...I recognized the smiley's, but they didn't look very sincere.;)
An observation: I use both Linux and Windows 2K (please not the specification on the later!). I like both, for different applications and reasons. I dislike both, too, at times -- so why is it that Microsoft addicts think I'm a Linux geek, and the Linux folks think I'm a Windows-lover?:)
It's sorta like being a middle-of-the-road moderate -- you get from both sides for failing a perceived "purity" test...:)
(See, see? I use smiley's too!)
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I now expect to lose Karma for criticizing Slashdot. Of course, if I cared about Karma, I wouldn't post this response...:)
I run and program both Linux and Win2K; Windows 2000 is quite stable--as many others have pointed out in past postings. My Win2K system runs continuously for weeks at a time, without glitch or problem, despite my use of games and unusual hardware. It might surpise CmdrTaco to know that quite a few "nerds" think that Windows matters.
I find many reasons to visit Microsoft's web site: to pick up development kits, to read articles, and for the excellent knowledge base that Linux can only dream of emulating. Win2K has bugs, but so does Linux. I suggest Slashdot spend less time making snide comment about MS, and work on fixing the leaks in its own ship of state. Linux ain't perfect, ya know.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Sun's rather dictatorial manner hasn't helped Java, either. Scott McNealy is a Gates-wannabe, trying the lead a rebellion to change dictators.
Java is, however, far from dead. On the client side, servlets and JSP provide power and structure. I don't hesitate to use Java on the server.
On the client side, Sun killed Java through rapid change and bloat. Building a solid VM takes considerable effort and stability; Sun, alas, sis not seem interested in stability. Swing is overkill for most applications; AWT works quite well, expecially when Java is used for small, focused applications.
For some of my projects (portable, graphic demonstrations of scientific principles), Java works well. I can ship an Java application to a computer scientist anywhere in the world, and he can run it without need to recompile or argue over window managers and desktop environments. But for normal, everyday applications, Java is dead, as Corel and other companies have discovered.
Long live Java on the server; long live Java in the niches it best fills. Goodbye, Java as the "everything to everyone" language.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
...and have been incredibly pleased. I haven't done much spelunking in OS code before, and while I've been coding for a quarter century, my experience with UNIX is largely as an application developer. This book provides a solid foundation for understand the millions of lines of code that constitute the Linux kernel.
I highly recommend Understanding the Linux Kernel.
-- Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Traditional publishing is dying in the technical fields. Where do most/.ers go when they want technical info: The book store or the web? Every standard I use, and many of my favorite resources arrive via browser and FTP...
A book takes 3-9 months to write, and another 3-9 months to be published and distributed. Software technologies move too fast for traditional publishing.
I'm pretty disgusted with paper-publishing as well, and am looking for a web-based alternative that protects and pays authors. Technical information is dynamic; books, alas, are quite static. While books may work well for describing algorithms or broad technologies, they do a poor job at presenting emerging and evolving technologies.
A "vanity" press is not a viable solution. Vanity presses tend to be focused on ego and... well, vanity. You pay to have your book published, then you have to pay to promote it... heck, I'd rather buy myself a web site and promote my book that way, with some sort of micropayment system.
I've published more than a dozen books, ranging from the very good to the "waste of paper" kind, through publishers ranging from MS Press to McGraw-Hill. In the last 12 years, I've seen technical publishing go into the crapper... the publishers pay lousy, are focused on title buzzwords, and they have little interest in the quality of what goes between the covers. It's a commodity business, focused on the know-nothing mass consumer, with real "hardcore" books relegated to university presses and (sometimes) O'Reilly.
If you want to discuss this further, drop me an e-mail.
...not at the hands of Microsoft, but in the form of bickering over "the best" distribution.
I thought Linux was about choice and freedom... I have [rustle, clatter, as he sifts through piles of CDs] five different distributions, all with their good and bad points.
Diversity is the fuel for evolution; let's quit arguing about "my distro is better than yours", and start working toward making Linux even better through competition.
Slashdot, BTW, should be ashamed for publishing an inaccurate (the release may not have happened yet) and biased (is Slackware really the best?) article. Get some journalism lessons, guys.
...but the world of computing isn't only the Internet, ya know. Somebody has to sit behind a keyboard writing software and designing sites and engineering all these toys we love. And in U.S. companies (I don't know about elsewhere) you'll find few women (in hands-on programming), and even fewer blacks, Native Americans, or Hispanics. Yes, they exist -- but not in any proportion corresponding to their relative existence in the general population.
Is it racism? Not directly; I see lots of Asians in our business, and plenty of Indians (especially in the low-paying "mass production" software houses.) Do the rest of you get these "hire cheap programmers from New Delhi -- and they even speak English!" spams?
Engineering is a "white collar" profession, and as such, it sets a high entrance bar that must be leapt by "minorities". This bar is set by cultural standards, educational opportunities, and other factors beyond the scope of any racism inherent to engineering.
In other words, it isn't the computer industry that has a problem -- it's the society we live in that has yet to reach a semblence of equality.
In some segements of the Linux community, there seems to be an irrational penis-envy of Windows, which engenders an even more irrational desire to make Linux "look" and "feel" just like Microsoft's product.
Why?
Shouldn't we be working on something more important than eye-candy for spreadsheet monkeys? Like maybe defining a new desktop metapahor? Perhaps finding new ways of presenting information and interacting with it? Why is it that Linux's desktop environments seem bent on copying Windows, when they could strike out in bold new directions, taking us where no OS has taken us before?
Okay -- maybe it will be easier to get "the boss" to authorize Linux in the server room if it looks pretty on his desktop. Maybe... but should that dictate expending effort on fins when what's needed is better gas economy? In other words, are we engineering what Linux needs, or are we adding silly stuff just to keep up with Microsoft, or to assauge some false sense of inadequacy?
We'll know we made it to space...
on
Beer In Space
·
· Score: 1
...when we find beer cans and cigarette butts floating along the spaceways.
Remember the recent Slashdot discussion of the 486-based computer used in the Hubble telescope? Quite a few people seemed amazed at NASA's use of such "obsolete" technology -- but indeed, the 486 was a reliable, trusted tool for the job.
If the hospital in question is getting good reesults from an Atari 800, why on Earth should they upgrade? For that matter, why do so many tehcnical people insist on living at the bleeding edge, when they could get just as much done (and maybe more?) with yesterday's tested tools.
I drive a 15-yo truck, because it works well and doesn't cost me much. Yeah, I could go blow $25-45,000 on a new Suburban -- but my old truck does just fine, thank you, and I'd rather spend my money on something better. I'll bet that hospital doesn't have the money or technical resources to "upgrade" to a Linux box and a new solution -- what they have works, so why change it?
Don't buy into the Microsoft mentality. If Windows 95 is working, why upgrade to Win ME? If I'm going to upgrade the kernel on my Linux box, I need to have a defined reason (USB support, for example) -- but it makes no sense to compile a new kernel simply because the version numbers have been incremented!
Linux is based on venerable technology -- but that technology doesn't account for new concepts and developments in software and operating systems.
A kernel should be small, concise, and to the point. It should be easy to hang device drivers and other "low-level" tools, while providing for extensions through a standard, well-defined object module.
An ORB should be part of the kernel; HTTP should not. HTTP support should be implemented as an object that is installed, as needed; the kernel should not need to be recompiled to change its functionality.
...but not in this election for their current candidate, Mr. Hagelin.
Mr. Hagelin showed *very* poor judgement when he involved himself in the fight for the Reform Party nomination. Essentially, Mr. Hagelin wanted (and probably needed) the matching funds allocated to the Reform Party; be that as it may, he was a fool for going in against Pat Buchanan's jack-booted thugs.
A wise man know which fights need to be fought... that is a "natural law" Mr. Hagelin broke.
...or pehaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't expecting this to allow me to actually change the physical serial number on the chip -- rather, I'm wondering this:
If this BIOS "patch" area updates the chip's microcode (fixing a bug in an instruction, for instance), the it seems to me it could be patched to disable or alter the instructions that retrieve the CPU serial number.
Or is this what system BIOS' are doing already, when they have an option to "disable CPU serial number?"
I've published 17 books in the last 12 years, so I've been through the grist mill with publishers ranging from McGraw-Hill to Microsoft and O'Reilly. So I know a bit about the business...
For every publisher I've seen, the standard "boilerplate" contract assigns copyright to the publisher. An author must ask to keep their copyright, even from someone like O'Reilly.
The reasons for this are obvious: The copyright holder has enromous power, especially under the Berne Convention. As such, publisher want to hold copyright so that they control the work. As an author, I want copyright to my own work -- and I've refused to publish with companies who insist on taking the copyright.
Authors must exercise caution! Watch your publisher like a hawk; even the "good guys" make "honest" mistakes about copyright. I've had publishers forget to file the proper papers; I've had publishers print their corporate copyright notice in a book that is, by terms of the contract, under my copyright. "Oops, sorry, our typesetter goofed!" -- yeah, right guys. Don't believe a publisher when they say "it's not important who owns the copyright", because it d@mn well is important.
Intellectual property is the most important property that exists!... and that is why corporations want to control copyrights and patents. Real estate, computers, cars, even your clothes -- they're all ephemeral, a disaster away from being destroyed. The only thing you truly own is your mind and your ideas -- don't ever let anyone claim to own your mind.
...and despite propaganda to the contrary, very few people (in a global sense) will ever feed themselves through computer-derived income.
The dominant society's media continue to spew the illusion that everyone -- from the broker to the villager -- is going to make their fortune on the web. But, of course, the Wall Street broker was making money well-before the web became reality, and a Lakota villager is still poor even after a century of "benefiting" from Western technology.
In "Indian Country", I've seen the federal government bring computers into Native American schools. Those same schools lack the electricity to run the computers; the toilets don't flush, and the teacher know nothing about the hardware or software. While the media spews images of broadband access, the kids in those schools are still trying to get the toilet in their house connected to a sewer!
Under the current socio-economic system, there exists a definite limit on how many computers can be sold -- a limit set by the number of people who can actually benefit from the technology.
Red Hat's release of "gcc 2.96" will provide wonderful ammunition for those who claim that Open Source software is too unpredictable for prime time.
What's to prevent some other distro from releasing a snapshot of Apache, or Gnome, or of any other package? Not one d@amned thing is the answer... and as distros diverge in the packages they include, it becomes harder and harder to develop *one* solution that runs on "Linux" (whatever that happens to be!)
I'm a developer; I don't have time to be debugging the d@mned compiler when I'm trying to get real work done. I don't want to fight bleeding-edge, beta-level software; my customer need solid solutions, not experiments.
Nader knows that the success of his candidacy means a loss for the Gore campaign. That is exactly what Nader intends... (I can't find the cite right now, damnit...)
The Democratic party has lost touch with the far-left -- environmentalists, unions, etc. -- and is now little more than a variant on the Republican theme. Clinton's "New Democrats" are not all that different from Bush's "compassionate conservatives". As time goes on, the two parties converge.
Enter Nader. He can't "fix" the Democratic Party because it's system is broken, the nomination controlled by internal powers-that-be. So Nader runs as a Grenn, getting votes from disenchanted liberals, and causing Gore to lose. That, in turn, causes a crisis in the Democratic Party, and *maybe* leading to a recommitment to liberal philosophies.
Think of it as a peaceful revolution.
It might work; then again, it might not. Right now, the entire political system is broken down, in a vicious cycle of apathy and poor candidates. Solving social problems is a delicate balance between violent revolution and stagnation. Nader is trying to walk that line.
...being shot to heck by the poor judgement of its staff.
Let someone (anyone, anywhere) post an article that is even slightly wrong about Linux, and Slashdot makes indignant noises. But the same principles of accuracy don't apply to Slashdot, of course... after all, Microsoft is "evil," so Slashdot thinks it is justified in publishing baseless speculation and rumor.
Come on, Slashdot! While you let talking at MIT go to your head, you forget that with power comes responsibility. Microsoft never learned that lesson; too bad you're interested in emulating their poor example.
Slashdot Mirror
"not" = "note" in "Please note the specification on the latter"
Gotta remember to hit that preview button...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
An observation: I use both Linux and Windows 2K (please not the specification on the later!). I like both, for different applications and reasons. I dislike both, too, at times -- so why is it that Microsoft addicts think I'm a Linux geek, and the Linux folks think I'm a Windows-lover? :)
It's sorta like being a middle-of-the-road moderate -- you get from both sides for failing a perceived "purity" test... :)
(See, see? I use smiley's too!)
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I totally agree on using what works for the job at hand. I'm quite fond of Linux, and use it as my primary UNIX platform.
The OS bigotry exhibited by Slashdot indicates a lack of ethics and education on the edtior's part.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I now expect to lose Karma for criticizing Slashdot. Of course, if I cared about Karma, I wouldn't post this response... :)
I run and program both Linux and Win2K; Windows 2000 is quite stable--as many others have pointed out in past postings. My Win2K system runs continuously for weeks at a time, without glitch or problem, despite my use of games and unusual hardware. It might surpise CmdrTaco to know that quite a few "nerds" think that Windows matters.
I find many reasons to visit Microsoft's web site: to pick up development kits, to read articles, and for the excellent knowledge base that Linux can only dream of emulating. Win2K has bugs, but so does Linux. I suggest Slashdot spend less time making snide comment about MS, and work on fixing the leaks in its own ship of state. Linux ain't perfect, ya know.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Sun's rather dictatorial manner hasn't helped Java, either. Scott McNealy is a Gates-wannabe, trying the lead a rebellion to change dictators.
Java is, however, far from dead. On the client side, servlets and JSP provide power and structure. I don't hesitate to use Java on the server.
On the client side, Sun killed Java through rapid change and bloat. Building a solid VM takes considerable effort and stability; Sun, alas, sis not seem interested in stability. Swing is overkill for most applications; AWT works quite well, expecially when Java is used for small, focused applications.
For some of my projects (portable, graphic demonstrations of scientific principles), Java works well. I can ship an Java application to a computer scientist anywhere in the world, and he can run it without need to recompile or argue over window managers and desktop environments. But for normal, everyday applications, Java is dead, as Corel and other companies have discovered.
Long live Java on the server; long live Java in the niches it best fills. Goodbye, Java as the "everything to everyone" language.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
I highly recommend Understanding the Linux Kernel.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
Traditional publishing is dying in the technical fields. Where do most /.ers go when they want technical info: The book store or the web? Every standard I use, and many of my favorite resources arrive via browser and FTP...
A book takes 3-9 months to write, and another 3-9 months to be published and distributed. Software technologies move too fast for traditional publishing.
I'm pretty disgusted with paper-publishing as well, and am looking for a web-based alternative that protects and pays authors. Technical information is dynamic; books, alas, are quite static. While books may work well for describing algorithms or broad technologies, they do a poor job at presenting emerging and evolving technologies.
A "vanity" press is not a viable solution. Vanity presses tend to be focused on ego and... well, vanity. You pay to have your book published, then you have to pay to promote it... heck, I'd rather buy myself a web site and promote my book that way, with some sort of micropayment system.
I've published more than a dozen books, ranging from the very good to the "waste of paper" kind, through publishers ranging from MS Press to McGraw-Hill. In the last 12 years, I've seen technical publishing go into the crapper... the publishers pay lousy, are focused on title buzzwords, and they have little interest in the quality of what goes between the covers. It's a commodity business, focused on the know-nothing mass consumer, with real "hardcore" books relegated to university presses and (sometimes) O'Reilly.
If you want to discuss this further, drop me an e-mail.
I thought Linux was about choice and freedom... I have [rustle, clatter, as he sifts through piles of CDs] five different distributions, all with their good and bad points.
Diversity is the fuel for evolution; let's quit arguing about "my distro is better than yours", and start working toward making Linux even better through competition.
Slashdot, BTW, should be ashamed for publishing an inaccurate (the release may not have happened yet) and biased (is Slackware really the best?) article. Get some journalism lessons, guys.
Is it racism? Not directly; I see lots of Asians in our business, and plenty of Indians (especially in the low-paying "mass production" software houses.) Do the rest of you get these "hire cheap programmers from New Delhi -- and they even speak English!" spams?
Engineering is a "white collar" profession, and as such, it sets a high entrance bar that must be leapt by "minorities". This bar is set by cultural standards, educational opportunities, and other factors beyond the scope of any racism inherent to engineering.
In other words, it isn't the computer industry that has a problem -- it's the society we live in that has yet to reach a semblence of equality.In some segements of the Linux community, there seems to be an irrational penis-envy of Windows, which engenders an even more irrational desire to make Linux "look" and "feel" just like Microsoft's product.
Why?
Shouldn't we be working on something more important than eye-candy for spreadsheet monkeys? Like maybe defining a new desktop metapahor? Perhaps finding new ways of presenting information and interacting with it? Why is it that Linux's desktop environments seem bent on copying Windows, when they could strike out in bold new directions, taking us where no OS has taken us before?
Okay -- maybe it will be easier to get "the boss" to authorize Linux in the server room if it looks pretty on his desktop. Maybe... but should that dictate expending effort on fins when what's needed is better gas economy? In other words, are we engineering what Linux needs, or are we adding silly stuff just to keep up with Microsoft, or to assauge some false sense of inadequacy?...when we find beer cans and cigarette butts floating along the spaceways.
Remember the recent Slashdot discussion of the 486-based computer used in the Hubble telescope? Quite a few people seemed amazed at NASA's use of such "obsolete" technology -- but indeed, the 486 was a reliable, trusted tool for the job.
If the hospital in question is getting good reesults from an Atari 800, why on Earth should they upgrade? For that matter, why do so many tehcnical people insist on living at the bleeding edge, when they could get just as much done (and maybe more?) with yesterday's tested tools.
I drive a 15-yo truck, because it works well and doesn't cost me much. Yeah, I could go blow $25-45,000 on a new Suburban -- but my old truck does just fine, thank you, and I'd rather spend my money on something better. I'll bet that hospital doesn't have the money or technical resources to "upgrade" to a Linux box and a new solution -- what they have works, so why change it?
Don't buy into the Microsoft mentality. If Windows 95 is working, why upgrade to Win ME? If I'm going to upgrade the kernel on my Linux box, I need to have a defined reason (USB support, for example) -- but it makes no sense to compile a new kernel simply because the version numbers have been incremented!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Linux is based on venerable technology -- but that technology doesn't account for new concepts and developments in software and operating systems.
A kernel should be small, concise, and to the point. It should be easy to hang device drivers and other "low-level" tools, while providing for extensions through a standard, well-defined object module.
An ORB should be part of the kernel; HTTP should not. HTTP support should be implemented as an object that is installed, as needed; the kernel should not need to be recompiled to change its functionality.
Mr. Hagelin showed *very* poor judgement when he involved himself in the fight for the Reform Party nomination. Essentially, Mr. Hagelin wanted (and probably needed) the matching funds allocated to the Reform Party; be that as it may, he was a fool for going in against Pat Buchanan's jack-booted thugs.
A wise man know which fights need to be fought... that is a "natural law" Mr. Hagelin broke.
...is the the sextillionth bit of pi will be a one!
After all, I have a 50-50 chance of being right... ;)
If this BIOS "patch" area updates the chip's microcode (fixing a bug in an instruction, for instance), the it seems to me it could be patched to disable or alter the instructions that retrieve the CPU serial number.
Or is this what system BIOS' are doing already, when they have an option to "disable CPU serial number?"
Using BIOS Update, is it possible to remove or alter the processor serial number on Pentium 3 chips?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I've published 17 books in the last 12 years, so I've been through the grist mill with publishers ranging from McGraw-Hill to Microsoft and O'Reilly. So I know a bit about the business...
For every publisher I've seen, the standard "boilerplate" contract assigns copyright to the publisher. An author must ask to keep their copyright, even from someone like O'Reilly.
The reasons for this are obvious: The copyright holder has enromous power, especially under the Berne Convention. As such, publisher want to hold copyright so that they control the work. As an author, I want copyright to my own work -- and I've refused to publish with companies who insist on taking the copyright.
Authors must exercise caution! Watch your publisher like a hawk; even the "good guys" make "honest" mistakes about copyright. I've had publishers forget to file the proper papers; I've had publishers print their corporate copyright notice in a book that is, by terms of the contract, under my copyright. "Oops, sorry, our typesetter goofed!" -- yeah, right guys. Don't believe a publisher when they say "it's not important who owns the copyright", because it d@mn well is important.
Intellectual property is the most important property that exists! ... and that is why corporations want to control copyrights and patents. Real estate, computers, cars, even your clothes -- they're all ephemeral, a disaster away from being destroyed. The only thing you truly own is your mind and your ideas -- don't ever let anyone claim to own your mind.
The dominant society's media continue to spew the illusion that everyone -- from the broker to the villager -- is going to make their fortune on the web. But, of course, the Wall Street broker was making money well-before the web became reality, and a Lakota villager is still poor even after a century of "benefiting" from Western technology.
In "Indian Country", I've seen the federal government bring computers into Native American schools. Those same schools lack the electricity to run the computers; the toilets don't flush, and the teacher know nothing about the hardware or software. While the media spews images of broadband access, the kids in those schools are still trying to get the toilet in their house connected to a sewer!
Under the current socio-economic system, there exists a definite limit on how many computers can be sold -- a limit set by the number of people who can actually benefit from the technology.
Red Hat's release of "gcc 2.96" will provide wonderful ammunition for those who claim that Open Source software is too unpredictable for prime time.
What's to prevent some other distro from releasing a snapshot of Apache, or Gnome, or of any other package? Not one d@amned thing is the answer... and as distros diverge in the packages they include, it becomes harder and harder to develop *one* solution that runs on "Linux" (whatever that happens to be!)
I'm a developer; I don't have time to be debugging the d@mned compiler when I'm trying to get real work done. I don't want to fight bleeding-edge, beta-level software; my customer need solid solutions, not experiments.
Red Hat is no longer an option for this coyote...
People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots...
...coming from a left-wing numb-nut near you.
The Democratic party has lost touch with the far-left -- environmentalists, unions, etc. -- and is now little more than a variant on the Republican theme. Clinton's "New Democrats" are not all that different from Bush's "compassionate conservatives". As time goes on, the two parties converge.
Enter Nader. He can't "fix" the Democratic Party because it's system is broken, the nomination controlled by internal powers-that-be. So Nader runs as a Grenn, getting votes from disenchanted liberals, and causing Gore to lose. That, in turn, causes a crisis in the Democratic Party, and *maybe* leading to a recommitment to liberal philosophies.
Think of it as a peaceful revolution.
It might work; then again, it might not. Right now, the entire political system is broken down, in a vicious cycle of apathy and poor candidates. Solving social problems is a delicate balance between violent revolution and stagnation. Nader is trying to walk that line.
Let someone (anyone, anywhere) post an article that is even slightly wrong about Linux, and Slashdot makes indignant noises. But the same principles of accuracy don't apply to Slashdot, of course... after all, Microsoft is "evil," so Slashdot thinks it is justified in publishing baseless speculation and rumor.
Come on, Slashdot! While you let talking at MIT go to your head, you forget that with power comes responsibility. Microsoft never learned that lesson; too bad you're interested in emulating their poor example.