Correction: "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."
(That's better.)
I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.
Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility???? Aren't they just playing into Micrsofts hands? MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0. What will they do then?
And big labels aren't going to develop titles because 9 out of 10 sales will still be on Windows while 9 out 10 support calls will be for Linux. Imagine staff having to deal with the-kind-who-comment-below. I can just hear it: "Why doesn't your game work with kernel-g.h.j on version d.e.f of my graphics driver you M$ loving r-sole ???!!!"
Thats because most hardware works with Windows out of the box with the non-working driver being the rare exception. In Linux the working driver is the rare exception.
Right! Also, WHO is the "free software community". It doesn't exist. The people on this site mostly DON'T contribute to the source code...
Linux doesn't work for users because of this made-up pseudo-identity of the "free software community" that is supposed to have all these roles and responsibilities, but when it comes down to who is going to pick up the phone and make the call, no one knows who this person is.
There is no free software community. The FSC was a made up concept supposedly distinct in structure compared to other kinds of organizations. Its like the Blimp - it works IN THEORY.
I've got it and moved on little one. If you read RMS yesterday and became a convert you are forgiven. If you read it fifteen years ago and are still wanking with one hand on the keyboard then you ought to get a job and take the picture of mom off your locker. Long live MacOS - you get what you pay for.
You are effectively saying I *should* use Linux *because* hardware manufacturers have a problem.
Er. That doesn't make sense.
I don't care WHERE the problem is. I am a USER and I want my computer to WORK. As a user I ought not to even KNOW the difference between software and hardware, let alone the feud between the manufacturing organization and the Free programmer. Let alone justify my use of the software with some kind of support-of-the-little-guy argument.
I am thankful to developers, but those same developers also tried to convince me that Linux was more useful than it really was and provided a half-baked solution. They were not really honest and you don't sound like you are going to be honest with the user either.
I'd rather pay poolah and give no thanks and get something that works.
And don't come with that "Free" is not "free" kwap. In PRACTICE free and Free have turned out to be the same thing.
If there are two sites and the one requires me to first click on something and install it, and the other JUST WORKS and I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT A SINGLE THING to make it work, then your market is not going to want to bother with the former. Have you ever dealt with a large number of end users? Obviously not. Most people have already spent an evening figuring out the LABORIOUS COMPLEKSITY of installing flash which has more than enough power to run any kind of app that you might want to do in Java Script. Get real.
"How long until Google comes out with a JavaScript intensive application that will practically require Chrome to function?"
Ans: never
because 80-90% of the market will choose not to bother with that application because they don't know how to DAU-EN-LODE and install a different browser.
The sort of people "responding to his blog post" are more likely to be computer "enthusiasts" and more likely to have Linux.
A better question is "how many of these people use Linux EXCLUSIVELY".
This figure would indicate to a software company whether it is worthwhile supporting Linux in addition to Mac and Windows. If your users are already using non-Linux then you are not forcing them to install non-Linux to use your product, so there is no reason to ship a Linux version.
The answer to this question is probably: 0.0001% of people use Linux exclusively.
Look at all the people you know who use Solaris/*BSD/Linux systems of any distribution and almost no-one does not dual boot Mac or Windows for one reason or another, either at home or at work.
Have you actually started a successful startup? Or are you just speaking "theoretically" like most slashdotters.
Most startups fail. The bottom line is that you don't *know* what the real pitfalls are or whether the business is viable. On the bases of the fact that most startups fail, you should do everything yourself to try minimse expenditure.
If you think that this (perfectly logical) approach does not work for you, then you are better off gambling on risky NYSE stocks. Such gambling comes down to the same thing really and consumes a lot less effort.
My advise is to learn to do as much as you can yourself.
Try not to rely on other companies or people for consulting or design (expensive) until you are sure you have hard data proving your design will make money.
Most people think a startup is a risky project to make lots of money. This is a wrong and dangerous point of view.
A startup should be seen as a project to prove the viability of a new business. You can tick it as a success when that viability has been established definitively as "yes" or "no", while at the same time spending as little capital a possible in the process.
Doing as much as possible yourself means less chance waisting capital.
A "parking office" cannot force someone to pay anything. In any case it is not their job to rescind tickets only to issue them. Only a court can force her to pay the ticket. All she has to do is refuse to pay, and at the time when the law proceeds on the case, simply send a letter of explanation to the public prosecutor. The court will then drop the case because it is a well established principle of law that you can break most traffic rules in case of an emergency. She doesn't have to do anything until she gets summoned to court. She doesn't even have to go to court. No court is going to proceed to claim on an unfair ticket.
There are several points you have to pitch to management.
1. First you have to pitch to them that the box is not a piece of hardware + software. It is a piece of hardware. What you run on it is entirely under your control. As a sysadmin or developer this is a combination of your own management scripts, development code, borrowed code to speed development, software development tools (both free and proprietary), and whatever else.
2. YOU are responsible for the box. No support people who give you software ever know how their software works, interacts with other software, or how the operating system that the the software runs on really works. The support people are there to give the pretense that you have a safety net, and to espouse the features of the software. They don't ACTUALLY have a clue. The real people who know the software works are too busy developing the next version.
3. A solaris box (like most proprietary Unixes) is completely UNUSABLE without GNU tools. The very first thing *I* used to when I got a sparc is to install all the GNU tools, IceWM, rxvt, mc, and cooledit. Then I could breath a sigh of relief and actually start doing some work. It's not a matter of degree: If you yourself feel that your solaris box is AT ALL usable in its default state, then you don't know what you are doing in the first place and should spend a few hundred hours learning FreeBSD or Linux first.
If you are asking the question you are, it means that your management is not convinced that you can solve a solaris problem if it arises. In this case I would learn a lot more about Unix to convince them that you are in control and can handle any kind of problem that comes up. Also...
A business's value is in the business processes it sets up. If an employee leaves, it should not break the business. This is why management wants to define what resources are required to keep the box working. They don't want you to be the sole recourse in the event of an emergency.
To convince management, you have to: to write documentation that defines a business process that is greater than yourself. In this way, in the event of your leaving, things will not break down.
You can define a business process by writing a document describing exactly what GNU software you install on the box and how to use it. A process that explains how to train a person to manage that software is essential.
-paul psheer@icon.co.za
Use of the word "geek"
on
GnomeDex 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I find the use of the word "Geek" derogatory. Why do such people find it necessary to define themselves by their group? Or even to bind themselves to a group or character in the first place. Is it not sufficient to leave yourself undefined and be responsive to your environment in your own right.
Calling oneself a "geek" wreaks of embracing oppression as a means to feel liberated. This is insane.
The most talented programmers and technical people I know don't call themselves anything at all.
Traffic sniffing between gateways is actually rarely feasable since it usually requires access to a router squarely in the path of the packets. Most traffic sniffing happens on local LANs with disparate machines that do not support SWAN.
The real use of SWAN is for virtual private networks. However in the common case of a VPN with a group of known gateways, no key exchange is necessary since you could simply share a symmetric key. Preconfiguring a server with a secret symmetric key is easier from a installation+maintanance perspective. And its easy to understand as well --- most admins do not understand public key crypto.
Couple this with the fact that
- Most Linux distributions will not ship with
SWAN enabled by default
- There are significant CPU overheads to
encryption.
- The latency of key exchange is not
insignificant.
- You don't need SWAN to a web server when
you have SSL/TLS. You don't need SWAN to
a shell session when you have SSH or
srptelnet etc....and you will find that few hosts are going to use it IMO.
Of course it's essential that Linux supports it for compatability reasons. So well done to the SWAM team all the same.
-paul
Detailed critisizm of Tim Bray's "Why XML Doesn't.
on
Why XML Doesn't Suck
·
· Score: 1
following the links to find KDB a database system that sits in RAM an kills Oracle dead. It runs some large missions critical databases (like the swiss bank), so you can't argue that it doesn't work.
Most programmers are not female. Using "She" makes the work sound peculiar and unprofessional. It implies a anti-sexist bent which has nothing to do with the subject matter. Either write things in passive verse to avoid pronouns, use "they" or in the few cases where you really need to, use "he". Anyone who thinks this is sexist has a problem which your essay is not here to address.
DHCP is really simple. There are a few implementations that you could easily modify to do what you want.
The idea that you should have to *find* a tool for very specific needs, or even that you should modify your needs to fit available tools, is dogmatic baggage of the proprietary software world.
Really: creating your own server is the only way to go and is quite easy.
Gould may have been a brilliant writer, but at
least one of his works is a complete fraud from
cover to cover. I speak of "The Mismeasure of
Man" - the themes of this book cannot be backed
up by any research on earth. It is all Gould's
own hypothesis. In truth, there is far more
reality and consistency in the science being
done in the world of psychometrics. But don't
believe me, simply try to reference any of his
citations; or analise the logic of his
suppositions. It quickly becomes apparent that
the book is nonsense. Researches in the field do
not respect Gould's opinions. It's a
sensationalist book designed to fabricate a
phantom enemy.
By comparison, a scarcely known book, on
the same subject, by a complete non-expert,
Daniel Seligman's "A Question of Intelligence",
is a relative masterpiece, simply because the
author actually DID SOME RESEARCH before writing
it. Its thorough, factual, objective, and
represents the opinions of real experts in the
field. It also contradicts everything that Gould
ever said on the subject.
It is most dissapointing that people are unable
to tell the difference between a work of hard
science, and a work of speculative
sensationalism. You tell the difference through
the logic of arguments, verifiable citations,
and the breath of literary review.
A work is not true just because its ideas are
cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."
(That's better.)
I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.
Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility???? Aren't they just playing into Micrsofts hands? MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0. What will they do then?
Wave there hands madly in the air, I suppose.
And big labels aren't going to develop titles because 9 out of 10 sales will still be on Windows while 9 out 10 support calls will be for Linux. Imagine staff having to deal with the-kind-who-comment-below. I can just hear it: "Why doesn't your game work with kernel-g.h.j on version d.e.f of my graphics driver you M$ loving r-sole ???!!!"
Thats because most hardware works with Windows out of the box with the non-working driver being the rare exception. In Linux the working driver is the rare exception.
Right! Also, WHO is the "free software community". It doesn't exist. The people on this site mostly DON'T contribute to the source code...
Linux doesn't work for users because of this
made-up pseudo-identity of the "free software
community" that is supposed to have all these
roles and responsibilities, but when it comes
down to who is going to pick up the phone and
make the call, no one knows who this person is.
There is no free software community. The FSC
was a made up concept supposedly distinct in
structure compared to other kinds of organizations. Its like the Blimp - it works IN THEORY.
I've got it and moved on little one. If you read RMS yesterday and became a convert you are forgiven. If you read it fifteen years ago and are still wanking with one hand on the keyboard then you ought to get a job and take the picture of mom off your locker. Long live MacOS - you get what you pay for.
You are effectively saying I *should* use Linux
*because* hardware manufacturers have a problem.
Er. That doesn't make sense.
I don't care WHERE the problem is. I am a USER and
I want my computer to WORK. As a user I ought not
to even KNOW the difference between software and
hardware, let alone the feud between the
manufacturing organization and the Free
programmer. Let alone justify my use of the
software with some kind of support-of-the-little-guy argument.
I am thankful to developers, but those same
developers also tried to convince me
that Linux was more useful
than it really was and provided a half-baked
solution. They were not really honest
and you don't sound like you are going to be
honest with the user either.
I'd rather pay poolah and give no thanks
and get something that works.
And don't come with that "Free" is not "free"
kwap. In PRACTICE free and Free have turned
out to be the same thing.
If there are two sites and the one requires me
to first click on something and install it,
and the other JUST WORKS and I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT A SINGLE THING to make it work, then your market is not going to want to bother with the former. Have you ever dealt with a large number of end users? Obviously not. Most people have already spent an evening figuring out the LABORIOUS COMPLEKSITY of installing flash which has more than enough power to run any kind of app that you might want to do in Java Script. Get real.
"How long until Google comes out with a JavaScript intensive application that will practically require Chrome to function?"
Ans: never
because 80-90% of the market will choose not to
bother with that application because they don't
know how to DAU-EN-LODE and install a different
browser.
The sort of people "responding to his blog post" are more likely to be computer "enthusiasts" and more likely to have Linux.
A better question is "how many of these people use Linux EXCLUSIVELY".
This figure would indicate to a software company whether it is worthwhile supporting Linux in addition to Mac and Windows. If your users are already using non-Linux then you are not forcing them to install non-Linux to use your product, so there is no reason to ship a Linux version.
The answer to this question is probably: 0.0001% of people use Linux exclusively.
Look at all the people you know who use Solaris/*BSD/Linux systems of any distribution and almost no-one does not dual boot Mac or Windows for one reason or another, either at home or at work.
Get real.
Try protobalance.com
Have you actually started a successful startup?
Or are you just speaking "theoretically" like
most slashdotters.
Most startups fail. The bottom line is that you
don't *know* what the real pitfalls are or whether
the business is viable. On the bases of the fact
that most startups fail, you should do everything
yourself to try minimse expenditure.
If you think that this (perfectly logical)
approach does not work for you, then you are
better off gambling on risky NYSE stocks.
Such gambling comes down to the same thing
really and consumes a lot less effort.
My advise is to learn to do as much as you can yourself.
Try not to rely on other companies or people for
consulting or design (expensive) until you are
sure you have hard data proving your design will
make money.
Most people think a startup is a risky project to
make lots of money. This is a wrong and dangerous
point of view.
A startup should be seen as a project to prove
the viability of a new business. You can tick
it as a success when that viability has been
established definitively as "yes" or "no",
while at the same time spending as little capital
a possible in the process.
Doing as much as possible yourself means less
chance waisting capital.
paulsheer@gmail.com
Taxing everyone that owns an Internet connection
is like:
Instead of spending money policing ATM fraud,
let us rather LEGALIZE ATM fraud.
Then tax everyone that has a bank account
so as to offset the economic costs of the
fraud.
A "parking office" cannot force someone to pay anything. In any case it is not their job to rescind tickets only to issue them. Only a court can force her to pay the ticket. All she has to do is refuse to pay, and at the time when the law proceeds on the case, simply send a letter of explanation to the public prosecutor. The court will then drop the case because it is a well established principle of law that you can break most traffic rules in case of an emergency. She doesn't have to do anything until she gets summoned to court. She doesn't even have to go to court. No court is going to proceed to claim on an unfair ticket.
This story is just sensationalist rubbish.
I offer $250'000 for the name of the person that
came up with the idea of the bounty.
--
"Why not instead invest in training your developers
to write secure code?" - anonymous
that some pens work amd others don't
The ones that do you can be sure will work in space
since the gravity is opposing the flow of the ink
when the pen is upside down.
It scares me to think that no-one would consider
this simple experiment.
-paul
There are several points you have to pitch to management.
1. First you have to pitch to them that the box is not a piece
of hardware + software. It is a piece of hardware. What you
run on it is entirely under your control. As a sysadmin or
developer this is a combination of your own management scripts,
development code, borrowed code to speed development, software
development tools (both free and proprietary), and whatever
else.
2. YOU are responsible for the box. No support people who give
you software ever know how their software works, interacts
with other software, or how the operating system that the the
software runs on really works. The support people are there to
give the pretense that you have a safety net, and to espouse
the features of the software. They don't ACTUALLY have a clue.
The real people who know the software works are too busy
developing the next version.
3. A solaris box (like most proprietary Unixes) is completely
UNUSABLE without GNU tools. The very first thing *I* used to
when I got a sparc is to install all the GNU tools, IceWM,
rxvt, mc, and cooledit. Then I could breath a sigh of relief
and actually start doing some work. It's not a matter of
degree: If you yourself feel that your solaris box is AT ALL
usable in its default state, then you don't know what you are
doing in the first place and should spend a few hundred hours
learning FreeBSD or Linux first.
If you are asking the question you are, it means that your
management is not convinced that you can solve a solaris
problem if it arises. In this case I would learn a lot more
about Unix to convince them that you are in control and can
handle any kind of problem that comes up. Also...
A business's value is in the business processes it sets up. If
an employee leaves, it should not break the business. This is
why management wants to define what resources are required to
keep the box working. They don't want you to be the sole
recourse in the event of an emergency.
To convince management, you have to: to write documentation
that defines a business process that is greater than yourself.
In this way, in the event of your leaving, things will not
break down.
You can define a business process by writing a document
describing exactly what GNU software you install on the box
and how to use it. A process that explains how to train a
person to manage that software is essential.
-paul psheer@icon.co.za
I find the use of the word "Geek" derogatory. Why do such
people find it necessary to define themselves by their group?
Or even to bind themselves to a group or character in the
first place. Is it not sufficient to leave yourself undefined
and be responsive to your environment in your own right.
Calling oneself a "geek" wreaks of embracing oppression as a
means to feel liberated. This is insane.
The most talented programmers and technical people I know
don't call themselves anything at all.
Traffic sniffing between gateways is actually
rarely feasable since it usually requires
access to a router squarely in the path of the
packets. Most traffic sniffing happens on local
LANs with disparate machines that do not support
SWAN.
The real use of SWAN is for virtual private
networks. However in the common case of a
VPN with a group of known gateways, no
key exchange is necessary since you could
simply share a symmetric key. Preconfiguring
a server with a secret symmetric key is
easier from a installation+maintanance
perspective. And its easy to understand as
well --- most admins do not understand public
key crypto.
Couple this with the fact that
- Most Linux distributions will not ship with
SWAN enabled by default
- There are significant CPU overheads to
encryption.
- The latency of key exchange is not
insignificant.
- You don't need SWAN to a web server when
you have SSL/TLS. You don't need SWAN to
a shell session when you have SSH or
srptelnet etc.
use it IMO.
Of course it's essential that Linux supports it
for compatability reasons. So well done to the
SWAM team all the same.
-paul
http://threading.2038bug.com/xml-answer.html
-paul
Here is the link that explains the language:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/14/22741/
following the links to find KDB a database system
that sits in RAM an kills Oracle dead. It runs
some large missions critical databases (like the
swiss bank), so you can't argue that it doesn't
work.
-paul
Most programmers are not female. Using "She" makes
the work sound peculiar and unprofessional. It
implies a anti-sexist bent which has nothing to
do with the subject matter. Either write things
in passive verse to avoid pronouns, use "they" or
in the few cases where you really need to, use
"he". Anyone who thinks this is sexist has a
problem which your essay is not here to
address.
DHCP is really simple. There are a few
implementations that you could easily
modify to do what you want.
The idea that you should have to *find*
a tool for very specific needs, or even
that you should modify your needs to fit
available tools, is dogmatic baggage of
the proprietary software world.
Really: creating your own server is the
only way to go and is quite easy.
Cooledit is extensible in Python and has a builtin interface to gdb.
Nothing else comes close.
By comparison, a scarcely known book, on the same subject, by a complete non-expert, Daniel Seligman's "A Question of Intelligence", is a relative masterpiece, simply because the author actually DID SOME RESEARCH before writing it. Its thorough, factual, objective, and represents the opinions of real experts in the field. It also contradicts everything that Gould ever said on the subject.
It is most dissapointing that people are unable to tell the difference between a work of hard science, and a work of speculative sensationalism. You tell the difference through the logic of arguments, verifiable citations, and the breath of literary review.
A work is not true just because its ideas are cool.