It's not cool at all. It's just another Mac attempt to have the coolest looking, hippest sounding gadget on the market. It adds nothing serious to the current options. For instance, no Ogg Vorbis support (and yes, I realize it probably decodes mp3 in hardware, but...) and it doesn't appear to be cross-platform. I guess this falls into the Dilbert principle of "the best target market is stupid rich people." Since they'll fall for anything and have the money to burn on it.
Note that for 2.4.x kernels there *is* an ac fork, which is for experimental features. But for 2.2 there are no forks, only fixes. See www.kernel.org for more information.
He's not engaging in any sort of disobedience if he doesn't include the changes in the log-- in fact, even if he *is* acting on lawyerly advice, I'd say he's over-complying with the law to make a point. My guess is that these censored changes correct the two holes reported on Slashdot on Friday. If he's trying to watch his own back, I think he's a tad too paranoid (of course, if a Norwegian teen can be arrested for writing software to convert DVDs to hard drive files, who knows what level of paranoia is appropriate). If he's trying to make a point, I think he's wasting his energy. The people reading that changelog, for the most part, agree with him and have probably already done what they could to get the law changed. So, hopefully, it is the paranoia at work, because otherwise he's cutting off his nose to spite his face.
The difference between a Socialist Linux Zealot and a Libertarian Linux Zealot is this: the SLZ would nationalize Microsoft and open their source code for all to use-- and hopefully port the valuable pieces to Linux (eliminates all competition), the LLZ blames the consumers who refuse to make intelligent use of their free markets and figures that if they get screwed by MS on an ongoing basis that they deserve it. And it's hard not to agree with both of them. *grin*
It doesn't need to be a fork. Cox maintains the 2.2.x series, which is now superceded by 2.4.x for most new installations and upgrades. But there are those systems out there that are on 2.2 that need security updates and bug fixes.
Or you could mirror some of the FTP tree onto the local LAN's web server (you need the base stuff, boot disk images, and the RPMS) then you can do multiple installs from the LAN with two floppies and a NIC-- especially good deal for all those machines you might have around that don't have a CD-ROM in them.
And for the record, I must say the ability to run the latest versions of some flavor of Linux on even some of the more ancient hardware, is a true blessing. My only complaint is that I just installed 7.1 on my antique laptop this morning!
Yeah, I bungled what I was trying to say. Suffice it to say, there is sufficient incentive from society (presumably) to prevent monopolization. A monopoly that raises its prices is still subject to the law of demand, which means that it needs to find the equilibrium point between price and the quantity it can actually sell. At some point they run the risk of someone developing a substitute (especially if the price cost to consumers somehow exceeds the cost of developing the sustitute), and the whole time they run the risk of pricing the product beyond the means of some people who want to buy it but don't have the money, as well as they run the risk of simply overshooting that mark at which people who can afford it think it's worth that price.
All being a monopoly does is give a company a slightly more favorable price elasticity or maybe moves the demand curve up, but it doesn't really ensure profitability. In fact, the more I think about it, the word "monopoly" used in conjunction with a company that is actually subject to a free market is mostly nonsense. The only true monopolies must be mandated by government, so that it is illegal for any other company to sell a good or service. The legal definition of "monopoly" is quite different than the way I would use that word to discuss economics.
As in the court case against Microsoft, it's not that they're a monopoly (anyone can theoretically write computer software-- and many do), it's that they are the dominant competitor with a power in the market place that resembles the kind of power a true monopoly would have. But Microsoft is NOT a true monopoliy, the barriers to entry in the software industry are quite low. Maybe that's why their profits have really fallen off the last couple quarters. As XP rolls out more and more, who knows what kind of backlash they'll get. They could find consumers thinking it's cheaper to look for alternatives or that the price is simply not in line with the utility of the product. That would mean they would have to lower the price to keep sales up. But it's all about finding that equilibrium point where they maximize the revenue to cost to produce ratio.
I don't think I implied that I condoned the tech's actions. In fact, I think he should have been fired (assuming the facts are accurate and complete as stated in the article-- I don't feel like I have all the facts, personally).
On the other hand, I'm equally suspicious of what kind of employees go spend a bunch of money of Red Hat's on Windows just because they think ApplixWare's spell-checker isn't good enough (and it seemed, from the report to be working fine to me-- it's not the software's job to always suggest the right word, the software is designed to find words not in the dictionary. If the writer can't spell the words they want to use that aren't in the dictionary, they shouldn't use those words).
This is not true. The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency). At some point economies of scale are met with the law of diminishing returns. If the assumptions underlying economic science and capitalism are to be taken as true, then the conclusion that profit maximization implies monopolization as a goal cannot be deductively proven. In fact, if monopolies were guaranteed to be the best way to maximize profits, and thereby produce the most efficiency, then it would follow that we really don't need any competition at all. One big company ought to be sufficient. But that's not capitalism, that's something else entirely.
For the record, AC, I agree. This tech was clearly out of bounds by doing that, unless he said ahead of time that he planned to do that and she gave him the laptop anyway.
The writer of the article was the boss of the woman with the laptop when they both worked at Red Hat's Wide Open News.
The fact that they both worked at Red Hat means to me that she shouldn't have been running any Windows system to begin with. If she was having trouble with ApplixWare's spell-checker, maybe she should have investigated a Free Software solution or submitted it as a bug report to the development teams that work for the same company she does. Instead she uses (presumably) corporate funds to buy a competitors product instead of helping improve her own company's product?
And the writer of this article sounds like he has an axe to grind... he stoops to insulting the offending tech based on his appearance, rather than his reluctance to support a major competitors' software. I'm surprised this woman even thought it was reasonable to expect tech support to work on her Windows machine. And her main argument for having a non-standard OS in the first place is spell-checking? Please.
Admin may not know how to upgrade a kernel? How the hell did a person who cannot download the updated.rpm or.dep file and type in a simple package management command get to be an admin of anything other than an Atari 2600 or a Vic-20?
Even a dolt like me knows how to do 'chmod 700 newgrp' as superuser-- which will make one of these exploits a lot harder to do since it requires a SUID binary to be world-exec. And as soon as patched kernels show up, I'll be able to type 'apt-get update' on all my Debian systems, and 'pftp ftp.domain.com; get new-kernel.rpm; rpm -uv new-kernel.rpm' on my RH/YDL systems.
hey, it's not like you're going to meet chicks sitting behind your monitor.
Hmmm. That's funny. I've met a few women over the net, while nothing's stuck so far, they weren't utter instant failures either, and they've all been better than the women I've met at live music venues. In fact, come to think of it, I don't know that (in spite of seeing literally hundreds of live shows) that I've ever actually met and developed a relationship with a woman from a bar.
On the other hand, I fully support the idea that it is time to seriously boycott all RIAA-affiliated music companies, the MPAA, and television (on general principle). The world is bigger than that and plenty of classical music, world music, and alternative music is available that does not need to be bypassed during a boycott. Not so easy with film, but there is always used VHS. And the library-- mine has movies in addition to books (which make great movie substitutes).
I have no direct experience with it, but I have to wonder if you can't set up the two Mac OS's on different partitions and use yaboot to choose between them, that way you don't let the Mac OS side fiddle with the firmware and the boot process.
Dual boot between Mac OS and YDL2 is a breeze (pre OS X, at least-- I've seen some list traffic that indicates care is required with OS X). The yaboot loader pops up a little menu and you can press M for Mac, L for Linux, or C for CD (at least on my system), press nothing and it goes into whatever you set as the default. Of course, if you haven't already partitioned your Mac HD, you will have to reload Mac OS after partitioning.
From linked article which you did not read: Customers are under no obligation to return the camera to the store or collect their prints, once the service fee is paid.
It's not a camera rental, it's a camera purchase. But once you have used up the frames, you have no further use for the camera body since you cannot reset it yourself (just like with disposable 35mm cameras, which you cannot reload easily by yourself), so you may as well let the store re-use the camera body because in theory they are the only ones who can reset it.
Personally, I'd rather see camera stores rent out high-end digital cameras and offer to burn the images to CD-ROM for me (replaces negatives) and make some high-quality prints on glossy paper... the cost of maintaining all that (camera, burner, printer) at home is not cheap, and printing the images is a pain. But I *would* be willing to pay around $1 an image for processing and probably an up-front fee of about $10/day for use of the camera.
But as I ponder this business model, I don't see a good way to recoup the cost of the capital required to purchased the high end computers the shop would need and the cameras themselves without trying to provide additional services to people who have their own cameras. And people with their own digital cameras tend to have their own computers right now, otherwise I think most consumers are fine with analog film. I suppose the massive advantages of digital would have to appeal (i.e. no dust, no negative to degrade, PhotoShop filters-- have all your beach shots look like Monets!-- that sort of thing) for people to want a digital camera that they wouldn't use on their home computer (if they even had one).
Although I've always been too chicken to ask for my FBI file under FOIA, it's clear from the FBI FAQ on it, that they review the file before release and will block out anything that could endanger an ongoing investigation. So no, you cannot ask for your file in an attempt to determine if you are currently being tapped. However, if you get your file and the whole thing is blocked out, you might want to implement some security measures.:)
I used Linux & Qwest for quite some time as a dialup solution. I got a great package deal on a cell phone, feature-laden home phone, and ISP account. Not bad service on any of them either.
Thankfully their DSL support to my house was non-existent and I have a cable modem. I can ditch the cell phone (which covered as a second line, since the landline was always on the modem) and all the calling features, and just in time to avoid being Borged.
Besides, aren't there plenty of nice email clients for Windows that aren't made by MS? I would think those users are the ones most likely to find this a surprising upset. Linux users are used to getting the shaft on this sort of thing.
Except that these aren't faithful MS customers. These are customers they bought from Qwest.net.
Articles like this make me glad I was unable to get Qwest DSL and went with TW RoadRunner instead... my biggest fear now is that RR will somehow be merged with AOL down the road.
Just so we're not basing our opinions on complete hype, the SSSCA does not prohibit running "non-secure" software. It aims to prohibit manufacturing new "non-secure" devices/software and then selling those. Your legacy systems will still be legal to use, buy, and sell as long as they existed prior to the enactment of the "security" standard.
Please note that while I am being exact about the nature of the law, I think it's the stupidest f*cking thing I've seen in recent history. The use of the word "security" is a complete misnomer, and more importantly a smokescreen. The law does not implement any security measures whatsoever, except for financial security on the part of those holding copyright restrictions. If the law were serious about security it would include massive liability sections, outlining just how much consumers are allowed to sue Microsoft for every time the Outlook mailer sends a document off their hard-drive to a total stranger.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not cool at all. It's just another Mac attempt to have the coolest looking, hippest sounding gadget on the market. It adds nothing serious to the current options. For instance, no Ogg Vorbis support (and yes, I realize it probably decodes mp3 in hardware, but...) and it doesn't appear to be cross-platform. I guess this falls into the Dilbert principle of "the best target market is stupid rich people." Since they'll fall for anything and have the money to burn on it.
Note that for 2.4.x kernels there *is* an ac fork, which is for experimental features. But for 2.2 there are no forks, only fixes. See www.kernel.org for more information.
He's not engaging in any sort of disobedience if he doesn't include the changes in the log-- in fact, even if he *is* acting on lawyerly advice, I'd say he's over-complying with the law to make a point. My guess is that these censored changes correct the two holes reported on Slashdot on Friday. If he's trying to watch his own back, I think he's a tad too paranoid (of course, if a Norwegian teen can be arrested for writing software to convert DVDs to hard drive files, who knows what level of paranoia is appropriate). If he's trying to make a point, I think he's wasting his energy. The people reading that changelog, for the most part, agree with him and have probably already done what they could to get the law changed. So, hopefully, it is the paranoia at work, because otherwise he's cutting off his nose to spite his face.
The difference between a Socialist Linux Zealot and a Libertarian Linux Zealot is this: the SLZ would nationalize Microsoft and open their source code for all to use-- and hopefully port the valuable pieces to Linux (eliminates all competition), the LLZ blames the consumers who refuse to make intelligent use of their free markets and figures that if they get screwed by MS on an ongoing basis that they deserve it. And it's hard not to agree with both of them. *grin*
It doesn't need to be a fork. Cox maintains the 2.2.x series, which is now superceded by 2.4.x for most new installations and upgrades. But there are those systems out there that are on 2.2 that need security updates and bug fixes.
Well, how can we boycott something we were all getting at no charge anyway?
Or you could mirror some of the FTP tree onto the local LAN's web server (you need the base stuff, boot disk images, and the RPMS) then you can do multiple installs from the LAN with two floppies and a NIC-- especially good deal for all those machines you might have around that don't have a CD-ROM in them.
And for the record, I must say the ability to run the latest versions of some flavor of Linux on even some of the more ancient hardware, is a true blessing. My only complaint is that I just installed 7.1 on my antique laptop this morning!
Yeah, I bungled what I was trying to say. Suffice it to say, there is sufficient incentive from society (presumably) to prevent monopolization. A monopoly that raises its prices is still subject to the law of demand, which means that it needs to find the equilibrium point between price and the quantity it can actually sell. At some point they run the risk of someone developing a substitute (especially if the price cost to consumers somehow exceeds the cost of developing the sustitute), and the whole time they run the risk of pricing the product beyond the means of some people who want to buy it but don't have the money, as well as they run the risk of simply overshooting that mark at which people who can afford it think it's worth that price.
All being a monopoly does is give a company a slightly more favorable price elasticity or maybe moves the demand curve up, but it doesn't really ensure profitability. In fact, the more I think about it, the word "monopoly" used in conjunction with a company that is actually subject to a free market is mostly nonsense. The only true monopolies must be mandated by government, so that it is illegal for any other company to sell a good or service. The legal definition of "monopoly" is quite different than the way I would use that word to discuss economics.
As in the court case against Microsoft, it's not that they're a monopoly (anyone can theoretically write computer software-- and many do), it's that they are the dominant competitor with a power in the market place that resembles the kind of power a true monopoly would have. But Microsoft is NOT a true monopoliy, the barriers to entry in the software industry are quite low. Maybe that's why their profits have really fallen off the last couple quarters. As XP rolls out more and more, who knows what kind of backlash they'll get. They could find consumers thinking it's cheaper to look for alternatives or that the price is simply not in line with the utility of the product. That would mean they would have to lower the price to keep sales up. But it's all about finding that equilibrium point where they maximize the revenue to cost to produce ratio.
I don't think I implied that I condoned the tech's actions. In fact, I think he should have been fired (assuming the facts are accurate and complete as stated in the article-- I don't feel like I have all the facts, personally).
On the other hand, I'm equally suspicious of what kind of employees go spend a bunch of money of Red Hat's on Windows just because they think ApplixWare's spell-checker isn't good enough (and it seemed, from the report to be working fine to me-- it's not the software's job to always suggest the right word, the software is designed to find words not in the dictionary. If the writer can't spell the words they want to use that aren't in the dictionary, they shouldn't use those words).
This is not true. The existence of competition may or may not have any affect on profit maximization (and while a company might seek to maximize profit, society allows it under the assumption that capitalism is efficient precisely because of this. Society always wants to maximize efficiency). At some point economies of scale are met with the law of diminishing returns. If the assumptions underlying economic science and capitalism are to be taken as true, then the conclusion that profit maximization implies monopolization as a goal cannot be deductively proven. In fact, if monopolies were guaranteed to be the best way to maximize profits, and thereby produce the most efficiency, then it would follow that we really don't need any competition at all. One big company ought to be sufficient. But that's not capitalism, that's something else entirely.
Haha. Yeah. That too.
For the record, AC, I agree. This tech was clearly out of bounds by doing that, unless he said ahead of time that he planned to do that and she gave him the laptop anyway.
The writer of the article was the boss of the woman with the laptop when they both worked at Red Hat's Wide Open News.
The fact that they both worked at Red Hat means to me that she shouldn't have been running any Windows system to begin with. If she was having trouble with ApplixWare's spell-checker, maybe she should have investigated a Free Software solution or submitted it as a bug report to the development teams that work for the same company she does. Instead she uses (presumably) corporate funds to buy a competitors product instead of helping improve her own company's product?
And the writer of this article sounds like he has an axe to grind... he stoops to insulting the offending tech based on his appearance, rather than his reluctance to support a major competitors' software. I'm surprised this woman even thought it was reasonable to expect tech support to work on her Windows machine. And her main argument for having a non-standard OS in the first place is spell-checking? Please.
Admin may not know how to upgrade a kernel? How the hell did a person who cannot download the updated .rpm or .dep file and type in a simple package management command get to be an admin of anything other than an Atari 2600 or a Vic-20?
Even a dolt like me knows how to do 'chmod 700 newgrp' as superuser-- which will make one of these exploits a lot harder to do since it requires a SUID binary to be world-exec. And as soon as patched kernels show up, I'll be able to type 'apt-get update' on all my Debian systems, and 'pftp ftp.domain.com; get new-kernel.rpm; rpm -uv new-kernel.rpm' on my RH/YDL systems.
hey, it's not like you're going to meet chicks sitting behind your monitor.
Hmmm. That's funny. I've met a few women over the net, while nothing's stuck so far, they weren't utter instant failures either, and they've all been better than the women I've met at live music venues. In fact, come to think of it, I don't know that (in spite of seeing literally hundreds of live shows) that I've ever actually met and developed a relationship with a woman from a bar.
On the other hand, I fully support the idea that it is time to seriously boycott all RIAA-affiliated music companies, the MPAA, and television (on general principle). The world is bigger than that and plenty of classical music, world music, and alternative music is available that does not need to be bypassed during a boycott. Not so easy with film, but there is always used VHS. And the library-- mine has movies in addition to books (which make great movie substitutes).
Why would you use lynx when you can use links and actually see the tables?
I have no direct experience with it, but I have to wonder if you can't set up the two Mac OS's on different partitions and use yaboot to choose between them, that way you don't let the Mac OS side fiddle with the firmware and the boot process.
Dual boot between Mac OS and YDL2 is a breeze (pre OS X, at least-- I've seen some list traffic that indicates care is required with OS X). The yaboot loader pops up a little menu and you can press M for Mac, L for Linux, or C for CD (at least on my system), press nothing and it goes into whatever you set as the default. Of course, if you haven't already partitioned your Mac HD, you will have to reload Mac OS after partitioning.
From linked article which you did not read: Customers are under no obligation to return the camera to the store or collect their prints, once the service fee is paid.
It's not a camera rental, it's a camera purchase. But once you have used up the frames, you have no further use for the camera body since you cannot reset it yourself (just like with disposable 35mm cameras, which you cannot reload easily by yourself), so you may as well let the store re-use the camera body because in theory they are the only ones who can reset it.
Personally, I'd rather see camera stores rent out high-end digital cameras and offer to burn the images to CD-ROM for me (replaces negatives) and make some high-quality prints on glossy paper... the cost of maintaining all that (camera, burner, printer) at home is not cheap, and printing the images is a pain. But I *would* be willing to pay around $1 an image for processing and probably an up-front fee of about $10/day for use of the camera.
But as I ponder this business model, I don't see a good way to recoup the cost of the capital required to purchased the high end computers the shop would need and the cameras themselves without trying to provide additional services to people who have their own cameras. And people with their own digital cameras tend to have their own computers right now, otherwise I think most consumers are fine with analog film. I suppose the massive advantages of digital would have to appeal (i.e. no dust, no negative to degrade, PhotoShop filters-- have all your beach shots look like Monets!-- that sort of thing) for people to want a digital camera that they wouldn't use on their home computer (if they even had one).
Although I've always been too chicken to ask for my FBI file under FOIA, it's clear from the FBI FAQ on it, that they review the file before release and will block out anything that could endanger an ongoing investigation. So no, you cannot ask for your file in an attempt to determine if you are currently being tapped. However, if you get your file and the whole thing is blocked out, you might want to implement some security measures. :)
I used Linux & Qwest for quite some time as a dialup solution. I got a great package deal on a cell phone, feature-laden home phone, and ISP account. Not bad service on any of them either.
Thankfully their DSL support to my house was non-existent and I have a cable modem. I can ditch the cell phone (which covered as a second line, since the landline was always on the modem) and all the calling features, and just in time to avoid being Borged.
Besides, aren't there plenty of nice email clients for Windows that aren't made by MS? I would think those users are the ones most likely to find this a surprising upset. Linux users are used to getting the shaft on this sort of thing.
dating anyone stupid enough to be fooled by a bot that simple wouldn't be my idea of fun
Well, dating them might be amusing. Especially if you can convince them to pay for dinner, too.
Marrying them, OTOH, is probably a bad idea. *grin*
Except that these aren't faithful MS customers. These are customers they bought from Qwest.net.
Articles like this make me glad I was unable to get Qwest DSL and went with TW RoadRunner instead... my biggest fear now is that RR will somehow be merged with AOL down the road.
Subselects being in a future release means that asserting that they are not in the current release is not FUD. It's a freakin' fact.
Also, if innodb has all the missing functionality, why not just have that be the default table type and be done with this crap?
Just so we're not basing our opinions on complete hype, the SSSCA does not prohibit running "non-secure" software. It aims to prohibit manufacturing new "non-secure" devices/software and then selling those. Your legacy systems will still be legal to use, buy, and sell as long as they existed prior to the enactment of the "security" standard.
Please note that while I am being exact about the nature of the law, I think it's the stupidest f*cking thing I've seen in recent history. The use of the word "security" is a complete misnomer, and more importantly a smokescreen. The law does not implement any security measures whatsoever, except for financial security on the part of those holding copyright restrictions. If the law were serious about security it would include massive liability sections, outlining just how much consumers are allowed to sue Microsoft for every time the Outlook mailer sends a document off their hard-drive to a total stranger.