If anyone noticed in the fourth picture down, there is a 6 pack of O'Doul's in the background! Everyone knows you cant build anything while drinking non-alcoholic beer. Geesh.
...does this story abstract seem a bit redundant. Wait, you mean to tell me that "arrests have been made," a "series of arrests have been made," AND individuals were "taken into custody?!?!?!" And do you mean to tell me that they did all of these things at once?!?! No....
No, but really, it is always a good idea to make docs user-friendly, especially when the Linux community as a whole is trying to recruit the troves of Windows users out there. Anything to make user experience more friendly shouldnt be overlooked.
Who among us here doesnt remember that first RFC that we gasped in confusion at? And the fact that it was entirely in Courier 10 didnt help;)
...for Battlebots Mars. I wanna see Spirit kick the piss out of Beagle. Hopefully NASA failed to mention the onbaord saw blade, and rotary bludgeoning device. w00t
What they are forgetting is that there is a very fundamental difference between open and closed source. When starting an open source project, in order to develop a piece of software, there must be enough interest in the project itself. Whether it be vice or virtue, the reality is that people often become increasingly interested in a project as it matures. Thus, you can attract more and even possibly better developers.
On the flip side, closed source generally amounts to a paid development team that takes orders from on high. They are getting paid, and that is interest enough. Likewise, they also often have a large QA team, that is, again, paid. In open source, your QA team is the community.
This is like comparing apples to oranges. Frankly I find it amazing that open source competes so well. Just think of all the money that M$ could have saved.
Has anyone done a study to prove the fact that open source often requires far fewer developers to create relatively similar products?
So looking at the SCO website, they have a section termed success stories that supposedly has many many success stories. Well, they dont list them all...you have to reload the page to see them. After roughly 50 reloads, I got 5, yes 5!!!, unique success stories. They claim at least 192! SCO can we see the other 187?
In fact, one of them related the use of SCO Linux for a mobile carrier in Korea. Considerring the fact that SCO pulled all support for their Linux "product", I guess that wasnt such a success, now was it?
...but couldnt you do exactly the same thing with, i dunno, a gun (with a pretty little scope of course) mounted on the top a humvee? Am I missing something here?
"They waived a banner in our faces and said, 'Look what we're doing!'" said Suzanne Giuliani, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable of New York City. The company wasn't actively looking for violators, she said, but only reacted when someone pointed out the NYCwireless Web site to them.
I would hardly consider posting a website as "waiving a banner." When you pay for bandwidth, you should be able to use the bandwidth however you choose.
Lets be real here people...they are pissed because they are not getting those 20 other customers. If it really is an issue of "resources" or "bandwidth," perhaps we sould show them the havoc that REAL bandwidth issues can cause...i dunno, perhaps some geographically distributed (within a single provider's network of course) p2p apps running at full throttle.
Last time i checked, no one was sitting on my front stoop DDoS'in.
Oh yeah...and just as a side note, the only reason that I use WiFi is cuz AT&T in over 4 years hasnt been able to get cable to my building! Jerkoffs.
Well...not to be a troll, but hubs do not forward traffic from LANs to the Internet. Those would be routers/firewalls/etc. And, you want your bandwidth limited? I dont think that is a FAIR thing to do.
I think you guys are missing my point. I am not talking about reverse engineering. Why are we always chasing them? If you provide a BETTER means by which people can share files, people will adopt it. And, noting that open source has some of the brightest minds out there, I dont see developing something like that being a problem. All system calls are documented in the MSDN. That is all you would need to create something of the sort. I am not talking about reverse engineering VFAT, NTFS, whatever. I am talking about sharing files / printers....that is all.
Yes, you will, but many, many people do that. I am not sure what your argument is. M$, as well most, if not all, OS vendors give you API's/source to deal with. They cannot exclude you from developing on their platforms anymore than they do for anyone else. Again, I am not sure what your point is. Security product vendors hook into the network stack/filesystem (yes, even on windows) all the time. Maybe i am missing something...?
What about creating a BETTER platform for file sharing? Why do we always have to follow M$? Why cant we create a ubiquitous file sharing mechanism??? One that is totally independent of M$ that users can download and use just as they would use something like winzip, their browser of choice, etc.? As a developer from both sides of the OS war, I see some real potential from a business perspective for something of the sort. Yeah, yeah, i know...someone is gonna flame me with NFS, or something along those lines, but I am talking about something easy and ubiquitous across all OS's. Anyone else? If any developers read this and are at least somewhat serious, why not respond, and maybe we can get a sourceforge site...peace
First off, the downtime calc was from the article itself. Second, the reason why you got 5 minutes downtime is because you only did one year. I fyou multiply that by 10 years, you will in fact have 50 minutes. As for the 300 number, yes, it is wrong.
I see some points, but what I am getting at is a measure to prevent large, perhaps struggling, companies (*cough* altavista *cough*) or even bitter individuals from forcing others out of competition. As much as I may not like MS, they should have just as much a right as anyone to index content without altavista breathing down their neck. What I am saying is about providing a forum for people to forego their patent rights for the good of the public domain, open source, and even proprietary source. The altavista/archie case is a pretty good example here. If there were ways an outlet for people to easily patent these simple ideas and relinquish them to the public, we wouldnt be in some of the mess concerning prior art. If this were the case for archie, ALL people/companies could index the net without fear of someone suing them. The point is that these _common sense_ approaches to technology should either not be patentable or reside in the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I have an SMP AMD box? Do I get 5 x nCPUs conferencees?
Used to like Skype but that is just atrocious. Vonage gets my business.
If anyone noticed in the fourth picture down, there is a 6 pack of O'Doul's in the background! Everyone knows you cant build anything while drinking non-alcoholic beer. Geesh.
Someone pass me a Pabst.
...does this story abstract seem a bit redundant. Wait, you mean to tell me that "arrests have been made," a "series of arrests have been made," AND individuals were "taken into custody?!?!?!" And do you mean to tell me that they did all of these things at once?!?! No....
"First Linux-based Battleship Built, And Darl McBride Claims He Owns It"
s/head crash/no ink/g
Please, oh please, tell me I dont have to wrangle through OfficeDepot looking for ink cartridges for my disks now.
Correction...not fired...laid off. Big difference. Being laid off means that you can collect up to about $2G's a month on unemployment. Works for me.
CSS & LDP, PDQ!
;)
No, but really, it is always a good idea to make docs user-friendly, especially when the Linux community as a whole is trying to recruit the troves of Windows users out there. Anything to make user experience more friendly shouldnt be overlooked.
Who among us here doesnt remember that first RFC that we gasped in confusion at? And the fact that it was entirely in Courier 10 didnt help
...and this is news? Thank you Capt. Obvious.
Flubber
...for Battlebots Mars. I wanna see Spirit kick the piss out of Beagle. Hopefully NASA failed to mention the onbaord saw blade, and rotary bludgeoning device. w00t
What they are forgetting is that there is a very fundamental difference between open and closed source. When starting an open source project, in order to develop a piece of software, there must be enough interest in the project itself. Whether it be vice or virtue, the reality is that people often become increasingly interested in a project as it matures. Thus, you can attract more and even possibly better developers.
On the flip side, closed source generally amounts to a paid development team that takes orders from on high. They are getting paid, and that is interest enough. Likewise, they also often have a large QA team, that is, again, paid. In open source, your QA team is the community.
This is like comparing apples to oranges. Frankly I find it amazing that open source competes so well. Just think of all the money that M$ could have saved.
Has anyone done a study to prove the fact that open source often requires far fewer developers to create relatively similar products?
So looking at the SCO website, they have a section termed success stories that supposedly has many many success stories. Well, they dont list them all...you have to reload the page to see them. After roughly 50 reloads, I got 5, yes 5!!!, unique success stories. They claim at least 192! SCO can we see the other 187?
In fact, one of them related the use of SCO Linux for a mobile carrier in Korea. Considerring the fact that SCO pulled all support for their Linux "product", I guess that wasnt such a success, now was it?
I hate ungrateful sons of bitches...
"Too bad it takes 3 Service Packs..."
forget "3 'service packs"...try 3 YEARS! The service packs wouldnt be such a big deal if it didnt take fuckin 3 YEARS to get 'secure!'
...but couldnt you do exactly the same thing with, i dunno, a gun (with a pretty little scope of course) mounted on the top a humvee? Am I missing something here?
Technology for technolgies' sake is useless.
"They waived a banner in our faces and said, 'Look what we're doing!'" said Suzanne Giuliani, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable of New York City. The company wasn't actively looking for violators, she said, but only reacted when someone pointed out the NYCwireless Web site to them.
I would hardly consider posting a website as "waiving a banner." When you pay for bandwidth, you should be able to use the bandwidth however you choose.
Lets be real here people...they are pissed because they are not getting those 20 other customers. If it really is an issue of "resources" or "bandwidth," perhaps we sould show them the havoc that REAL bandwidth issues can cause...i dunno, perhaps some geographically distributed (within a single provider's network of course) p2p apps running at full throttle.
Last time i checked, no one was sitting on my front stoop DDoS'in.
Oh yeah...and just as a side note, the only reason that I use WiFi is cuz AT&T in over 4 years hasnt been able to get cable to my building! Jerkoffs.
...with a heat gun. So all I have to do is heat the fibre up and completely destroy data integrity? Sounds like a great idea.
FREE BEER!
Well...not to be a troll, but hubs do not forward traffic from LANs to the Internet. Those would be routers/firewalls/etc. And, you want your bandwidth limited? I dont think that is a FAIR thing to do.
which antivirus vendor they use? I heard somewhere that they had used CA's InoculateIT at one point. I dont know if that is true...Does anyone know?
I think you guys are missing my point. I am not talking about reverse engineering. Why are we always chasing them? If you provide a BETTER means by which people can share files, people will adopt it. And, noting that open source has some of the brightest minds out there, I dont see developing something like that being a problem. All system calls are documented in the MSDN. That is all you would need to create something of the sort. I am not talking about reverse engineering VFAT, NTFS, whatever. I am talking about sharing files / printers....that is all.
I thought of that myself...seems very possible...might be an invasion of privacy though.
Yes, you will, but many, many people do that. I am not sure what your argument is. M$, as well most, if not all, OS vendors give you API's/source to deal with. They cannot exclude you from developing on their platforms anymore than they do for anyone else. Again, I am not sure what your point is. Security product vendors hook into the network stack/filesystem (yes, even on windows) all the time. Maybe i am missing something...?
What about creating a BETTER platform for file sharing? Why do we always have to follow M$? Why cant we create a ubiquitous file sharing mechanism??? One that is totally independent of M$ that users can download and use just as they would use something like winzip, their browser of choice, etc.? As a developer from both sides of the OS war, I see some real potential from a business perspective for something of the sort. Yeah, yeah, i know...someone is gonna flame me with NFS, or something along those lines, but I am talking about something easy and ubiquitous across all OS's. Anyone else? If any developers read this and are at least somewhat serious, why not respond, and maybe we can get a sourceforge site...peace
First off, the downtime calc was from the article itself. Second, the reason why you got 5 minutes downtime is because you only did one year. I fyou multiply that by 10 years, you will in fact have 50 minutes. As for the 300 number, yes, it is wrong.
I see some points, but what I am getting at is a measure to prevent large, perhaps struggling, companies (*cough* altavista *cough*) or even bitter individuals from forcing others out of competition. As much as I may not like MS, they should have just as much a right as anyone to index content without altavista breathing down their neck. What I am saying is about providing a forum for people to forego their patent rights for the good of the public domain, open source, and even proprietary source. The altavista/archie case is a pretty good example here. If there were ways an outlet for people to easily patent these simple ideas and relinquish them to the public, we wouldnt be in some of the mess concerning prior art. If this were the case for archie, ALL people/companies could index the net without fear of someone suing them. The point is that these _common sense_ approaches to technology should either not be patentable or reside in the public domain.