> Gotta love that quote though. People don't use the word 'ballyhooed' anything like enough.
That's probably why he's the VP of a big corp, and we're just ordinary geeks.
I'm going to start saying "ballyhooed" once a day, to see if it gives my career a boost. Maybe I'll throw in a "23-skidoo" every week or two as well.
--
Re:The "Joy Of Sex" pun will be lost of most of us
on
Joy of Linux
·
· Score: 1
>...because, for the average IT guy, the "joy of sex" consists of a few self-administered minutes of looking at the SI swimsuit issue in their parents' bathroom.
Nah, for the average IT guy the "joy of sex" is a new computer. Or if he's done without for a few days, he'll settle for for a point-release kernel upgrade.
> Among the sad parts about many of the DMCA cases is use of poor protection schemes.
The companies probably find weak schemes more useful. At least weak encryption lets them get people thrown in jail.
Meanwhile, Taiwan is spewing a steady stream of bootlegs, and the companies can't do a darn thing about it. If they started using strong encryption, they wouldn't even have the satisfaction of seeing someone slammed in the pokey now and then.
> I also don't support a government that believes in wholesale destruction of the constitution to fulfill their agenda.
What chaps me about law enforcement is that every time a new technology comes out they assume that the constitution doesn't apply to it, and they walk on our constitutional freedoms until the courts reaffirm the constitution. Can't they see that the phrases "secure in their persons and property" and "unreasonable search and seizure" don't have anything to do with what technology is involved?
IMO, "zero tolerance" should start with the lawmakers and law enforcers. How can they expect us to behave when they don't?
> Think about it: Linux would no longer have to try to be both a server OS and a desktop OS (and an embedded OS too, now, it would seem), but could concentrate on being the best server OS out there.
Why does Linux need to concetrate on an application? An operating system is just that: an operating system. It needs to provide services and referee access to resources. It shouldn't care what is layered on top of it.
I haven't got anything against the Mac, but with the Mac Apple introduced an evil paradigm: the UI is part of the OS. Microsoft picked up on that paradigm and actively worked hard to weed out the underlying OS (or at least to hide it). That's a move in the wrong direction.
The reason Linux is doing well everywhere from mainframes to superclusters to servers to desktops to embedded devices, is that it doesn't try to be anything other than an operating system. It provides some basic services. Other people decide what to do with those services.
Lots of other OSes have done the same in the past. Let's don't rush to give up the good ideas.
> Obviously, AtheOS can't compare to Linux, BSD and even Win2k in terms of "what it does and how reliably it does it". But then again, neither could Linux in 1992.
Yes, I didn't intend to dis AtheOS for immaturity. It is, after all, version 0.3.5. When I mention features, I mean things like "what is its security model?", "what kind of system calls does it support?", etc.
> It has a very modular design (microkernel based?), allowing new components to be added without core modifications.
Yes, that's a legitimate OS design feature. But notice that it doesn't have anything to do with the choice of language.
> Perhaps the most important quality of any new OS is how easy it is to develop and extend and the quality of the core system design. I haven't looked at the source yet, but it seems to score very well on both those fronts. It's done in C++, which I personally find much more pleasing and useful than C.
Yes, if I had other reasons to create a new OS, then I would consider my choice of language very carefully. But to push an OS to users on the grounds that it's written in $LANGUAGE is, IMO, just silly.
Also, I trust your comment has to do with the ease of maintaining the OS. Please, please, please don't tell me that AtheOS requires you to program applications in C++. An general purpose OS should be agnostic about what language an application is written in.
BTW, I'm not trying to dis C++. FWIW, in circles where my favorite language is discussed, the suggestion comes up about once a quarter, "Why don't we write an OS in $LANGUAGE?" My response there is just the same: "What a stupid reason to write a new OS!" I certainly wouldn't switch to a new OS if the only thing it had to offer was that it was written in my favorite language.
If someone wants to push an OS, let them push it on the basis of what it is, not what language it's written in.
"And if the NASA people really want to know what happened eons ago, they ought to consult a certain book's chapter bearing the same name as this mission. The answers are already there."
I can't fathom the common notion that you can put an "Intuitive UI" on a Turing complete device.
The presupposition is that people are born with an intuition about what is computationally possible, along with an intuition about some "right way" for every possible computation should be expressed. Neither is remotely near the truth.
In practice, "Intuitive UI" tends to be a euphemism for "straitjacket". You could build a computer with nothing but a single toggle switch for its UI, but you would find it inconvenient if you had more than two things you wanted the computer to do.
The nice thing about UNIX and its clones--along with MVS and VMS and almost every operating system that came along before the Mac--is that it's a full-featured OS that lets you do almost anything a computer can do, and do lots of it pretty easily if you can be bothered to learn the arcana of expressing exotic computational requirements.
However, those OSes will also let you cover them with an optional straitjacket if you do want to limit their operations, say for a net kiosk or a POS system. But not everyone wants a POS system (pardon the pun!).
Simply put, Windows and Mac have traditionally been designed to make life easy for Joe User by filtering out the complexity of general-purpose computing, i.e., Joe User runs a handful of apps, and that's "computing" for him. But lots of people need computers that are general-purpose computers rather than expensive limited-purpose appliances, and for us the "hide the complexity" strategy makes life more difficult rather than more comfortable. No one can make a menu that lists every operation I want my computer to undertake, because even I don't know today what I might ask of it tomorrow.
> This is probably exactly what the guy's entire problem was. He was standing there, under attack, and thinking "Gee, I wish I had something that was suitable for use as a weapon, but all I have is this copper axe."
IIRC, he was found with partially finished bow and arrows. Looks like "they" found him before he was ready for them.
Other pages disagree on whether or not he was a meat eater; some say that the (purported) fact that he wasn't a meat eater means that his bow and arrows were for fighting rather than for hunting.
Also of interest, his bow apparently qualifies as a "longbow". See the entries for "iceman bow" and "longbo" at this site.
> What you do is let out a sharp whistle as soon as the said varment is spooked, as it is running away. You'd be amazed how often the creature stops in its tracks and turns to look at you. Of course it might start running again after it notices you, but try it.
You know, that's almost exactly what happens when I whistle at girls, too.
> when I read the following paragraph from the article:
"Windows has always been designed as an open platform that creates new business opportunities for many third parties, including some of our toughest competitors"
It does create new business opportunities... as in "find another line of work".
> I'm not sure viruses are any different -- we just need to secure our damned software.
Right. As someone pointed out yesterday, the federal idea about making software more secure is to fund an army of prosecutors. But what the heck do lawyers have to do with software security?
I suggest the opposite: legalize cracking. The h@x0rz would have a field day for about a month, but after that the world would be running (fairly) secure software, and sysadmins who don't have a clue will be sacking groceries.
--
Re:Fight your techno-geek addiction...
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 2
> I make it a rule, despite my huge craving for anything new and shiny, to hold off on buying the first versions of anything.
As for \me, I'd rather see them spending the money improving content rather than improving format. High-definition crap is still crap, and so is most of what I see on the telly.
Slashdot Mirror
> It appears unsalvagable -- can't we just hit the reset button and start from scratch?
Yes, if you're refering to the civilization reset button on the US President's "football".
> > How can this guy sleep at night?
> On gold-lined silk pillows, while throngs of bare-naked nymphs...
Somehow I suspect that under those circumstances I'd get rather less sleep than I do now.
--
> When those icons are irrelevent to to the actual core non-marketing functions of the system.
I liked the description of the Windows boot screen as "an ad for a product you already bought".
Sorry; can't remember where I read that. It's been a few years.
--
> Gotta love that quote though. People don't use the word 'ballyhooed' anything like enough.
That's probably why he's the VP of a big corp, and we're just ordinary geeks.
I'm going to start saying "ballyhooed" once a day, to see if it gives my career a boost. Maybe I'll throw in a "23-skidoo" every week or two as well.
--
> ...because, for the average IT guy, the "joy of sex" consists of a few self-administered minutes of looking at the SI swimsuit issue in their parents' bathroom.
Nah, for the average IT guy the "joy of sex" is a new computer. Or if he's done without for a few days, he'll settle for for a point-release kernel upgrade.
--
> Hey, with our current president, we may see a sequel.
You refer, of course, to the Faith Based Missle Defense?
--
> Among the sad parts about many of the DMCA cases is use of poor protection schemes.
The companies probably find weak schemes more useful. At least weak encryption lets them get people thrown in jail.
Meanwhile, Taiwan is spewing a steady stream of bootlegs, and the companies can't do a darn thing about it. If they started using strong encryption, they wouldn't even have the satisfaction of seeing someone slammed in the pokey now and then.
--
Yeah, poor girl, both of her husbands are in jail!
--
> So I propose that the US and Russia have a good, old fashioned, prisoner exchange.
Yeah, I can't help but think that, at least in some sense, Dmitry is just a pawn in the neo- cold war.
--
> I also don't support a government that believes in wholesale destruction of the constitution to fulfill their agenda.
What chaps me about law enforcement is that every time a new technology comes out they assume that the constitution doesn't apply to it, and they walk on our constitutional freedoms until the courts reaffirm the constitution. Can't they see that the phrases "secure in their persons and property" and "unreasonable search and seizure" don't have anything to do with what technology is involved?
IMO, "zero tolerance" should start with the lawmakers and law enforcers. How can they expect us to behave when they don't?
--
> Think about it: Linux would no longer have to try to be both a server OS and a desktop OS (and an embedded OS too, now, it would seem), but could concentrate on being the best server OS out there.
Why does Linux need to concetrate on an application? An operating system is just that: an operating system. It needs to provide services and referee access to resources. It shouldn't care what is layered on top of it.
I haven't got anything against the Mac, but with the Mac Apple introduced an evil paradigm: the UI is part of the OS. Microsoft picked up on that paradigm and actively worked hard to weed out the underlying OS (or at least to hide it). That's a move in the wrong direction.
The reason Linux is doing well everywhere from mainframes to superclusters to servers to desktops to embedded devices, is that it doesn't try to be anything other than an operating system. It provides some basic services. Other people decide what to do with those services.
Lots of other OSes have done the same in the past. Let's don't rush to give up the good ideas.
--
> Obviously, AtheOS can't compare to Linux, BSD and even Win2k in terms of "what it does and how reliably it does it". But then again, neither could Linux in 1992.
Yes, I didn't intend to dis AtheOS for immaturity. It is, after all, version 0.3.5. When I mention features, I mean things like "what is its security model?", "what kind of system calls does it support?", etc.
> It has a very modular design (microkernel based?), allowing new components to be added without core modifications.
Yes, that's a legitimate OS design feature. But notice that it doesn't have anything to do with the choice of language.
> Perhaps the most important quality of any new OS is how easy it is to develop and extend and the quality of the core system design. I haven't looked at the source yet, but it seems to score very well on both those fronts. It's done in C++, which I personally find much more pleasing and useful than C.
Yes, if I had other reasons to create a new OS, then I would consider my choice of language very carefully. But to push an OS to users on the grounds that it's written in $LANGUAGE is, IMO, just silly.
Also, I trust your comment has to do with the ease of maintaining the OS. Please, please, please don't tell me that AtheOS requires you to program applications in C++. An general purpose OS should be agnostic about what language an application is written in.
BTW, I'm not trying to dis C++. FWIW, in circles where my favorite language is discussed, the suggestion comes up about once a quarter, "Why don't we write an OS in $LANGUAGE?" My response there is just the same: "What a stupid reason to write a new OS!" I certainly wouldn't switch to a new OS if the only thing it had to offer was that it was written in my favorite language.
If someone wants to push an OS, let them push it on the basis of what it is, not what language it's written in.
--
> AtheOS is a modern OS, written from scratch using OOP and C++
Do we now judge the merits of an OS based on how it was implemented? Rather than, say, what it does and how reliably it does it?
> it doesn't use X, but rather its native GUI system
Is its "native GUI" part of the OS?
--
"And if the NASA people really want to know what happened eons ago, they ought to consult a certain book's chapter bearing the same name as this mission. The answers are already there."
Trooling for Jesus, are we?
--
> Can anyone point me to a document which explains the logic of /usr, /usr/share, /usr/local, etc.?
See the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
--
> How about an Intuitive UI Instead?
I can't fathom the common notion that you can put an "Intuitive UI" on a Turing complete device.
The presupposition is that people are born with an intuition about what is computationally possible, along with an intuition about some "right way" for every possible computation should be expressed. Neither is remotely near the truth.
In practice, "Intuitive UI" tends to be a euphemism for "straitjacket". You could build a computer with nothing but a single toggle switch for its UI, but you would find it inconvenient if you had more than two things you wanted the computer to do.
The nice thing about UNIX and its clones--along with MVS and VMS and almost every operating system that came along before the Mac--is that it's a full-featured OS that lets you do almost anything a computer can do, and do lots of it pretty easily if you can be bothered to learn the arcana of expressing exotic computational requirements.
However, those OSes will also let you cover them with an optional straitjacket if you do want to limit their operations, say for a net kiosk or a POS system. But not everyone wants a POS system (pardon the pun!).
Simply put, Windows and Mac have traditionally been designed to make life easy for Joe User by filtering out the complexity of general-purpose computing, i.e., Joe User runs a handful of apps, and that's "computing" for him. But lots of people need computers that are general-purpose computers rather than expensive limited-purpose appliances, and for us the "hide the complexity" strategy makes life more difficult rather than more comfortable. No one can make a menu that lists every operation I want my computer to undertake, because even I don't know today what I might ask of it tomorrow.
--
> This is probably exactly what the guy's entire problem was. He was standing there, under attack, and thinking "Gee, I wish I had something that was suitable for use as a weapon, but all I have is this copper axe."
IIRC, he was found with partially finished bow and arrows. Looks like "they" found him before he was ready for them.
Ah! Check this out.
Other pages disagree on whether or not he was a meat eater; some say that the (purported) fact that he wasn't a meat eater means that his bow and arrows were for fighting rather than for hunting.
Also of interest, his bow apparently qualifies as a "longbow". See the entries for "iceman bow" and "longbo" at this site.
--
> that copper axe of his would make much more sense as a weapon
The world's first known hacker!
He was probably shot in the back for revealing that the neighboring village's cave paintings could easily be viewed without paying their fee.
--
> You know you're a nerd when... ...you originally read "GROK" as a verb instead of a name.
LMAO.
--
I'm glad you put out this warning. I've discovered that over 16,000,000 people around the world are claiming my birthday as their own!
--
> What you do is let out a sharp whistle as soon as the said varment is spooked, as it is running away. You'd be amazed how often the creature stops in its tracks and turns to look at you. Of course it might start running again after it notices you, but try it.
You know, that's almost exactly what happens when I whistle at girls, too.
--
> when I read the following paragraph from the article:
"Windows has always been designed as an open platform that creates new business opportunities for many third parties, including some of our toughest competitors"
It does create new business opportunities... as in "find another line of work".
--
> I'm not sure viruses are any different -- we just need to secure our damned software.
Right. As someone pointed out yesterday, the federal idea about making software more secure is to fund an army of prosecutors. But what the heck do lawyers have to do with software security?
I suggest the opposite: legalize cracking. The h@x0rz would have a field day for about a month, but after that the world would be running (fairly) secure software, and sysadmins who don't have a clue will be sacking groceries.
--
> I make it a rule, despite my huge craving for anything new and shiny, to hold off on buying the first versions of anything.
As for \me, I'd rather see them spending the money improving content rather than improving format. High-definition crap is still crap, and so is most of what I see on the telly.
--
> Verifying the American stockpiles will cost on the order of a Billion US Dollars
That sure takes the gleam off the tax refund letter I got yesterday.
--