One minor point: Linux *is* supported over the phone by companies like Red Hat.
But, to be fair, Linux really is *not* ready for the average Joe. I've worked technical support. When someone calls you up and asks what the foot pedal is for and you realize that they are talking about the *mouse* then you will know what I'm talking about.
But for power users, which these days really means just about anyone who truly comprehends the most basic computer concepts (directory trees, the difference between "memory" and "hard drive space", how to edit "config.sys" or "autoexec.bat" on a Windoze machine), Linux *is* ready to be a desktop operating system. Those who don't realize this are in denial that Windows may actually be going away...:)
You're probably right, but even that wording would rule out things like the Playstation which allow for multiplayer gaming via networking. (I'm not sure if the Playstation fits that category, but I am aware of at least one device by Sega that does....Don't ask me, I don't play console video games).
Re:Is it really an "Administrator" password?
on
CrackThisBox Updates
·
· Score: 1
And there are just as many Unix books that say that you should change the name of the root account.
Perhaps/. could take a poll to find out how many sysadmins have *really* changed the name of their root account to something other than root. I'm sure you would find that most sysadmins have not.
Linux users, on *AVERAGE* tend to be more savvy then their Windows counterparts, and that is at least PARTIALLY why Linux appears to crash less than Windows.
NT certainly crashes less than Windows 9x, and is very, very stable. But the problem with NT is not the design of the OS, but the design of the applications. Too many Windows applications bypass protections built into the kernel because Windows *programmers* tend to be less skilled then their Linux counterparts.
So yes...it IS a matter of skill, but not in the way you think...:-)
Re:Windows2000Test (Toasted? Trashed?) Site
on
CrackThisBox Updates
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps its safe to say the site has been slashdotted?:-)
No, non-monolithic kernels are not far faster. But on average, they do perform at least a little faster than their microkernel counterparts because they are one big program, as opposed to a bunch of independent components talking together through tightly-controlled communications.
The article is right in its main advantage, though and that is monolithic kernels are easier to implement than microkernel systems.
Oh absolutely. Even in computer technology, there are people who are referred to as "hardware hackers." In fact, I had a buddy of mine modify an old video board (before they were multisync-capable), to use an even older monitor. We considered the board "hacked."
Even my dad, who is totally clueless about technology, pronounced the modification another friend of mine and I made to my car a "hack." (We diked-out a sensor that controlled the fan and replaced it with a toggle switch as the sensor was like $300 and the car wasn't really worth it...)
You didn't miss much. I worked there in the summer of '92 and I'll tell you that it was HARD WORK and the management there is totally out to screw you out of the bonus you're supposed to get if you stay till your target date...
OTOH, I would have to say that other than that, it was a total blast and was the best summer I ever had.... Compared to falling through a garage roof, I'd have to say it was more enjoyable.. Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything mean...:-)
They're moving the Giant Wheel. Take it from a former CP employee (I still have the issue of BTL that I was on the front cover of to prove it! woo hoo!) there is LOTS of room around the Giant Wheel, particularly if they cut down a few trees.
Ooops, now I'm going to get flamed by environmentalists...
You make the same mistake a lot of make proponents make.http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/07/18/1 421241
Sure, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. But this fact has been Apple's major *downfall*.
As a hardware vendor, Apple has tried to distance itself from the Wintel camp by providing an operating system that feel is not only different, but technically and/or aesthetically superior to the Wintel offering.
But that is exactly what's wrong with Apple. It is this fact that has cost them money and marketshare. Apple can no longer differentiate its machines in this way because the applications available for Macintosh are (mostly) the same applications available for Wintel. Word on the Mac and Word on the PC aren't much different. Same for Photoshop, PageMaker, QuarkXPress, etc.
So Apple has gained some recent successes by differentiating their machines in terms of pure exterior aesthetics. Technical superiority doesn't sell computers, but aesthetics does. So they've started a fad.
But it can't last. Until Apple realizes that they need to concentrate on software, and consider the hardware to be a commodity like the rest of the industry, they will never make serious gains against Microsoft.
Think about it. Microsoft is successful precisely because they have always viewed software and particularly applications as the key to making money and selling units, not the hardware. Sure, they make hardware (keyboards, mice, joysticks, stereo speakers) but these items are unique in that they are designed to sell software. The Intellimouse pushes features built into Office and Internet Exploiter. The keyboards were initially built to support features in Windows 95. And joysticks and stereo speakers point at where Microsoft knows it will make LOTS of money: games and multimedia software.
Apple, on the other hand, doesn't view Mac OS X or anything else (except QuickTime) as the "end product." They view the hardware as the end product, and they try to make money on that when the margins are extremely narrow. There are very few really successful hardware companies compared to the number of really successful software companies.
I know all of this goes against the whole Open Source mentality and mindset... but when it comes down to it, the industry is evolving into a services-oriented industry and Apple isn't following suit. Their recent success will be short-lived.
Did any one notice the info on Transmeta's patent? Perhaps this has been discussed before, but its the first I've seen it....
Could a Linux/Transmeta alliance be just the answer to bring Wintel to its knees? The stuff about on-the-fly VLIW translation is COOL. I haven't seen anything like this coming out of the Intel camp...
"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
I think what Bruce Perens says about putting a disclaimer makes sense. In fact, my/usr/src/linux/COPYING file (thats the one that comes with the Linux kernel) states:
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of 'derived work'."
I hope this answers your question...but remember:
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. I would recommend consulting one if you are really serious.
That depends on whether or not he/she has tried it before.
Eventually, that information would get around and become common knowledge, just like the knowledge that the new American $20, $50, and $100 bills cannot be easily forged due to their "holographic" inks that change colors as you look at them from different angles. Or the fact that current bills $10 and up have small strips in them designed to allow detection of the bills by a scanning device.
Or, if you weren't aware of those, I can think of lots of other security measures that have become common knowledge (car alarms come to mind...)
By policy, your social security number is yours forever.
However, you missed the real intent of my post, which is to point out that this information should be legislated into total privacy, just like your medical records or financial transactions, which, like biometrics are also yours forever.
Actually, most of the articles I've read on this subject say that most iris scanners defeat this by taking *multiple* pictures of the iris at random intervals, because a real eye is constantly moving, but eyes torn out of your sockets, or a picture of your eyes would not be moving. Furthermore, some of these iris scanners actually take the multiple pictures at different angles, making any sort of video playback, etc. useless.
Interesting. Like you, I am also somewhat concerned about my privacy.
However, I would like to point out that a biometric (iris scanning is an example of a biometric, which is anything that measures a part of your body unique to you), while being more secure than an ATM card, for instance, is really not any more privacy-invasive than any other piece of data that is unique to you, such as your e-mail address, or social security number, or the ICQ number that you so freely post in your sigblock.
We give out unique pieces of data everyday, and not necessarily by choice. It is important to realize that in doing so, we are implicity trusting those who we give this information to.
I think rather than walking around paranoid, we should consider making private data priveleged infomration that is protected by law.
In other words, I think we need legislation *requiring* certain data to be consider confidential by financial institutions, etc. Something akin to, say, medical records or account balances which are already not allowed to be disclosed by law.
Write your legislators: make them realize when it comes to privacy, we mean business! You *can* make a difference.
Unfortunately, yes. The courts have traditionally held that licenses *are* enforceable.
The Berne convention, the basis for most international copyright laws, states that all original works are automatically copyrighted and that the author, unless she specifically waives certain rights by declaring otherwise, is entitled to every protection under the copyright law, including the right to redistribute the work.
Basically, without the license, you have NO right to copy the work or really even to use it, except under "fair use" exemptions. What entails "fair use" is somewhat vague...and depends greatly on the type of work in question.
If software licenses were held to be unenforceable, however, this would be GREATLY *hurt* the free software movement, which actually depends on these licenses. Remember that the GPL, and other similiar licenses are just that: they are software liceneses and they do place restrictions on how software can be copied, modified and distributed. The fact that these restrictions are designed to protect people's rights to redistribute and modify free software is completely irrelevant.
The real question is not whether software licenses are enforceable per se, but whether or not *certain provisions* of these licenses are enforceable, such as restrictions about who and who cannot use a program.
I would say that distribution and copying can be controlled under copyright, but personally I would argue that if someone has *paid* for a license to use a program then that person cannot be denied the right to use the program under fair use, but if someone was *given* a program, but the license does not allow distribution to that particular person (or company) then they *could* be denied the right to use the program.
For a complete discussion by an excellent copyright attorney, you should check out "The Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion" by Thorne D. Harris III (Prima Publishing).
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so this represents only a laypersons opinion. You should consult a lawyer if you really need to.
Several HP drivers are available for Linux in/for the Ghostscript product. The following are installed in my copy of GNU Ghostscript (three of them are "aftermarket" though):
ljet3 and ljet4 are the LaserJet III and 4 drivers. all the cdjXXX drivers are the appropriate HP DeskJet XXX printers (I have an HP DeskJet 890Cse). The parallel version of the 895 should be compatible with the 890 driver (the USB version won't work for reasons which should be obvious). The 722 should also be compatible with the 890 driver (they are practically the same printer except for paper handling and speed)
Most other DeskJets are compatible with the 550 driver. (I used to use my 890 with the 550 driver until I got the 890 driver, which supports 600DPI black text).
If you have one of the DeskJets that use the Windows Printing System (ie they use GDI rather than PCL) then I'm sorry for you.
Check Aladdin's site for more info...
Re:Is it Open Source if.....
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
No. You can bundle a GPL program with a commercial product. And this is not without precedence (both Red Hat and Caldera bundle their products with commercial prodcuts).
And of course you could copy the CLD. Its GPL, remember?
Corel is just saying that they might not make CLD a separate, purchaseable product. They're not saying that OTHER people can't distribute the CLD or that they won't be making it available for download over the Internet...
The waffling about Open Source between their "real" products and their Linux efforts kinda disturbs me, though. Porting applications to Linux generally means an almost complete rewrite, so I do not see where a little extra investment wouldn't be worth making their products Open Source. Furthermore, I think CorelDraw is at least 90% Corel's own code (I used to work for a company that has beta tested CorelDraw from time to time)...the other stuff has to do with things like color matching standards that most Linux users really won't care about (unless they happen to be professional graphic designers, that is...)
Corel brings credibility to Linux.
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Plain and simple. Corel is a brand name recognized in the industry for something *other* than Linux. (i.e., my boss knows both "CorelDraw" and "WordPerfect" rather than "Red What???" or "Caldera? Don't they make OCR software???")
(I know, I know...Caldera=current owner of DR DOS. My boss has never heard of DR DOS).
Corel may level the commercial Linux playing field a little bit, too. Red Hat is starting to be too Microsoft-like [anyone else notice that it DOUBLED prices for Red Hat Linux 6.0?].
Finally, Corel obviously has the most chance of making Linux something that could stop the Microsoft juggernaut. Corel and WordPerfect are household names and Corel has been one of the few companies that Microsoft has been uninterested in putting out of business, since WordPerfect doesn't have sufficient marketshare and MS has no plans to compete with CorelDraw Suite or Adobe Illustrator/PhotoShop/Pagemaker....
And bringing a *real* office suite to Linux will be great...StarOffice completely sucks (bloatware) and ApplixWare isn't much better.
I regularly use both Solaris 5.5 and HP-UX 10.20's implementation of tar, both of which I -believe- are non-GNU (SysV), at work (GM). We regularly distribute a 4 GB Unigraphics parts library. I have never had a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
One minor point: Linux *is* supported over the phone by companies like Red Hat.
:)
But, to be fair, Linux really is *not* ready for the average Joe. I've worked technical support. When someone calls you up and asks what the foot pedal is for and you realize that they are talking about the *mouse* then you will know what I'm talking about.
But for power users, which these days really means just about anyone who truly comprehends the most basic computer concepts (directory trees, the difference between "memory" and "hard drive space", how to edit "config.sys" or "autoexec.bat" on a Windoze machine), Linux *is* ready to be a desktop operating system. Those who don't realize this are in denial that Windows may actually be going away...
You're probably right, but even that wording would rule out things like the Playstation which allow for multiplayer gaming via networking. (I'm not sure if the Playstation fits that category, but I am aware of at least one device by Sega that does....Don't ask me, I don't play console video games).
And there are just as many Unix books that say that you should change the name of the root account.
/. could take a poll to find out how many sysadmins have *really* changed the name of their root account to something other than root. I'm sure you would find that most sysadmins have not.
Perhaps
To some extent, you are correct.
:-)
Linux users, on *AVERAGE* tend to be more savvy then their Windows counterparts, and that is at least PARTIALLY why Linux appears to crash less than Windows.
NT certainly crashes less than Windows 9x, and is very, very stable. But the problem with NT is not the design of the OS, but the design of the applications. Too many Windows applications bypass protections built into the kernel because Windows *programmers* tend to be less skilled then their Linux counterparts.
So yes...it IS a matter of skill, but not in the way you think...
Perhaps its safe to say the site has been slashdotted? :-)
No, non-monolithic kernels are not far faster. But on average, they do perform at least a little faster than their microkernel counterparts because they are one big program, as opposed to a bunch of independent components talking together through tightly-controlled communications.
The article is right in its main advantage, though and that is monolithic kernels are easier to implement than microkernel systems.
Oh absolutely. Even in computer technology, there are people who are referred to as "hardware hackers." In fact, I had a buddy of mine modify an old video board (before they were multisync-capable), to use an even older monitor. We considered the board "hacked."
Even my dad, who is totally clueless about technology, pronounced the modification another friend of mine and I made to my car a "hack." (We diked-out a sensor that controlled the fan and replaced it with a toggle switch as the sensor was like $300 and the car wasn't really worth it...)
LOL! Don't forget the built-in Web browser, e-mail client, oh...wait...those ARE in there... :-)
Well, lets not forget that emacs can be used to call gcc, but thats hardly saying that compiler is built-in.
I wouldn't count the lisp psuedocompiler as a "real" compiler, either. That would be like saying that MS Excel or Word are "compilers." (Think VBA)
You didn't miss much. I worked there in the summer of '92 and I'll tell you that it was HARD WORK and the management there is totally out to screw you out of the bonus you're supposed to get if you stay till your target date...
:-)
OTOH, I would have to say that other than that, it was a total blast and was the best summer I ever had.... Compared to falling through a garage roof, I'd have to say it was more enjoyable.. Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything mean...
They're moving the Giant Wheel. Take it from a former CP employee (I still have the issue of BTL that I was on the front cover of to prove it! woo hoo!) there is LOTS of room around the Giant Wheel, particularly if they cut down a few trees.
Ooops, now I'm going to get flamed by environmentalists...
I couldn't agree more.
:-)
... A happy Michigander
You make the same mistake a lot of make proponents make.http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/07/18/1 421241
... but when it comes down to it, the industry is evolving into a services-oriented industry and Apple isn't following suit. Their recent success will be short-lived.
Sure, Apple is a hardware company. Always has been. But this fact has been Apple's major *downfall*.
As a hardware vendor, Apple has tried to distance itself from the Wintel camp by providing an operating system that feel is not only different, but technically and/or aesthetically superior to the Wintel offering.
But that is exactly what's wrong with Apple. It is this fact that has cost them money and marketshare. Apple can no longer differentiate its machines in this way because the applications available for Macintosh are (mostly) the same applications available for Wintel. Word on the Mac and Word on the PC aren't much different. Same for Photoshop, PageMaker, QuarkXPress, etc.
So Apple has gained some recent successes by differentiating their machines in terms of pure exterior aesthetics. Technical superiority doesn't sell computers, but aesthetics does. So they've started a fad.
But it can't last. Until Apple realizes that they need to concentrate on software, and consider the hardware to be a commodity like the rest of the industry, they will never make serious gains against Microsoft.
Think about it. Microsoft is successful precisely because they have always viewed software and particularly applications as the key to making money and selling units, not the hardware. Sure, they make hardware (keyboards, mice, joysticks, stereo speakers) but these items are unique in that they are designed to sell software. The Intellimouse pushes features built into Office and Internet Exploiter. The keyboards were initially built to support features in Windows 95. And joysticks and stereo speakers point at where Microsoft knows it will make LOTS of money: games and multimedia software.
Apple, on the other hand, doesn't view Mac OS X or anything else (except QuickTime) as the "end product." They view the hardware as the end product, and they try to make money on that when the margins are extremely narrow. There are very few really successful hardware companies compared to the number of really successful software companies.
I know all of this goes against the whole Open Source mentality and mindset
NT's client/server microkernel architecture would generally not allow for it, so I rather doubt it.
Linux's architecture is open enough to allow for it, so I think that realtime support is possible for Linux.
Did any one notice the info on Transmeta's patent? Perhaps this has been discussed before, but its the first I've seen it....
Could a Linux/Transmeta alliance be just the answer to bring Wintel to its knees? The stuff about on-the-fly VLIW translation is COOL. I haven't seen anything like this coming out of the Intel camp...
From the GPL 2.0:
/usr/src/linux/COPYING file (thats the one that comes with the Linux kernel) states:
"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
I think what Bruce Perens says about putting a disclaimer makes sense. In fact, my
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of 'derived work'."
I hope this answers your question...but remember:
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. I would recommend consulting one if you are really serious.
That depends on whether or not he/she has tried it before.
Eventually, that information would get around and become common knowledge, just like the knowledge that the new American $20, $50, and $100 bills cannot be easily forged due to their "holographic" inks that change colors as you look at them from different angles. Or the fact that current bills $10 and up have small strips in them designed to allow detection of the bills by a scanning device.
Or, if you weren't aware of those, I can think of lots of other security measures that have become common knowledge (car alarms come to mind...)
By policy, your social security number is yours forever.
However, you missed the real intent of my post, which is to point out that this information should be legislated into total privacy, just like your medical records or financial transactions, which, like biometrics are also yours forever.
Actually, most of the articles I've read on this subject say that most iris scanners defeat this by taking *multiple* pictures of the iris at random intervals, because a real eye is constantly moving, but eyes torn out of your sockets, or a picture of your eyes would not be moving. Furthermore, some of these iris scanners actually take the multiple pictures at different angles, making any sort of video playback, etc. useless.
Interesting. Like you, I am also somewhat concerned about my privacy.
However, I would like to point out that a biometric (iris scanning is an example of a biometric, which is anything that measures a part of your body unique to you), while being more secure than an ATM card, for instance, is really not any more privacy-invasive than any other piece of data that is unique to you, such as your e-mail address, or social security number, or the ICQ number that you so freely post in your sigblock.
We give out unique pieces of data everyday, and not necessarily by choice. It is important to realize that in doing so, we are implicity trusting those who we give this information to.
I think rather than walking around paranoid, we should consider making private data priveleged infomration that is protected by law.
In other words, I think we need legislation *requiring* certain data to be consider confidential by financial institutions, etc. Something akin to, say, medical records or account balances which are already not allowed to be disclosed by law.
Write your legislators: make them realize when it comes to privacy, we mean business! You *can* make a difference.
Unfortunately, yes. The courts have traditionally held that licenses *are* enforceable.
The Berne convention, the basis for most international copyright laws, states that all original works are automatically copyrighted and that the author, unless she specifically waives certain rights by declaring otherwise, is entitled to every protection under the copyright law, including the right to redistribute the work.
Basically, without the license, you have NO right to copy the work or really even to use it, except under "fair use" exemptions. What entails "fair use" is somewhat vague...and depends greatly on the type of work in question.
If software licenses were held to be unenforceable, however, this would be GREATLY *hurt* the free software movement, which actually depends on these licenses. Remember that the GPL, and other similiar licenses are just that: they are software liceneses and they do place restrictions on how software can be copied, modified and distributed. The fact that these restrictions are designed to protect people's rights to redistribute and modify free software is completely irrelevant.
The real question is not whether software licenses are enforceable per se, but whether or not *certain provisions* of these licenses are enforceable, such as restrictions about who and who cannot use a program.
I would say that distribution and copying can be controlled under copyright, but personally I would argue that if someone has *paid* for a license to use a program then that person cannot be denied the right to use the program under fair use, but if someone was *given* a program, but the license does not allow distribution to that particular person (or company) then they *could* be denied the right to use the program.
For a complete discussion by an excellent copyright attorney, you should check out "The Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion" by Thorne D. Harris III (Prima Publishing).
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so this represents only a laypersons opinion. You should consult a lawyer if you really need to.
Several HP drivers are available for Linux in/for the Ghostscript product. The following are installed in my copy of GNU Ghostscript (three of them are "aftermarket" though):
deskjet djet500 laserjet ljetplus ljet2p ljet3 ljet4 cdeskjet cdjcolor cdjmono cdj550 pj pjxl pjxl300 cdj850 cdj890 cdj1600
ljet3 and ljet4 are the LaserJet III and 4 drivers. all the cdjXXX drivers are the appropriate HP DeskJet XXX printers (I have an HP DeskJet 890Cse). The parallel version of the 895 should be compatible with the 890 driver (the USB version won't work for reasons which should be obvious). The 722 should also be compatible with the 890 driver (they are practically the same printer except for paper handling and speed)
Most other DeskJets are compatible with the 550 driver. (I used to use my 890 with the 550 driver until I got the 890 driver, which supports 600DPI black text).
If you have one of the DeskJets that use the Windows Printing System (ie they use GDI rather than PCL) then I'm sorry for you.
Check Aladdin's site for more info...
No. You can bundle a GPL program with a commercial product. And this is not without precedence (both Red Hat and Caldera bundle their products with commercial prodcuts).
And of course you could copy the CLD. Its GPL, remember?
Corel is just saying that they might not make CLD a separate, purchaseable product. They're not saying that OTHER people can't distribute the CLD or that they won't be making it available for download over the Internet...
The waffling about Open Source between their "real" products and their Linux efforts kinda disturbs me, though. Porting applications to Linux generally means an almost complete rewrite, so I do not see where a little extra investment wouldn't be worth making their products Open Source. Furthermore, I think CorelDraw is at least 90% Corel's own code (I used to work for a company that has beta tested CorelDraw from time to time)...the other stuff has to do with things like color matching standards that most Linux users really won't care about (unless they happen to be professional graphic designers, that is...)
Plain and simple. Corel is a brand name recognized in the industry for something *other* than Linux. (i.e., my boss knows both "CorelDraw" and "WordPerfect" rather than "Red What???" or "Caldera? Don't they make OCR software???")
(I know, I know...Caldera=current owner of DR DOS. My boss has never heard of DR DOS).
Corel may level the commercial Linux playing field a little bit, too. Red Hat is starting to be too Microsoft-like [anyone else notice that it DOUBLED prices for Red Hat Linux 6.0?].
Finally, Corel obviously has the most chance of making Linux something that could stop the Microsoft juggernaut. Corel and WordPerfect are household names and Corel has been one of the few companies that Microsoft has been uninterested in putting out of business, since WordPerfect doesn't have sufficient marketshare and MS has no plans to compete with CorelDraw Suite or Adobe Illustrator/PhotoShop/Pagemaker....
And bringing a *real* office suite to Linux will be great...StarOffice completely sucks (bloatware) and ApplixWare isn't much better.
I regularly use both Solaris 5.5 and HP-UX 10.20's implementation of tar, both of which I -believe- are non-GNU (SysV), at work (GM). We regularly distribute a 4 GB Unigraphics parts library. I have never had a problem.