes you are missing something.
Sure that was the original goal. But when the media started drooling over our freedom OS, and Linus Torvald's started joking (HHOS) about "World Domination (TM)", well, quite a few people in the community began getting a thirst for blood -- Microsoft's.
This isn't going away. Everyday, Linux look more and more like a solid competition for Windows NT and Windows 2000. We're going to have to FACE it: Linux is going to be compared time and time again against Microsoft's products, and more and more people are viewing this as competition.
If you can't stand commercialization and competition, then go install FreeBSD -- and stop whining.
A business exists in order to serve the needs or desires of a market segment. (First year any Bus. Admin. course) Nobody buys your product because they want to help you make money. They couldn't care less if you go bankrupt provided it doesn't cause them any problems.
True. Marketing and product are the keys to serving your customers. BUT, this illustrates my point about the four cornerstones (see my original post).
If marketing and product are strong, sure you will sell a product, and yes, you will get income. However, if you don't make a profit, 1) your business will eventually fail, and 2) what's the point of running a business that doesn't make a product.
And yes, you cannot make a profit without selling something. If your financials are strong and your product and marketing are weak, you will not turn a profit, and thus your business will eventually fail.
So while your goal is to make a profit, good product and good marketing will get you there. But they will not make your business succeed alone.
The goal is to make a profit, not provide some social service to benefit society. If you get nothing out of it (no profit), you have not succeeded, no matter how much you say that your product is great.
If your goal is not to make a profit, and your goal is to produce a really great product and you don't care about money, then you should build that product, but not as a business, as an employee of someone else's business. Becuase if you don't care about profit, then your business will most likely not make one, and that is what causes many many business failures.
1. I'm not saying that you don't need a solid product that offers value to your customers. I'm saying that product is not the be all end all of running a business.
2. Your outline of a generic business plan shows that you do not understand anything about writing business plans. Typical business plans, the ones used to seek VC, focus highly on the financials and less on the product or service. Details about how you treat your employees or how well respected you are in the business community are almost never in a business plan: treating your employees well and being an upstanding member of the business community are expected, not optional.
The point is that there are many ways to a profit. If profit is your sole goal, do not open a business.
Profit is the point of any business. Sure there are other goals for a business, but any sucessful business' overriding goal is to make a profit. If that is not your main goal, don't run a business: you don't have what it takes to be an entreprenuer.
Couldn't agree more.
There are four "cornerstones" a business really needs to be built on: sales/marketing, administration, accounting/finance and production (product or service). If any of these cornerstones are weak, your building (business) will come crashing down.
Most people make the basic mistake of assuming that a great product will make a great business. This is a myth! Look at McDonald's, which is pretty much the world's largest fast food chain. OK: All those who think McDonald's makes the greatest burgers you've ever tasted raise your hands! What? Nobody? (Actually, I'm sure I'm going to get SOME loser who's going to say that McDonald's burgers are awesome. Go away...:)
McDonald's Corporation is big and successful for a few reasons: great marketing is surely one of them. But they also have a business administration system by which any McDonald's franchise is basically guaranteed to make money if they follow the system to the letter. Cost controls are in place. Training, hiring, and managing employees are all part of this system. Accounting systems are part of it. These things are all first-rate and tailored for McDonald's line of business. And these seemingly "boring" business tasks can make or break your organization.
I know what you might say: "But McDonald's make burgers and we're making software!" Software Shchmoftware. A widget is a widget. All businesses are about making money and the product is only a means of doing that. Your key management -- the people in charge of business administration, accounting/finance, and marketing, are people that should not be "in love" with the product. Leave that to your people who are making the software. People who are "in love" with the product will be blinded by it, not seeing the forest for the trees. Those three cornerstones must be as strong as (or even stronger than) your product cornerstone.
I'm a person who's written business plans and seen business startups fail. And I have also seem them succeed. And I can tell you that the most important thing to keep in mind is to realize that when you are building a business, you are putting everything on the line. Build your business on a strong foundation and you will succeed. Ignore one of those cornerstones and you will most certainly fail. Prepare now, because you don't want to be chasing fires later.
Good Luck,
Rob
I fail to see how KDE is less functional than CDE. I use both on quite a regular basis and I am always saying that CDE is not as functional as KDE.
KDE's panel is very similar to CDE's (this is not by mistake). CDE *does* have the ability to customize it a bit better by hacking scripts (you can have multiple rows of icons and customize their size, for instance), but overall, KDE offers more "point-and-click" functionality right out of the box.
Hmmmm....1978...
:)
Back the, "portable" would have meant a computer that didn't need to be in a specifically-built, air-conditioned, extra-clean room, and you didn't need to hire a team of specialists from the manufacturer just to move it...
I don't recall Apple as having pawned their Apple ][ off as being "portable." (Apple ][ was introduced in 1977) Neither was the Altair (1975).
Although I suppose I can understand what you mean...
Yeah I know...it was my poor attempt at humor and at bringing up the point you just stated. I was illustrating the absurd by being absurd so to speak.
Remove language barriers: internationalize all parts of Linux.
This brings up a good point: do you internationalize the source code?
Seriously, think about it: the free software movement is all about bringing access to source code and the ability to modify that source code.
Do you internationlize the source (meaning comments, variable and function names, etc.)?
I think for the sake of complying with the open source movement, I think maybe it needs to be discussed and thought about.
The problem that becomes classic is that international versions of programs tend to be much further behind than current, U.S./English versions. It would be even more so if you decided to internationalize the source code, because while the original source is very much English, international versions would need to be translated.
It would be an interesting discussion. Maybe an Ask Slashdot forum would be appropriate?
Try this on your unsuspecting co-workers. HILARIOUS!
Hmmm...now lets take your post and do a
"s/DCIT/EDS" and "s/students/employees" and then a "s/Clemson/GM" Yup....sounds like General Motors alright...
DCIT isn't by chance contracted out to EDS is it?
Its a CONSPIRACY!!!! I'M TELLING YOU!!!!
:)
Did anyone notice that the article said that it was PORTABLE?! HAH! Has anyone seen the PET 2001? Its portable if your definition of portable is neither bolted to the desk or chained to alarm system!
LMAO....
Believe it or not, CDE is still in wide spread use. The engineering workstations at GM all use CDE (they run Solaris and HP-UX) and I have to agree its GARBAGE.
KDE and GNOME are good steps in the right direction.
I don't think GNUStep/OpenStep/NeXTStep whatever is really going to ever be any sort of standard, IMHO. Nice interface, nice technology, but too far from mainstream interfaces.
Looks like you've got most of the classics covered. Dune, F 451, Martian Chronicles, 2001 and Neuromancer are some of my personal favorites.
Your list seems to be pure science fiction, though, no cyberpunk (think 'The Matrix') or fantasy (think 'Lord of the Rings'). Some might not consider these genres pure science fiction, but they have many elements present in science fiction and are enjoyed by many science fiction readers.
I read it at 13. Busted my gut LMAO! I still like the Hitchhikers books, and pretty much anything by Douglas Adams today.
*FIVE* messages to tell the guy how to turn of the FREAKIN' SIDEBAR? Isn't this a little EXCESSIVE? Sheesh!
FWIW, I *like* the sidebar.
*ducking*
Hmmmmm...is that anything like that philosophy that Web browsers are somehow part of the operating system? :P