Either MS or the article writer are clueless...
on
Unix To Beef Up Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...because NOTHING prevents GNU-licensed software from being sold/distributed with commercial software AS LONG AS YOU INCLUDE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE CODE of the app in question. I cannot see why it couldn't even be on the same physical CD as closed software. The REAL reason SFU is not shipped with Windows is probalby for other reasons:
* Political reasons: MS cannot rail against the GNU license if they bundle GNU software with its OS. It would be too damaging to the argument that GNU is "dangerous and infectious" to commercial software projects if they successfully demonstrated GNU legally co-mingling with closed software. Bundling SFU and giving it a high profile at this point--when it is still laden with GNU software and MS's own platform is a creaking, worm-infested hulk with a screen-door security policy--would be tantamount to admitting defeat.
* Marketing reasons: They would have to fight the perception that their own software is so inferior to alternatives that they themselves will not use it. An important sales and marketing rule is to "eat your own dogfood"--doing otherwise makes the job tough for the sales force. If using the alternative cannot be avoided then MS wants to add as LITTLE value as possible by making it a separate but free package with only a little, narrowly targeted marketing. This strategy has given SFU the image of an obscure, "skunkworks" project--just as MS intends.
* Legal reasons: The problem isn't with distribution itself. The likely problem is that to bundle/integrate SFU with the OS the way MS WANTS to "embrace" it would require "extending" some of that GNU software. Microsoft is never content with merely putting the software on the CD--it wants to fuse it with the OS a la IE. THAT is where the GPL would get in the way, because MS depends heavily on keeping its extensions to open standards and systems proprietary--something the GPL forbids.
Thus we have to wait until Longhorn for "integrated SFU". MS needs the time to re-engineer the GPL components in such a way that it is "SCO approved" and extendable without concern for openness. Furthermore, Longhorn is supposed to be a quantum leap from the status quo--a major re-work. It represents a shift akin to moving from DOS to Win 3.x or Win 3.x to Win95. In this scenario, integrated SFU becomes just one of a large number of significant advancements, rather than sticking out like a sore thumb by being introduced at a time when MS is fighting with current Win32 shortcomings.
The result us that SFU can be credibly marketed as intended--a way to introduce Windows into a "legacy" UNIX environment with the prospect of eventual takeover.
RPM has been selected as the standard packaging format for LSB, and as the standard has evolved cross-distribution issues have been addressed. This had always included advocating adherance to the Filesystem Hiearchy Standard (FHS) and now includes things such as a universal package naming standard and standard implementation of printing systems. Those are among the most notorious of cross-distro difficulties we have to contend with right now.
Whatever you think of the RPM format, it serves its purpose quite well, and it is a standard. If Fedora and Mandrake and others start to work together on interoperable solutions to managing RPMs in combination with increasing support for LSB then it would mean a huge advancement in the effort to bring about widespread Linux adoption.
...one that NIC makers seem notorious for (in my past experience D-Link was the WORST for this).
It's the practice of releasing a new "revision" of the same model that is essentially a totally different product, which give the perception of a longer product cycle when it has actually been a scant six months for a long time.
For example, why the HELL do they make a product called "D-Link DFE530" for a few months, then drop it and release ANOTHER "D-Link DFE530" with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHIPS on it? They are even dumb enough to do things like put them in the same box--the only way to tell them apart is by a little revision sticker they MAY put on the box, or more likely silk-screen onto the board itself.
This type of crap is so infuriating one is tempted to call for it to be outlawed. If a customer's DFE530 breaks and he goes to get another DFE530 you shouldn't have to worry about changing the driver for the "new" DFE530. And if you wonder where some of the bloat in Windows comes from, pick apart some drivers--they are often multiple drivers packed into one, with code to identify which is the proper one for the given "revision". If you're unlucky to have an older driver without code for the new "revision" you have to upgrade it. Not user friendly in the slightest--even if the driver ships on disk with the card.
That is why I vote with my wallet...my experience with D-Link made me stop buying ALL D-link products altogether. All my computers use Intel NICs now. Now that I know that Linksys and Netgear pull the same stunts my personal embargo will now extend to them. Thanks for the heads up.
...might be used by the old-guard phone companies, and this case could be used by them to lobby for FCC regulation of VoIP (although the real reson to regulate it is to protect their market share from new startups).
However, those arguments are misleading. It is, in fact, over-regulation and closed technology that led to the situation in the first place. "Ma Bell" didn't have to worry about competitors and didn't have to worry about interoperability in a regulated monpoly environment, which I think led to a philosophy of designing in a vacuum. They didn't need to disclose their implementations to anyone for independent review or standards compliance--they alone set the standards. Functionality could be designed to implicitly trust equipment on both ends of a connection because "Ma Bell" made (or at least issued) all the equipment.
Times and technology change however. The Telecoms industry is no longer a regulated monopoly, and standards and new technology are much more open (this is a must in order to allow interoperability). However, old methods and designs take a long time to change, especially in a culture resistant to change.
In hindsight, telecoms were regulated too much and for too long and a differnet approach should have been taken from the start. However, nobody can really predict where technology will go. The system has been vulnerable to crackers for decades, but the culture of a regulated monopoly set the stage for it LONG before Steve and Steve were up to their shenanigans prior to building computers in their garage.
Selden worked as a consultant for Royal Bank of Canada, which at one time traced checks faster for its most profitable customers, while other customers waited up to five days, he wrote. While that's a bit out of date, the bank now has other ways of prioritizing customers.
Seems Selden is a specialist in "Screwing with Customers". One wonders if he also provided his services to CIBC--the bank that decided to "serve students better" by closing on-campus branches. and replaced most of its ATMs with its own "white label" Amicus machines so it could make $1.50 per transaction off its own customers.
Of course, the Royal Bank of Canada is also the same institutuin that decided that investing in SCO would be a good gamble. Not it seems they have a long-standing policy of ignoring smaller customers. I suggest to Canadians to perhaps give the Bank of Nova Scotia or TD CanadaTrust a try...they probably do the same types of thing though...
...I'd have to say that in some cases yes, a paper ballot such as that used in our federal election could be potentially complex. However, not for the reasons most have stated.
The tired argument about the lack of scalability has been trotted out before, and that is not the reason either. It doesn't take long to count the vote (only a few hours)...it isn't like all the ballots go to Ottatwa and one room full of people count millions of ballots. Nor is human counting expensive--in fact it is probably as cheap or cheaper as scrutineers are volunteers who at mos receive a small stipend for a few hours work. In the US you'd just have more people counting in more polls.
The real reason paper ballots are not used universally in the US is because they are FAR more "democratic" in the US than in Canada. They vote for anything and everything. Americans vote for president, congressman, senator, govenor, judge, police chief, dog catcher, postmaster, various propositions, etc etc etc. In some elections a paper ballot would look like an income tax form!
To compare and contrast, last Monday I got a nice, neat little ballot on which I placed an "x" by one of four or five names. The whole process took less than a minute and there was no lineup at all. No need for complicated electronic or mechanical systems for that, even if there were a billion people voting. Apart from electing governments, Canada is not really democratic at all. Our government makes all the decisions. Police chiefs are hired like any other police officer, our judges are appointed, our senatros are appointed. Even our head of state is appointed--the Canadian equivalent of "President" is the Governor General. The Prime Minister (the leader of the party with the most seats, who only gets votes from his own riding) gets to pick the G.G. all by himself, and the appointment is ceremonially approved by the Queen of Canada (and the rest of the commonwealth).
Direct democracy makes a lot of Canadians uneasy--in fact in the 2000 federal election the opposition proposed a system that would allow citizens to initiate binding referendums. Despite the fact that the bar was set quite high the idea was mocked in the media and viewed with skepticism by the public. There seems to be a perception that referrendum and recall would lead to mob rule and chaos the like of which we see in California.
The only exception seems to be in city elections. When I voted in an Edmonton election a few years back I had to vote for the Mayor, my local city councillors, school board trustee, whether or not to close the Municipal airport and whether or not to close Keillor Road to vehicle traffic.
In fact we DID use electronic voting in Edmonton (but still with a paper ballot). Voters were presented with an A4-sized ballot in a matching envelope and an ink marker. The ballot was clearly divided into sections and we were to mark one choice in each section (except for councillor where we voted for the two top choices). We used the pen to fill in the "broken arrows" beside our choices. We then placed the ballot the right way around in the envelope and put it in what looked a bit like a paper shredder, which sucked the ballot out of the envelope and electronically tallied the vote (the ballot was retained in case a manual recount was required).
Results were available minutes after polls closed. We had no hanging chads, no crashing computers and no controversy about conflict of interest and potential for rigging the vote. And this was before residential hish-speed internet even existed...
I fail to see why being knowledgeable about MS's plans would be viewed with suspicion. Perhaps I should clarify my background.
I've used Linux since 1995 or so but actually became an "open source affecionado" around mid-1997 on a student work term. My employer was well into migrating from old AT&T UNIX boxes to COMPAQs running Slakware Linux tuned to meet their needs (data collection/logging and web-based reporting). Actually seeing Linux used in a production environment run as rock solid as the old AT&T boxes (and much better than the Windows NT server) without any licensing costs sold me easily. In the years since then things have only gotten dramatically better for Linux.
However, in my field of work Linux is still very much the exception (unfortunately). Things run on either Windows NT or 2000 or in special cases QNX or a proprietary RTOS or UNIX. My present employer works in very close conjunction with Microsoft to develop drivers and application software. It is an important part of my job to stay current on Microsoft's direction as well as that of our own developers. As I am an applications specialist and not a developer/programmer at this point I cannot issue a decree that we shall adopt Linux as a platform of choice for our products--indeed no one can without reprocussions.
Because of my background with both sides I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both Linux and Windows (or Free vs proprietary systems in general). For example, Linux and BSD are unmatched for stability and security. Regardless of any studies that say otherwise, Linux is most often much cheaper to maintain than Windows. Free Software applications are also thr real kings of the enterprise. The Internet wouldn't survive without Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, BIND, mySQL, PostgreSQL and so on.
On the other hand, vendors reluctance to develop open drivers (or disclose enough information to the community to do so) ie frustrating. There is still too much crap to contend with for the everyday user to get their Centrino chipset to work, or to make their flashy new NVidia or ATI video cards work properly.
Microsoft/proprietary software has its own list of goods and bads. Microsoft developmer tools totally kick butt on the competition. Developing with.NET really is faster and better (as our developers have found out). Whether or not there are bugs to work out and regardless of how MS has executed the solutions, they have developed and/or embraced some very good concepts. Longhorn shows real promise, and for a 1.0 product MS Reporting Services is astonishingly well executed.
However, with Microsoft I have very real and grave concerns as well. While Windows has come a long way in stability and usability, Microsoft neglected security for too long. I think that poor security has been the most serious issue MS has ever had to face. Licensing schemes have been a royal pain to deal with for a long time too. I'm next to fed up with complicated licensing schemes, license key codes, dongles, product activation and other administrative nightmares, all of which add no function to the end solution at all and only serve as mechanisms to grant the user the priviledge of running an application. And as promising as Longhorn looks, MS is re-inventing the wheel in a blatant attempt to lock the industry into it's own solutions. Really, what is the point of creating XAML when open standards were already there? Longhorn also looks set to break a lot of compatibility and be even more resource hungry than ever.
I think _every_ professional should know as much about MS's plans as possible. Likewise they should all know as much as possible about development in Linux and Free Software in general (you know damn well many in MS are studying up on the "enemy"). How else can anybody be competitive? It is only wise to bet on both horses here in particular. With Longhorn so far from release and the potential for a disconnect in terms of hardware and software compatibility with previous versions of Windows, Linux is poised to make a breakthrough. Hopefully Those in the Linux camp can "steal" the best ideas from Longhorn and execute them with characteristically more elegant, interoperable design.
It's not like his eZine was dissing Windows XP or MS Office. The article still derides Free Software advocates by calling them "propeller headed geeks" and so on, and does suggest Firefox is somewhat less capable than IE because the fancy menus on Slate do not work (even though there are definitely platform-agnostic methods to achieve the exact same effect). Despite that, the article is very favourable to Mozilla's stable of products which is nice.
Anyways I don't think anyone will lose their jobs over this:
* IE doesn't make MS any money--it has been bundled into Windows XP so there is no lost revenue (at least for the short and medium term) if users switch en masse to another browser.
* MS has integrated IE into Windows so tightly that you cannot avoid it. You need IE to run Windows update, and a lot of software uses IE DLLs to function (even a lot of third party Windows-based software). Using Firefox to browse web pages doesn't completely obsolete IE
* Microsoft is doing enough on its own to obsolete IE--in fact they seem to encourage anything that will obsolete it. IE development has basically been abandoned since Windows XP was released (and even before 2002 there was little improvement). The Slate article just helps things along a bit.
* Anything that makes a Microsoft property look like it isn't part of a big machine bent on world domination is welcome--especially if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the bottome line.
So that leaves one thought: Why does MS seem to be abandoning IE?
I think it has already been touched on by some here. Web browsing and other internet-related tasks are being integrated even further into future versions of Windows. Longhorn is supposed to be re-worked top to bottom to incorporate XML-based protocols, better support distributed computing technology (web services and so on). What is your machine and what is the internet is supposed to become almost seamless.
In achieving that goal IE has to disappear in BillG's eyes. Not only that, (X)HTML has to recede into the background as well--it is a document markup language at its roots and is poorly suited to development of highly interactive applications. Never mind that there are vendor-neutral/open standards emerging (XForms, XUL, SVG, etc)--they are not yet as established as HTML. MS sees this as a new opportunity to use Longhorn to establish an MS-controlled platform again using XAML and Avalon.
I think that BillG himself actually despises IE. The design is antiquated and insecure at its heart. The code probably gets more and more unmanageable with time judging by how often one patch sometimes creates other bugs. First and formost, however, by throwing resources as IE microsoft would prolong what it sees as "yesterday's Internet". Ideally, Longhorn would be released without any visible indication of a separate browser and enough HTML support to make existing sites function. As Longhorn grows in market share, MS hopes that sites start incorporating MS-specific protocols like XAML to transform websites into really interactive, whiz-bang internet applications that break completely in IE or Mozilla or any other mere browser on a competing or obsolete platform.
No, there will be no firings at Slate over this editorial stance. Far from it--it is probably quite compatible with the Chief Architect's long-term vision.
...of two steps to simulate DOS/Win9x/WinME filesystem security. the second step is, of course:
chmod -R 777.*
Now you don't have to worry about all that confusing file ownership and access business like you do in that really hard "lyenucks" system. It all get in the way of running those helpfil.VBS files anyways...
I find Jakob Nielsen's site quite easy to use. I'm not well versed in ALL te usability guidelines out there, but it is refreshing in at least a few ways:
* It loads quickly. There are no annoying animated, graphical buttons, intrusive pop-up/pop-under/pop-in ads, or flash animations on the page.
* It does not break at different window sizes right down to 640 * 480. Sure, nobody uses a PC at 640 * 480 anymore, but I hate having to maximize my browser and cover up other stuff on my desktop so that a page will display properly. Conversely, it is quite stupid to maximize your browser and find the whoe page is STILL locked to a strip 800 pixels wide down the middle of my screen.
* The site does not override your browser's text size settings. A lot of sites use microscopic text and do not allow you to use your browsers text size feature. When you have bad eyesight (as I do) this can make a page unreadable to the point of uselessness.
* Consistent formatting is used. Links are all formatted the same way, and there are visual cues indicating there are links. I HATE it when links are not underlined or bolded or placed in button-like boxes. I also hate even more seeing underlined text in a different colour that is NOT a link. Neilson uses the same font style and colours for links throughout the page.
* Simple, neat layout. No horizontal scrolling, nothing really gets lost in the layout.
Now for what I DON'T like:
(I can't believe I have the gaul to actually suggest improvements to a recognized expert in the industry much less criticism)
* White, bright yellow and cyan is harsh on the eyes (unless perhaps you are colour blind). Even if you want a low-bandwidth, light-graphics page there is a lot you can do with a stylesheet to implement attractive font and colour selections to make a professional-looking, readable and user-friendly site.
* The news section appears not to be sorted in any particular way, and could use perhaps some subcatigories within that section.
* The page is link heavy, so perhaps they shouldn't be "in-line" formatted. "Block" formatted links that look like section titles (with non-link descriptive text underneath) might be easier on the eyes, although I don't think is needed to improve the usability.
* Font selection and paragraph spacing effectively separate the various sections, however I find alternating background colours would provide even better delineation. Think of the old computer paper with alternating pale-green-and-white bands for every five lines of text. "Alert Box" could be pale green, "Reports" would be white, "Film" pale green, "Books" white etc. Too maky colours would look dumb but two or three would look fine.
Just my thoughts. Neilson is indeed a "luddite" of sorts--it seems that in his ideal web all links would be blue and underlined and the page whould have to load on IE 2.0, but he offers critically important advice. Of particular importance I think is CONSISTENCY, SIMPLCITY and EFFICIENCY.
Ninety percent of flash animation should be eliminated, as should almost all animated, graphical buttons. In coroporate sites in particular, navigation is too complex--we have visually stunning but confusing "start-menu" style multi-level animated menus and get mired in a maze of documents (hance the need for all the serach tools). However, things seem to be getting worse instead of better. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back to the centre soon...
...so I prefer alternative fuels. I suggest NutriGrain cereal bars. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign energy resources, I find they...ummm...burn far cleaner than burritos, if you know what I mean;-) .
I followed the link and was amused by the "don't miss" section at the bottom. ALL the links are things like "get Windows XP now" and "the benefits of XP" and "see the great reviews of XP here!".
There is also a link on that page to the amusing Windows ME support page there. The TOP article in the support archive? "How to UNinstall Windows ME"! Apparently the removal of WinME is a commonly suggested remedy by Microsoft to fix a PC that won't boot properly.
I'd have to say that that is one point where I actually agree strongly with Microsoft!
If an Xbox 2 can be converted to an Xbox 2.1 with a CD that flash-upgrades the OS, then we have a new paradigm in game consoles.
Such an "innovation" introduced to the console is a double edged sword. I'd advise against going that route myself as it would enable all that is bad and wrong about the proprietary software world (led by Microsoft) to infect the console market.
I haven't owned a console in my adult life (although I was quite a fan of the Colecovision), so maybe my perspecive is skewed. However, don't most people buy consoles because they want to play games with a high entertainment value and great sound and graphics without the troubles and complexity involved with PCs? I'd say most people with consoles also own PCs, and if it was just a matter of wanting to play games then the market for consoles wouldn't be nearly as large as it is today--most people would play on the PC, perhaps electing to equip their PCs with TV-out for big-screel livingroom experience.
I figure if you have to worry about buying a flash upgrade CD every few weeks or months or having to use your x-box live subscription to run "x-box update" regularly because the product was slapped together and rushed to market to beat the competition then you might as well stick with your PC. The last thing a kid needs to worry about is having his x-box turned into a spamming zombie because he forgot to load in the upgrade CD before connecting to his buddy for network play.
IN THAT ORDER OF IMPORTANCE. Yes, ultimately anything can be recycled, but recycling still requires energy and has an environmental impact.
The only widespread commercial use of TDP at the moment involves waste from food production. Food scraps, sewage and so on are basically "natural" organic waste. Things like CDs and DVDs are make from plastics--an organic chemistry process but still an "artificial" polymer. There are also a lot of inorganic components in the various layers, requiring extra energy and time to process out and re-use.
The best known commercial application (involving the turkey waste) has achieved quite a remarkable efficency in making waste into low-grade heating oil (upwards of 85%). However, consider the source--it is renewable. The original energy was from grains/poultry feed and water. Also consider that for every 1000 BTUs of energy stored in the waste only 850 BTUs becomes usable heating oil.
Now think about all these disposable DVDs. They are made from petroleum products--non-renewable oil pulled from the ground. It takes energy to make them to begin with, then it takes more energy to handle the waste (trucks burning fuel to haul the spent waste to a recycling facility). THEN it takes the 15 percent stored in the DVD material to convert it back into heating oil.
Why don't we forget about all of that crap with disposabel DVDs and just heat our homes with the oil that came from the ground in the first place? That would REDUCE how much non-renewable energy we used. When we buy DVDs today they don't become useless garbage in a few hours-- we can RE-USE them. that way we don't even need to RECYCLE them, and we can devote our resources to more effective recycling efforts--particularly those with big payoffs like composting, metal cans, glass bottles, building materials and scrap paper.
Besides the overtly greedy nature of such a scam as disposable media it is also blatantly wasteful. It makes me cringe when people casually throw away empty tins of soup, but at least food is a necessity and there are few proctical alternatives.
In the case of these throw-away DVDs their mere existence offends me. They are not a basic need, and take no less resources to make than a normal DVD--a practical alternative that is very re-usable. I hope they become the miserable flop they deserve to be and that the inventor and company responsible for them end up broke and destitute.
*phew* good to get the nut-case out of me from time to time...but you get the idea---recyclable or not they are a lousy idea.
Sony will patent the device and charge substantial license fees to other manufacturers to make them.
Of course this will be pocket change to MS and they will pay the fees and embrace the technology. Look for MS to add "innovations" which only work when the pen is used on MS-based PDAs, cellphones and PCs. Microsoft will try to patent these so Sony and others cannot legally implemetn them.
No bloody way will the pens be given out for free. More than likely they "given away" with other hardware (probably Sony-only, but perhaps some other brands later) but the cost will really be built into the bundled price.
If Sony doesn't try to excessively hoarde the IP then it'll catch on--it's a really cool idea.
Sony does show some promise however--they have embraced Linux on the PS2 and more recent products so they have some interest in Free SOFTWARE. I'm quite confident that they'd fully cooperate in making such a device work with Linux.
The question remains however on what they think of Free HARDWARE (Free in the "libre" sense rather than "gratis"). You'd think they'd learn from the Betamax videotape format, however they have persisted to some degree in repeating the same mistakes. How widely deployed is their "memory stick" technology beyond their own products? Next to nonexistent compared to CF, SD/MMC, etc. Now they've invented yet another format for their PSP portable gaming/multimedia device.
...especially when you cross the Canada-US border. Rogers is bad enough in Canada--It costs $1.25 per minute for air time when I use my phone (on their own network) on the East coast (I live in the West). I never have any idea when I go into the US with my Canadian phone what the hell the US "partner" will extort from me...until I get my bill the following month.
My shocker came when I drove 30 minutes from New Brunswick into Maine and discovered later that the rate went from $1.25 to FOUR DOLLARS PER MINUTE! I expect rates to be high and try to use my phone sparingly, but even a mere 15 minutes can make you bill nasty.
Honestly, why the hell would it be so much more expensive to use my phone in Houlton, ME than in Woodstock, NB just a short drive away? The land-line phone companies, crappy as they are at customer service, seem to have figured out how to make the difference in long distance rates between such locales minimal to nonexistant.
There is no logic at all in how you are charged for cellphone service. I'd blame it on being a "remote" location, but I don't think it's all that remote in that part of Maine, and certainly not any more so than in North Dakota, and the rate there was quite a bit cheaper too. Maybe the Rogers website has changed, but when I tried to get detailed info on US rates it was either absent or too hard to find.
Honestly, what exactly is the reason for all the complexity and inconsistency in cellphone service billing? Is anyone out there in Slashdot-land brave enough to admit they work for a cellphone company and offer some insight? You CAN post anonymously if you're worried about being lynched...
I agree...my argument is that there is an appropriate balance and Microsoft (and many software companies) aren't there yet. I don't think users SHOULD have to worry about software updating to the dregree they have to now. Nor should it be required to worry so much about firewalls.
The types of things users should have to worry about are things like "don't open executable attachments from strangers" and the like. Right now, if you buy a BRAND NEW computer and plug it right into a cable modem you can almost count on getting Sasser or Korgo within minutes. You have to make sure certain services are off, you have a firewall of some kind, etc before even THINKING of connecting the ethernet cable to your PC. That's not acceptable.
To use the well-worn car analogy, when you buy a car now, the most you are told to do is drive easy during the break-in period (and with today's cars you really don't have to worry about that). The "Microsoft car" would be sold to you with an empty fuel tank and no oil, coolant and break fluid ant the tires might even be flat. Furthermore, there would be a factory defect in the antilock breaking system and it would be YOUR responsibility to check to see if it was repaired and make arrangement with the dealer to fix it.
Nothing is perfect of course, but when it comes to computer software, we are stuck with a pretty lousy way of dealing with imperfections.
involved a clique of high school bimbo girls that went bad over a boy (murderous "mean girls" basically). The leader bimbo was a psychopath and in a fit of rage beat the crap out of the bimbo that took her man, tortured her by burning her with cigarettes, then stabbed her several hundred times with cuticle trimmers until she bled to death.
During the investigation and questioning, cellphone records and instant messages were examined, and during questioning the DA lawyers let the girl know that if she kept lying they could examine the test messages that were sent from her phone to find out the truth.
In the show the murderer implicated a fat girl who they always picked on, and when they investigated that route, threatening text messages the bimbo sent to her were factors in the case.
Another interesting issue brought up in that episode was the use of cameras integrated into many cellphones. One of the ways they tormented the big girl was by taking her picture in the locker room after gym class and sending it to a bunch of other students' cellphones accompanied by nasty text messages. Brings up another privacy issue--not because of corporate recordkeeping but because of malicious cellphone users.
As a result of both these new cellphone features that cellphones are being banned outright from various places. At my gym all cellphones are banned from locker rooms because so many have cameras now. During government high school exams and all university final exams they are also banned because of "collaberation" that occurs via text messaging.
Sometimes I wonder if opening these nifty new cans of technology is worth all the worms that tend to come out as well. Technological advancement has been an immense positive contribution to society to be sure, but there are some thinge I can do without. I have used text messages before but I still fail to see what is so great about being able to send a sentence to another phone by labouriously pecking it out on a tiny 12-key pad when I could just phone the damn person and leave a voicemail if they don't answer. The one thing I DO use it for is to get email notifications but I've only ever sent a message from a phone less than a half-dozen times in my life. I'd be fine with receive-only, thanks.
I also fail to see what great benefit there is in being able to snap blurry, VGA-resolution pictures on my phone--very few people ever NEED to do that, and if there is indeed enough demand for it why don't they just put wireless/cellphone transmitters into REAL digital cameras? Then we'd only have to ban CAMERAS from locker rooms (which they have been for ages anyways).
* A bold new method of shutting down a PC--After all, it's completely logical that the first step in the shutdown process should be to click the "Start" button.
* The system registry--because everybody system needs a single point of failure stored in an opaque, obsfucated, hidden file accessible only through special utilities. You have the choice of getting lost in a giant tree of settings of a "friendly" user interface, with no "undo" button and the ability to cause your machine to stop booting. Alternatively, you can export to text, edit the file and re-import the fatal mistakes when you are done. Brilliant!
* Integrating the GUI (and later the web browser) so tightly with the OS that the OS cannot fully function without them. After all, it's very important to sqeeze the best performance possible out of the graphics system so you can have richly animated menu appearance effects and have the contents of the windows adjust as you drag and resize. That's especially important on a server where the administrator can be watching the screen a whole five percent of the time it's on right?
Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive
Actually, by 1993 or so cross-border shopping and negative trade balances with the US wasn't a problem anymore (it was an election year and barely registered compared to Meech Lake Accord, gov't patronage, defecit, Quebec separatists, etc). The problem came to prominince in the late 80's and peaked around 1990.
And the high dollar did in deed have an impact--it was about 85 cents US when the problam was at its worst, and after the 1993 election, recession, separatist referendum, etc etc the dollar plunged in value into the 60s. Now with a bit lower dollar plus NAFTA things are better for our exporters. However the dollar got so low that it hurt is in global competition as import-dependent businesses were hit hard in the bottom line. It seems generally accepted that with our economic conditions a dollar in the mid 70's in US cents is the best balance, although other factors (taxation, oil prices, gov't policy, etc etc) can affect that balance point.
If they find the ads distasteful they aren't forced to view them. Conversely, the site has every right to show the ads. Both sides have their rights, and both have to accept the consequences. Viewers might miss some quality content, but you only piss off your audience so long before the go along with a bunch of advertising revenue.
Also, think of this: Microsoft has seemed quite assured of its superiority but how often do you see IBM ads touting Linux on a Microsoft-branded site such as MSNBC, MSN.COM, Slate etc? Or Sun pushing Java? Or Oracle boasting about their powerful databases? They aren't there with ads AT ALL much less ones that are critical of Microsoft's alternatives.
It has nothing to do with being unsure--it is not professional and looks like desperation (it screams "we'll take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us"). I can completely understand why people are angry.
The ads MS has on Slashdot and other sites are tolerable because THESE SITES DON'T SPECIALISE IN LINUX. They are for general-interest audiences. I don't even have a problem with MS ads on Linux sites if they were relevant (maybe advertising tools for interoperability with other OSes for example, or showing an XBox ad on a gaming or XBox hacking article.
The problem is the ads don't sell their product, they are focused on crapping all over Linux. There is no room for that kind of material on a Linux specialty site, not even in the ads.
It was pretty easy to see from the story that a patch existed and by following the links that it was the same fix as for sasser...
If you haven't patched after two months, you're just the same as all those people who got hit with Blaster, which was also already patched beforehand.
You mean the same as my parents, who until after the Sasser outbreak still had dial-up that refused to connect at 28.8K and found the experience of endlessly downloading patches at a snails pace frustrating at best and impossible at worst? Or like my sister, who bought a new machine with XP factory-installed without the patch released mere days before she purchased the PC and had her computer explioted by the virus literally WITHIN FIVE MINUTES of connecting it to her cable internet?
So many of us slashdot nerds (not to mention Microsoft employees) forget that not everyone has high-speed Internet and is so tech-savvy that they know to plug certain holes, stop certain services, install a firewall and whatever before even going on-line. Nor are there a lot of people willing to put up with all that crap just so they can compute safely.
Linux distros issue security patches for their vulnerabilities weekly and nobody complains, but when Microsoft releases a patch, suddenly it's this huge issue to run a tiny executable that plugs security flaws, and then people bitch at Windows two months later when a virus comes out to exploit it...
Do you even READ the "Linux" advisories? How often do they involve the kernel or critical system components? I see lots of stuff for mail servers, web servers, window managers and so on but nothing for the kernel, filesystem, anything in binutils. Also, how many are remote system vulnerabilities (that is, a person without physical access to the console can obtain root access)? Quite often the risk is limited because full root access is not possible or you require console access, or you have to be running an oddball setup, or exploiting the vulnerability takes some skill.
Contrast with Windows. Blaster and Welchia exploited a DCOM vulnerability with a core component of the OS. Sasser the same thing a few months later. Now this one. All of them could infect a vulnerable PC merely by having them connected to the internet and having a complete moron run set it free to scan the world.
And it's a big deal because it's a PAIN IN THE ASS...it's not like Microsoft runs TV Public service announcements all over the world every time a patch is released, or to educate the uninformed on the importance of running windows update regularly. Oh and by the way, the "tiny executables" can take over an hour just to download one over dialup on a noisy country telephone line. Oh yeah, IT people get a little pissed off when they have come in on a weekend to patch a critical application server because the "tiny little executable" often requires a reboot and subsequent disruption in service. Not so with almost all the "Linux" patches.
How can one criticize their security if they won't apply their security patches? Almost all major software is gonna require a patch eventually.
Easy. I just did above. And yes, software will never be perfect, but eventually shouldn't mean the SAME issues coming up MONTH after MONTH, with new bugs found every time, and fixes for old bugs breaking other things. It's a damn good thing MS and other software vendors don't make a lot of other products. Could you imagine...
*Having to wait in line every month to perform an "engine update" on your car?
*Burning your potroast because a script-kiddie hacked into your oven and set the temperature to 500 degrees?
*Having to mop up the bathroom because your toilet experienced a "buffer overflow" yet again?
*Missing the playoff winning goal because your TV was infested with malware that decided this was the perfect time to launch into an ad for an animal-porn reality TV series?
You are either genuine in your beliefs and a bit naive or you are master at the subtle troll message and are in fact mocking the clueless among DIY builders (of the type who might make a career of selling at Future Shop/Best Buy).
I bought my Athlon XP 2200+ and ECS motherboard for $70 from fry's
An Athlon XP 2200+ is certainly an adequate performer and an ECS motherboard will do the job, but the old adage "you get what you pay for" still applies. Buying most ECS boards is like buyng generic at the grocery store--it offers a value price but most often is a pale or slightly-off imitation of a top-tier brand and there will be greater variances in quality. Although the risk is still small, you stand a slightly greater chance of relibility problems (dried out capacitors, cooling problems, etc) and will never win a performance contest with higher quality PCs even with an identical processor.
1 gig of ram for $200 after rebates
A good price yes, but the quality argument could be made again. I myself have had little problem with cheap memory--it works well in an office system or a developmetn database machine. However, if performance and reliability were important I'd spring for faster RAM or ECC RAM from a source with a reputation for quality....Radeon 9800 non-pro for $150...
Sounds like a fine choice, but...
Overclocked the cpu to 3200+ speed and flashed the 9800 to a pro.
Sound to me to be "just dumb". I've always thought that in most cases overclocking and modding is of dubious economy, although there are certain times when the argument can be made for its value. The whole point of the art of overclocking is to find good quality components with reputations for having a high tolerance for punishment and push them to their maximums.
Judging from the prices I'd say you probably didn't splurge on cooling, and budget components work fine when used as prescribed but they are cheap because there is less room to manoeuvre--if it is supposed to run at speed 'x' then 'x * 1.1' will be unstable. The same goes with the graphics card. The reason it wasn't sold as a pro with pro firmware is because the hardware either failed tests at that level or wasn't tested at tlat level at all. At any rate, it might be fun to do but you obviously care not a whit about stability and have alot of time to deal with intermittent, annoying glitches.
a decent case + power supply $50,
In this case "decent" and "$50" do not compute. I'm sure it would work fine for a budget PC with onboard graphics and sound and no extra toys (I use such case/power supply deals myself) but if you want high-performance this is a bad choice. If you have extra fans (for overclocking you'd have to at least think of it), add-on cards for high-performance graphics and sound, toys like glowing front panels etc etc. then the power supply is going to fall flat. Plus if you are using quality parts you wouln't house them in a cheap tin box--it'd be like putting a hemi in a K-car.
That's under $800 for a top-of-the-line system, when I got it.
That not a real bad price for a PC, but it's far from top-of-the-line. That and I'd have serious doubts about it's dependability for serious applications with the overclocking and firmware mods you made. Even for gaming, if you were a competitive sort you'd get frustrated when it overheats and locks up or get blown to smithereens because of distorted graphics.
I'd say ditch the hardware/firmware mods and the delusions of high-performance you have and just enjoy your machine for what it is: a pedestrian, mid/value range beige box.
Your balls called... they said when you're ready to play CS again they'll be waiting
Seems to be another dilemma...do you sacrifice your balls to save the relationship, or do you hang onto 'em despite the fact you'll not be using them anyways.
My guess is that you and most of your CS buddies are in posession of several pairs of balls in pristine, hardley-or-never-used condition...heh heh...
At any rate...perhaps the solution is to find a clan or whatever that has a single woman in it and date her. She's right over there next to the hen's teeth. You'll be so happy gaming together that you won't even mind that you still aren't getting any sex...
Slashdot Mirror
...because NOTHING prevents GNU-licensed software from being sold/distributed with commercial software AS LONG AS YOU INCLUDE ACCESS TO THE SOURCE CODE of the app in question. I cannot see why it couldn't even be on the same physical CD as closed software. The REAL reason SFU is not shipped with Windows is probalby for other reasons:
* Political reasons: MS cannot rail against the GNU license if they bundle GNU software with its OS. It would be too damaging to the argument that GNU is "dangerous and infectious" to commercial software projects if they successfully demonstrated GNU legally co-mingling with closed software. Bundling SFU and giving it a high profile at this point--when it is still laden with GNU software and MS's own platform is a creaking, worm-infested hulk with a screen-door security policy--would be tantamount to admitting defeat.
* Marketing reasons: They would have to fight the perception that their own software is so inferior to alternatives that they themselves will not use it. An important sales and marketing rule is to "eat your own dogfood"--doing otherwise makes the job tough for the sales force. If using the alternative cannot be avoided then MS wants to add as LITTLE value as possible by making it a separate but free package with only a little, narrowly targeted marketing. This strategy has given SFU the image of an obscure, "skunkworks" project--just as MS intends.
* Legal reasons: The problem isn't with distribution itself. The likely problem is that to bundle/integrate SFU with the OS the way MS WANTS to "embrace" it would require "extending" some of that GNU software. Microsoft is never content with merely putting the software on the CD--it wants to fuse it with the OS a la IE. THAT is where the GPL would get in the way, because MS depends heavily on keeping its extensions to open standards and systems proprietary--something the GPL forbids.
Thus we have to wait until Longhorn for "integrated SFU". MS needs the time to re-engineer the GPL components in such a way that it is "SCO approved" and extendable without concern for openness. Furthermore, Longhorn is supposed to be a quantum leap from the status quo--a major re-work. It represents a shift akin to moving from DOS to Win 3.x or Win 3.x to Win95. In this scenario, integrated SFU becomes just one of a large number of significant advancements, rather than sticking out like a sore thumb by being introduced at a time when MS is fighting with current Win32 shortcomings.
The result us that SFU can be credibly marketed as intended--a way to introduce Windows into a "legacy" UNIX environment with the prospect of eventual takeover.
...it is part of the Linux Standard Base and other standards of the Free Standards Group. The problem is that the standards have not been widely adopted enough. Perhaps that will change over time, particularly once LSB 2.0 is released in its final form. Presently, a few distros (Mandrake for one) are already LSB compliant and should properly install LSB-compliant RPMs regardless of the source. The drawback is that this compatibility is generally "bolted on" by installing--you guessed it--a distro-specific RPM.
RPM has been selected as the standard packaging format for LSB, and as the standard has evolved cross-distribution issues have been addressed. This had always included advocating adherance to the Filesystem Hiearchy Standard (FHS) and now includes things such as a universal package naming standard and standard implementation of printing systems. Those are among the most notorious of cross-distro difficulties we have to contend with right now.
Whatever you think of the RPM format, it serves its purpose quite well, and it is a standard. If Fedora and Mandrake and others start to work together on interoperable solutions to managing RPMs in combination with increasing support for LSB then it would mean a huge advancement in the effort to bring about widespread Linux adoption.
...one that NIC makers seem notorious for (in my past experience D-Link was the WORST for this).
It's the practice of releasing a new "revision" of the same model that is essentially a totally different product, which give the perception of a longer product cycle when it has actually been a scant six months for a long time.
For example, why the HELL do they make a product called "D-Link DFE530" for a few months, then drop it and release ANOTHER "D-Link DFE530" with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHIPS on it? They are even dumb enough to do things like put them in the same box--the only way to tell them apart is by a little revision sticker they MAY put on the box, or more likely silk-screen onto the board itself.
This type of crap is so infuriating one is tempted to call for it to be outlawed. If a customer's DFE530 breaks and he goes to get another DFE530 you shouldn't have to worry about changing the driver for the "new" DFE530. And if you wonder where some of the bloat in Windows comes from, pick apart some drivers--they are often multiple drivers packed into one, with code to identify which is the proper one for the given "revision". If you're unlucky to have an older driver without code for the new "revision" you have to upgrade it. Not user friendly in the slightest--even if the driver ships on disk with the card.
That is why I vote with my wallet...my experience with D-Link made me stop buying ALL D-link products altogether. All my computers use Intel NICs now. Now that I know that Linksys and Netgear pull the same stunts my personal embargo will now extend to them. Thanks for the heads up.
...might be used by the old-guard phone companies, and this case could be used by them to lobby for FCC regulation of VoIP (although the real reson to regulate it is to protect their market share from new startups).
However, those arguments are misleading. It is, in fact, over-regulation and closed technology that led to the situation in the first place. "Ma Bell" didn't have to worry about competitors and didn't have to worry about interoperability in a regulated monpoly environment, which I think led to a philosophy of designing in a vacuum. They didn't need to disclose their implementations to anyone for independent review or standards compliance--they alone set the standards. Functionality could be designed to implicitly trust equipment on both ends of a connection because "Ma Bell" made (or at least issued) all the equipment.
Times and technology change however. The Telecoms industry is no longer a regulated monopoly, and standards and new technology are much more open (this is a must in order to allow interoperability). However, old methods and designs take a long time to change, especially in a culture resistant to change.
In hindsight, telecoms were regulated too much and for too long and a differnet approach should have been taken from the start. However, nobody can really predict where technology will go. The system has been vulnerable to crackers for decades, but the culture of a regulated monopoly set the stage for it LONG before Steve and Steve were up to their shenanigans prior to building computers in their garage.
From the article...
Selden worked as a consultant for Royal Bank of Canada, which at one time traced checks faster for its most profitable customers, while other customers waited up to five days, he wrote. While that's a bit out of date, the bank now has other ways of prioritizing customers.
Seems Selden is a specialist in "Screwing with Customers". One wonders if he also provided his services to CIBC--the bank that decided to "serve students better" by closing on-campus branches. and replaced most of its ATMs with its own "white label" Amicus machines so it could make $1.50 per transaction off its own customers.
Of course, the Royal Bank of Canada is also the same institutuin that decided that investing in SCO would be a good gamble. Not it seems they have a long-standing policy of ignoring smaller customers. I suggest to Canadians to perhaps give the Bank of Nova Scotia or TD CanadaTrust a try...they probably do the same types of thing though...
...I'd have to say that in some cases yes, a paper ballot such as that used in our federal election could be potentially complex. However, not for the reasons most have stated.
The tired argument about the lack of scalability has been trotted out before, and that is not the reason either. It doesn't take long to count the vote (only a few hours)...it isn't like all the ballots go to Ottatwa and one room full of people count millions of ballots. Nor is human counting expensive--in fact it is probably as cheap or cheaper as scrutineers are volunteers who at mos receive a small stipend for a few hours work. In the US you'd just have more people counting in more polls.
The real reason paper ballots are not used universally in the US is because they are FAR more "democratic" in the US than in Canada. They vote for anything and everything. Americans vote for president, congressman, senator, govenor, judge, police chief, dog catcher, postmaster, various propositions, etc etc etc. In some elections a paper ballot would look like an income tax form!
To compare and contrast, last Monday I got a nice, neat little ballot on which I placed an "x" by one of four or five names. The whole process took less than a minute and there was no lineup at all. No need for complicated electronic or mechanical systems for that, even if there were a billion people voting. Apart from electing governments, Canada is not really democratic at all. Our government makes all the decisions. Police chiefs are hired like any other police officer, our judges are appointed, our senatros are appointed. Even our head of state is appointed--the Canadian equivalent of "President" is the Governor General. The Prime Minister (the leader of the party with the most seats, who only gets votes from his own riding) gets to pick the G.G. all by himself, and the appointment is ceremonially approved by the Queen of Canada (and the rest of the commonwealth).
Direct democracy makes a lot of Canadians uneasy--in fact in the 2000 federal election the opposition proposed a system that would allow citizens to initiate binding referendums. Despite the fact that the bar was set quite high the idea was mocked in the media and viewed with skepticism by the public. There seems to be a perception that referrendum and recall would lead to mob rule and chaos the like of which we see in California.
The only exception seems to be in city elections. When I voted in an Edmonton election a few years back I had to vote for the Mayor, my local city councillors, school board trustee, whether or not to close the Municipal airport and whether or not to close Keillor Road to vehicle traffic.
In fact we DID use electronic voting in Edmonton (but still with a paper ballot). Voters were presented with an A4-sized ballot in a matching envelope and an ink marker. The ballot was clearly divided into sections and we were to mark one choice in each section (except for councillor where we voted for the two top choices). We used the pen to fill in the "broken arrows" beside our choices. We then placed the ballot the right way around in the envelope and put it in what looked a bit like a paper shredder, which sucked the ballot out of the envelope and electronically tallied the vote (the ballot was retained in case a manual recount was required).
Results were available minutes after polls closed. We had no hanging chads, no crashing computers and no controversy about conflict of interest and potential for rigging the vote. And this was before residential hish-speed internet even existed...
I fail to see why being knowledgeable about MS's plans would be viewed with suspicion. Perhaps I should clarify my background.
.NET really is faster and better (as our developers have found out). Whether or not there are bugs to work out and regardless of how MS has executed the solutions, they have developed and/or embraced some very good concepts. Longhorn shows real promise, and for a 1.0 product MS Reporting Services is astonishingly well executed.
I've used Linux since 1995 or so but actually became an "open source affecionado" around mid-1997 on a student work term. My employer was well into migrating from old AT&T UNIX boxes to COMPAQs running Slakware Linux tuned to meet their needs (data collection/logging and web-based reporting). Actually seeing Linux used in a production environment run as rock solid as the old AT&T boxes (and much better than the Windows NT server) without any licensing costs sold me easily. In the years since then things have only gotten dramatically better for Linux.
However, in my field of work Linux is still very much the exception (unfortunately). Things run on either Windows NT or 2000 or in special cases QNX or a proprietary RTOS or UNIX. My present employer works in very close conjunction with Microsoft to develop drivers and application software. It is an important part of my job to stay current on Microsoft's direction as well as that of our own developers. As I am an applications specialist and not a developer/programmer at this point I cannot issue a decree that we shall adopt Linux as a platform of choice for our products--indeed no one can without reprocussions.
Because of my background with both sides I can see the strengths and weaknesses of both Linux and Windows (or Free vs proprietary systems in general). For example, Linux and BSD are unmatched for stability and security. Regardless of any studies that say otherwise, Linux is most often much cheaper to maintain than Windows. Free Software applications are also thr real kings of the enterprise. The Internet wouldn't survive without Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, BIND, mySQL, PostgreSQL and so on.
On the other hand, vendors reluctance to develop open drivers (or disclose enough information to the community to do so) ie frustrating. There is still too much crap to contend with for the everyday user to get their Centrino chipset to work, or to make their flashy new NVidia or ATI video cards work properly.
Microsoft/proprietary software has its own list of goods and bads. Microsoft developmer tools totally kick butt on the competition. Developing with
However, with Microsoft I have very real and grave concerns as well. While Windows has come a long way in stability and usability, Microsoft neglected security for too long. I think that poor security has been the most serious issue MS has ever had to face. Licensing schemes have been a royal pain to deal with for a long time too. I'm next to fed up with complicated licensing schemes, license key codes, dongles, product activation and other administrative nightmares, all of which add no function to the end solution at all and only serve as mechanisms to grant the user the priviledge of running an application. And as promising as Longhorn looks, MS is re-inventing the wheel in a blatant attempt to lock the industry into it's own solutions. Really, what is the point of creating XAML when open standards were already there? Longhorn also looks set to break a lot of compatibility and be even more resource hungry than ever.
I think _every_ professional should know as much about MS's plans as possible. Likewise they should all know as much as possible about development in Linux and Free Software in general (you know damn well many in MS are studying up on the "enemy"). How else can anybody be competitive? It is only wise to bet on both horses here in particular. With Longhorn so far from release and the potential for a disconnect in terms of hardware and software compatibility with previous versions of Windows, Linux is poised to make a breakthrough. Hopefully Those in the Linux camp can "steal" the best ideas from Longhorn and execute them with characteristically more elegant, interoperable design.
It's not like his eZine was dissing Windows XP or MS Office. The article still derides Free Software advocates by calling them "propeller headed geeks" and so on, and does suggest Firefox is somewhat less capable than IE because the fancy menus on Slate do not work (even though there are definitely platform-agnostic methods to achieve the exact same effect). Despite that, the article is very favourable to Mozilla's stable of products which is nice.
Anyways I don't think anyone will lose their jobs over this:
* IE doesn't make MS any money--it has been bundled into Windows XP so there is no lost revenue (at least for the short and medium term) if users switch en masse to another browser.
* MS has integrated IE into Windows so tightly that you cannot avoid it. You need IE to run Windows update, and a lot of software uses IE DLLs to function (even a lot of third party Windows-based software). Using Firefox to browse web pages doesn't completely obsolete IE
* Microsoft is doing enough on its own to obsolete IE--in fact they seem to encourage anything that will obsolete it. IE development has basically been abandoned since Windows XP was released (and even before 2002 there was little improvement). The Slate article just helps things along a bit.
* Anything that makes a Microsoft property look like it isn't part of a big machine bent on world domination is welcome--especially if it doesn't have a meaningful impact on the bottome line.
So that leaves one thought: Why does MS seem to be abandoning IE?
I think it has already been touched on by some here. Web browsing and other internet-related tasks are being integrated even further into future versions of Windows. Longhorn is supposed to be re-worked top to bottom to incorporate XML-based protocols, better support distributed computing technology (web services and so on). What is your machine and what is the internet is supposed to become almost seamless.
In achieving that goal IE has to disappear in BillG's eyes. Not only that, (X)HTML has to recede into the background as well--it is a document markup language at its roots and is poorly suited to development of highly interactive applications. Never mind that there are vendor-neutral/open standards emerging (XForms, XUL, SVG, etc)--they are not yet as established as HTML. MS sees this as a new opportunity to use Longhorn to establish an MS-controlled platform again using XAML and Avalon.
I think that BillG himself actually despises IE. The design is antiquated and insecure at its heart. The code probably gets more and more unmanageable with time judging by how often one patch sometimes creates other bugs. First and formost, however, by throwing resources as IE microsoft would prolong what it sees as "yesterday's Internet". Ideally, Longhorn would be released without any visible indication of a separate browser and enough HTML support to make existing sites function. As Longhorn grows in market share, MS hopes that sites start incorporating MS-specific protocols like XAML to transform websites into really interactive, whiz-bang internet applications that break completely in IE or Mozilla or any other mere browser on a competing or obsolete platform.
No, there will be no firings at Slate over this editorial stance. Far from it--it is probably quite compatible with the Chief Architect's long-term vision.
...of two steps to simulate DOS/Win9x/WinME filesystem security. the second step is, of course:
.*
.VBS files anyways...
chmod -R 777
Now you don't have to worry about all that confusing file ownership and access business like you do in that really hard "lyenucks" system. It all get in the way of running those helpfil
I find Jakob Nielsen's site quite easy to use. I'm not well versed in ALL te usability guidelines out there, but it is refreshing in at least a few ways:
* It loads quickly. There are no annoying animated, graphical buttons, intrusive pop-up/pop-under/pop-in ads, or flash animations on the page.
* It does not break at different window sizes right down to 640 * 480. Sure, nobody uses a PC at 640 * 480 anymore, but I hate having to maximize my browser and cover up other stuff on my desktop so that a page will display properly. Conversely, it is quite stupid to maximize your browser and find the whoe page is STILL locked to a strip 800 pixels wide down the middle of my screen.
* The site does not override your browser's text size settings. A lot of sites use microscopic text and do not allow you to use your browsers text size feature. When you have bad eyesight (as I do) this can make a page unreadable to the point of uselessness.
* Consistent formatting is used. Links are all formatted the same way, and there are visual cues indicating there are links. I HATE it when links are not underlined or bolded or placed in button-like boxes. I also hate even more seeing underlined text in a different colour that is NOT a link. Neilson uses the same font style and colours for links throughout the page.
* Simple, neat layout. No horizontal scrolling, nothing really gets lost in the layout.
Now for what I DON'T like:
(I can't believe I have the gaul to actually suggest improvements to a recognized expert in the industry much less criticism)
* White, bright yellow and cyan is harsh on the eyes (unless perhaps you are colour blind). Even if you want a low-bandwidth, light-graphics page there is a lot you can do with a stylesheet to implement attractive font and colour selections to make a professional-looking, readable and user-friendly site.
* The news section appears not to be sorted in any particular way, and could use perhaps some subcatigories within that section.
* The page is link heavy, so perhaps they shouldn't be "in-line" formatted. "Block" formatted links that look like section titles (with non-link descriptive text underneath) might be easier on the eyes, although I don't think is needed to improve the usability.
* Font selection and paragraph spacing effectively separate the various sections, however I find alternating background colours would provide even better delineation. Think of the old computer paper with alternating pale-green-and-white bands for every five lines of text. "Alert Box" could be pale green, "Reports" would be white, "Film" pale green, "Books" white etc. Too maky colours would look dumb but two or three would look fine.
Just my thoughts. Neilson is indeed a "luddite" of sorts--it seems that in his ideal web all links would be blue and underlined and the page whould have to load on IE 2.0, but he offers critically important advice. Of particular importance I think is CONSISTENCY, SIMPLCITY and EFFICIENCY.
Ninety percent of flash animation should be eliminated, as should almost all animated, graphical buttons. In coroporate sites in particular, navigation is too complex--we have visually stunning but confusing "start-menu" style multi-level animated menus and get mired in a maze of documents (hance the need for all the serach tools). However, things seem to be getting worse instead of better. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back to the centre soon...
...so I prefer alternative fuels. I suggest NutriGrain cereal bars. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign energy resources, I find they...ummm...burn far cleaner than burritos, if you know what I mean ;-) .
...The idea has been covered here before. Of course, this time around students are paying a lot more ($4000) so I guess that part is new ;-)
...that is Millenium Edition!
I followed the link and was amused by the "don't miss" section at the bottom. ALL the links are things like "get Windows XP now" and "the benefits of XP" and "see the great reviews of XP here!".
There is also a link on that page to the amusing Windows ME support page there. The TOP article in the support archive? "How to UNinstall Windows ME"! Apparently the removal of WinME is a commonly suggested remedy by Microsoft to fix a PC that won't boot properly.
I'd have to say that that is one point where I actually agree strongly with Microsoft!
If an Xbox 2 can be converted to an Xbox 2.1 with a CD that flash-upgrades the OS, then we have a new paradigm in game consoles.
Such an "innovation" introduced to the console is a double edged sword. I'd advise against going that route myself as it would enable all that is bad and wrong about the proprietary software world (led by Microsoft) to infect the console market.
I haven't owned a console in my adult life (although I was quite a fan of the Colecovision), so maybe my perspecive is skewed. However, don't most people buy consoles because they want to play games with a high entertainment value and great sound and graphics without the troubles and complexity involved with PCs? I'd say most people with consoles also own PCs, and if it was just a matter of wanting to play games then the market for consoles wouldn't be nearly as large as it is today--most people would play on the PC, perhaps electing to equip their PCs with TV-out for big-screel livingroom experience.
I figure if you have to worry about buying a flash upgrade CD every few weeks or months or having to use your x-box live subscription to run "x-box update" regularly because the product was slapped together and rushed to market to beat the competition then you might as well stick with your PC. The last thing a kid needs to worry about is having his x-box turned into a spamming zombie because he forgot to load in the upgrade CD before connecting to his buddy for network play.
...of environmental conservation. They are:
1. Reduce
2. Re-use
3. Recycle
IN THAT ORDER OF IMPORTANCE. Yes, ultimately anything can be recycled, but recycling still requires energy and has an environmental impact.
The only widespread commercial use of TDP at the moment involves waste from food production. Food scraps, sewage and so on are basically "natural" organic waste. Things like CDs and DVDs are make from plastics--an organic chemistry process but still an "artificial" polymer. There are also a lot of inorganic components in the various layers, requiring extra energy and time to process out and re-use.
The best known commercial application (involving the turkey waste) has achieved quite a remarkable efficency in making waste into low-grade heating oil (upwards of 85%). However, consider the source--it is renewable. The original energy was from grains/poultry feed and water. Also consider that for every 1000 BTUs of energy stored in the waste only 850 BTUs becomes usable heating oil.
Now think about all these disposable DVDs. They are made from petroleum products--non-renewable oil pulled from the ground. It takes energy to make them to begin with, then it takes more energy to handle the waste (trucks burning fuel to haul the spent waste to a recycling facility). THEN it takes the 15 percent stored in the DVD material to convert it back into heating oil.
Why don't we forget about all of that crap with disposabel DVDs and just heat our homes with the oil that came from the ground in the first place? That would REDUCE how much non-renewable energy we used. When we buy DVDs today they don't become useless garbage in a few hours-- we can RE-USE them. that way we don't even need to RECYCLE them, and we can devote our resources to more effective recycling efforts--particularly those with big payoffs like composting, metal cans, glass bottles, building materials and scrap paper.
Besides the overtly greedy nature of such a scam as disposable media it is also blatantly wasteful. It makes me cringe when people casually throw away empty tins of soup, but at least food is a necessity and there are few proctical alternatives.
In the case of these throw-away DVDs their mere existence offends me. They are not a basic need, and take no less resources to make than a normal DVD--a practical alternative that is very re-usable. I hope they become the miserable flop they deserve to be and that the inventor and company responsible for them end up broke and destitute.
*phew* good to get the nut-case out of me from time to time...but you get the idea---recyclable or not they are a lousy idea.
I'd have to say:
Sony will patent the device and charge substantial license fees to other manufacturers to make them.
Of course this will be pocket change to MS and they will pay the fees and embrace the technology. Look for MS to add "innovations" which only work when the pen is used on MS-based PDAs, cellphones and PCs. Microsoft will try to patent these so Sony and others cannot legally implemetn them.
No bloody way will the pens be given out for free. More than likely they "given away" with other hardware (probably Sony-only, but perhaps some other brands later) but the cost will really be built into the bundled price.
If Sony doesn't try to excessively hoarde the IP then it'll catch on--it's a really cool idea.
Sony does show some promise however--they have embraced Linux on the PS2 and more recent products so they have some interest in Free SOFTWARE. I'm quite confident that they'd fully cooperate in making such a device work with Linux.
The question remains however on what they think of Free HARDWARE (Free in the "libre" sense rather than "gratis"). You'd think they'd learn from the Betamax videotape format, however they have persisted to some degree in repeating the same mistakes. How widely deployed is their "memory stick" technology beyond their own products? Next to nonexistent compared to CF, SD/MMC, etc. Now they've invented yet another format for their PSP portable gaming/multimedia device.
...especially when you cross the Canada-US border. Rogers is bad enough in Canada--It costs $1.25 per minute for air time when I use my phone (on their own network) on the East coast (I live in the West). I never have any idea when I go into the US with my Canadian phone what the hell the US "partner" will extort from me...until I get my bill the following month.
My shocker came when I drove 30 minutes from New Brunswick into Maine and discovered later that the rate went from $1.25 to FOUR DOLLARS PER MINUTE! I expect rates to be high and try to use my phone sparingly, but even a mere 15 minutes can make you bill nasty.
Honestly, why the hell would it be so much more expensive to use my phone in Houlton, ME than in Woodstock, NB just a short drive away? The land-line phone companies, crappy as they are at customer service, seem to have figured out how to make the difference in long distance rates between such locales minimal to nonexistant.
There is no logic at all in how you are charged for cellphone service. I'd blame it on being a "remote" location, but I don't think it's all that remote in that part of Maine, and certainly not any more so than in North Dakota, and the rate there was quite a bit cheaper too. Maybe the Rogers website has changed, but when I tried to get detailed info on US rates it was either absent or too hard to find.
Honestly, what exactly is the reason for all the complexity and inconsistency in cellphone service billing? Is anyone out there in Slashdot-land brave enough to admit they work for a cellphone company and offer some insight? You CAN post anonymously if you're worried about being lynched...
I agree...my argument is that there is an appropriate balance and Microsoft (and many software companies) aren't there yet. I don't think users SHOULD have to worry about software updating to the dregree they have to now. Nor should it be required to worry so much about firewalls.
The types of things users should have to worry about are things like "don't open executable attachments from strangers" and the like. Right now, if you buy a BRAND NEW computer and plug it right into a cable modem you can almost count on getting Sasser or Korgo within minutes. You have to make sure certain services are off, you have a firewall of some kind, etc before even THINKING of connecting the ethernet cable to your PC. That's not acceptable.
To use the well-worn car analogy, when you buy a car now, the most you are told to do is drive easy during the break-in period (and with today's cars you really don't have to worry about that). The "Microsoft car" would be sold to you with an empty fuel tank and no oil, coolant and break fluid ant the tires might even be flat. Furthermore, there would be a factory defect in the antilock breaking system and it would be YOUR responsibility to check to see if it was repaired and make arrangement with the dealer to fix it.
Nothing is perfect of course, but when it comes to computer software, we are stuck with a pretty lousy way of dealing with imperfections.
involved a clique of high school bimbo girls that went bad over a boy (murderous "mean girls" basically). The leader bimbo was a psychopath and in a fit of rage beat the crap out of the bimbo that took her man, tortured her by burning her with cigarettes, then stabbed her several hundred times with cuticle trimmers until she bled to death.
During the investigation and questioning, cellphone records and instant messages were examined, and during questioning the DA lawyers let the girl know that if she kept lying they could examine the test messages that were sent from her phone to find out the truth.
In the show the murderer implicated a fat girl who they always picked on, and when they investigated that route, threatening text messages the bimbo sent to her were factors in the case.
Another interesting issue brought up in that episode was the use of cameras integrated into many cellphones. One of the ways they tormented the big girl was by taking her picture in the locker room after gym class and sending it to a bunch of other students' cellphones accompanied by nasty text messages. Brings up another privacy issue--not because of corporate recordkeeping but because of malicious cellphone users.
As a result of both these new cellphone features that cellphones are being banned outright from various places. At my gym all cellphones are banned from locker rooms because so many have cameras now. During government high school exams and all university final exams they are also banned because of "collaberation" that occurs via text messaging.
Sometimes I wonder if opening these nifty new cans of technology is worth all the worms that tend to come out as well. Technological advancement has been an immense positive contribution to society to be sure, but there are some thinge I can do without. I have used text messages before but I still fail to see what is so great about being able to send a sentence to another phone by labouriously pecking it out on a tiny 12-key pad when I could just phone the damn person and leave a voicemail if they don't answer. The one thing I DO use it for is to get email notifications but I've only ever sent a message from a phone less than a half-dozen times in my life. I'd be fine with receive-only, thanks.
I also fail to see what great benefit there is in being able to snap blurry, VGA-resolution pictures on my phone--very few people ever NEED to do that, and if there is indeed enough demand for it why don't they just put wireless/cellphone transmitters into REAL digital cameras? Then we'd only have to ban CAMERAS from locker rooms (which they have been for ages anyways).
Oh well, technology is grand nonetheless...
Some other great Microsoft innovations:
* A bold new method of shutting down a PC--After all, it's completely logical that the first step in the shutdown process should be to click the "Start" button.
* The system registry--because everybody system needs a single point of failure stored in an opaque, obsfucated, hidden file accessible only through special utilities. You have the choice of getting lost in a giant tree of settings of a "friendly" user interface, with no "undo" button and the ability to cause your machine to stop booting. Alternatively, you can export to text, edit the file and re-import the fatal mistakes when you are done. Brilliant!
* Integrating the GUI (and later the web browser) so tightly with the OS that the OS cannot fully function without them. After all, it's very important to sqeeze the best performance possible out of the graphics system so you can have richly animated menu appearance effects and have the contents of the windows adjust as you drag and resize. That's especially important on a server where the administrator can be watching the screen a whole five percent of the time it's on right?
Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive
Actually, by 1993 or so cross-border shopping and negative trade balances with the US wasn't a problem anymore (it was an election year and barely registered compared to Meech Lake Accord, gov't patronage, defecit, Quebec separatists, etc). The problem came to prominince in the late 80's and peaked around 1990.
And the high dollar did in deed have an impact--it was about 85 cents US when the problam was at its worst, and after the 1993 election, recession, separatist referendum, etc etc the dollar plunged in value into the 60s. Now with a bit lower dollar plus NAFTA things are better for our exporters. However the dollar got so low that it hurt is in global competition as import-dependent businesses were hit hard in the bottom line. It seems generally accepted that with our economic conditions a dollar in the mid 70's in US cents is the best balance, although other factors (taxation, oil prices, gov't policy, etc etc) can affect that balance point.
If they find the ads distasteful they aren't forced to view them. Conversely, the site has every right to show the ads. Both sides have their rights, and both have to accept the consequences. Viewers might miss some quality content, but you only piss off your audience so long before the go along with a bunch of advertising revenue.
Also, think of this: Microsoft has seemed quite assured of its superiority but how often do you see IBM ads touting Linux on a Microsoft-branded site such as MSNBC, MSN.COM, Slate etc? Or Sun pushing Java? Or Oracle boasting about their powerful databases? They aren't there with ads AT ALL much less ones that are critical of Microsoft's alternatives.
It has nothing to do with being unsure--it is not professional and looks like desperation (it screams "we'll take advertising money from anyone who offers it to us"). I can completely understand why people are angry.
The ads MS has on Slashdot and other sites are tolerable because THESE SITES DON'T SPECIALISE IN LINUX. They are for general-interest audiences. I don't even have a problem with MS ads on Linux sites if they were relevant (maybe advertising tools for interoperability with other OSes for example, or showing an XBox ad on a gaming or XBox hacking article.
The problem is the ads don't sell their product, they are focused on crapping all over Linux. There is no room for that kind of material on a Linux specialty site, not even in the ads.
It was pretty easy to see from the story that a patch existed and by following the links that it was the same fix as for sasser...
If you haven't patched after two months, you're just the same as all those people who got hit with Blaster, which was also already patched beforehand.
You mean the same as my parents, who until after the Sasser outbreak still had dial-up that refused to connect at 28.8K and found the experience of endlessly downloading patches at a snails pace frustrating at best and impossible at worst? Or like my sister, who bought a new machine with XP factory-installed without the patch released mere days before she purchased the PC and had her computer explioted by the virus literally WITHIN FIVE MINUTES of connecting it to her cable internet?
So many of us slashdot nerds (not to mention Microsoft employees) forget that not everyone has high-speed Internet and is so tech-savvy that they know to plug certain holes, stop certain services, install a firewall and whatever before even going on-line. Nor are there a lot of people willing to put up with all that crap just so they can compute safely.
Linux distros issue security patches for their vulnerabilities weekly and nobody complains, but when Microsoft releases a patch, suddenly it's this huge issue to run a tiny executable that plugs security flaws, and then people bitch at Windows two months later when a virus comes out to exploit it...
Do you even READ the "Linux" advisories? How often do they involve the kernel or critical system components? I see lots of stuff for mail servers, web servers, window managers and so on but nothing for the kernel, filesystem, anything in binutils. Also, how many are remote system vulnerabilities (that is, a person without physical access to the console can obtain root access)? Quite often the risk is limited because full root access is not possible or you require console access, or you have to be running an oddball setup, or exploiting the vulnerability takes some skill.
Contrast with Windows. Blaster and Welchia exploited a DCOM vulnerability with a core component of the OS. Sasser the same thing a few months later. Now this one. All of them could infect a vulnerable PC merely by having them connected to the internet and having a complete moron run set it free to scan the world.
And it's a big deal because it's a PAIN IN THE ASS...it's not like Microsoft runs TV Public service announcements all over the world every time a patch is released, or to educate the uninformed on the importance of running windows update regularly. Oh and by the way, the "tiny executables" can take over an hour just to download one over dialup on a noisy country telephone line. Oh yeah, IT people get a little pissed off when they have come in on a weekend to patch a critical application server because the "tiny little executable" often requires a reboot and subsequent disruption in service. Not so with almost all the "Linux" patches.
How can one criticize their security if they won't apply their security patches? Almost all major software is gonna require a patch eventually.
Easy. I just did above. And yes, software will never be perfect, but eventually shouldn't mean the SAME issues coming up MONTH after MONTH, with new bugs found every time, and fixes for old bugs breaking other things. It's a damn good thing MS and other software vendors don't make a lot of other products. Could you imagine...
*Having to wait in line every month to perform an "engine update" on your car?
*Burning your potroast because a script-kiddie hacked into your oven and set the temperature to 500 degrees?
*Having to mop up the bathroom because your toilet experienced a "buffer overflow" yet again?
*Missing the playoff winning goal because your TV was infested with malware that decided this was the perfect time to launch into an ad for an animal-porn reality TV series?
Somehow, users seem to have the blame pinned on t
You are either genuine in your beliefs and a bit naive or you are master at the subtle troll message and are in fact mocking the clueless among DIY builders (of the type who might make a career of selling at Future Shop/Best Buy).
...Radeon 9800 non-pro for $150...
I bought my Athlon XP 2200+ and ECS motherboard for $70 from fry's
An Athlon XP 2200+ is certainly an adequate performer and an ECS motherboard will do the job, but the old adage "you get what you pay for" still applies. Buying most ECS boards is like buyng generic at the grocery store--it offers a value price but most often is a pale or slightly-off imitation of a top-tier brand and there will be greater variances in quality. Although the risk is still small, you stand a slightly greater chance of relibility problems (dried out capacitors, cooling problems, etc) and will never win a performance contest with higher quality PCs even with an identical processor.
1 gig of ram for $200 after rebates
A good price yes, but the quality argument could be made again. I myself have had little problem with cheap memory--it works well in an office system or a developmetn database machine. However, if performance and reliability were important I'd spring for faster RAM or ECC RAM from a source with a reputation for quality.
Sounds like a fine choice, but...
Overclocked the cpu to 3200+ speed and flashed the 9800 to a pro.
Sound to me to be "just dumb". I've always thought that in most cases overclocking and modding is of dubious economy, although there are certain times when the argument can be made for its value. The whole point of the art of overclocking is to find good quality components with reputations for having a high tolerance for punishment and push them to their maximums.
Judging from the prices I'd say you probably didn't splurge on cooling, and budget components work fine when used as prescribed but they are cheap because there is less room to manoeuvre--if it is supposed to run at speed 'x' then 'x * 1.1' will be unstable. The same goes with the graphics card. The reason it wasn't sold as a pro with pro firmware is because the hardware either failed tests at that level or wasn't tested at tlat level at all. At any rate, it might be fun to do but you obviously care not a whit about stability and have alot of time to deal with intermittent, annoying glitches.
a decent case + power supply $50,
In this case "decent" and "$50" do not compute. I'm sure it would work fine for a budget PC with onboard graphics and sound and no extra toys (I use such case/power supply deals myself) but if you want high-performance this is a bad choice. If you have extra fans (for overclocking you'd have to at least think of it), add-on cards for high-performance graphics and sound, toys like glowing front panels etc etc. then the power supply is going to fall flat. Plus if you are using quality parts you wouln't house them in a cheap tin box--it'd be like putting a hemi in a K-car.
That's under $800 for a top-of-the-line system, when I got it.
That not a real bad price for a PC, but it's far from top-of-the-line. That and I'd have serious doubts about it's dependability for serious applications with the overclocking and firmware mods you made. Even for gaming, if you were a competitive sort you'd get frustrated when it overheats and locks up or get blown to smithereens because of distorted graphics.
I'd say ditch the hardware/firmware mods and the delusions of high-performance you have and just enjoy your machine for what it is: a pedestrian, mid/value range beige box.
Your balls called... they said when you're ready to play CS again they'll be waiting
Seems to be another dilemma...do you sacrifice your balls to save the relationship, or do you hang onto 'em despite the fact you'll not be using them anyways.
My guess is that you and most of your CS buddies are in posession of several pairs of balls in pristine, hardley-or-never-used condition...heh heh...
At any rate...perhaps the solution is to find a clan or whatever that has a single woman in it and date her. She's right over there next to the hen's teeth. You'll be so happy gaming together that you won't even mind that you still aren't getting any sex...