I do not currently filter slashdot's ads (as i do for just about every other site's ads...where would i be without mozilla?) because they are at the top of the screen, are relatively unobtrusive, and are actually sometimes relevant to my interestes. I will not, however, stand for those disgutsting CNET/ZDNET-stle ads. They are just eyesores, and no amount of cool ThinkGeek merchandise can make them worth looking at. So, if you [slashdot management types] think you'll be making more money with bigger ads, think again. You will just be offending lots of customers and making people like myself (who don't mind your current advertisement scheme) start not looking at ads at all. That said, I hope other readers are stupid enough not to care.
Microsoft's biggest fear
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Microsoft's biggest underlying fear is that it will become like IBM - ?a company that still has a strong business but no longer sets computing standards."
Microsoft's biggest fear is that it will not make money. I don't think they really care about setting standards all that much. A lot of their productcs are just playing catch up in order to cash in on the Windows enterprise (I point to SQL Server as an example...pretty much catching up to Oracle and the like--this is MS just trying to make a buck). Granted, they are very afraid that they will lose the stronghold on the OS market because it is an enormous cash-cow. Windows operating systems bring in tons of money, as does Office on those operating systems. Sales of development tools, server configurations, games, and everything else that depends on the success of Windows are huge; I think it is safe to say that this accounts for nearly all of their revenue. So yes, inasmuch as losing the standard-setting position in the OS/desktop market will significantly lessen their profit potential, Microsoft is afraid of "becom[ing] like IBM," but let's be real here...money is the main concern.
Sorry, but I think you might be mistaken. As far as I can tell, people will be able to encode their own.nap files from mp3, cd, etc. and will be able to share freely. For someone to download from someone else, the downloader will have to pay Napster a fee. If they don't do it this way and instead they do it the way you suggest, then they are the same as emusic and are stupid because emusic drops several million each quarter and will soon be on the internet trash heap. Well, it was clear long ago that Napster was headed to said trash heap as well. What a shame, Napster was pretty nice in its hey-day.
Actually, early versions of Napster did offer file resuming. I used the original Napster v2.0 (with resuming) until they blocked every client pre-beta 9. I used beta 9 for a while, but once all my searches showed no results, I switched over to Gnutella and others. Now Bearshare is my primary client, but I also use Gnucleus (though it's not as stable) and Limewire (though it's not as fast and doesn't yield as good results). Morpheus is supposed to be good (same as Kazaa, I think) and there is also WinMX, Audiogalaxy, iMesh, etc. though I can't really say yet how good they are. I guess time will tell.
Before Napster went to shit, but after it was clear that this was inevilable, I downloaded 24/7 to get everything I possibly could while the service was still usable. Now I share my files on gnutella. There are more like me, have faith:-).
"...How long before MSNBC requires it? Windows? IE? Your Visa company works with Microsoft Money, so you can bet that sooner or later, you'll need passport to balance your checkbook and credit cards. Paranoid delusion? Of course not..."
Actually, I think I heard somewhere that in order to use WinXP's internet features, you will need a Passport account. It will store your user info, preferences, etc. and I wouldn't be surprised if it were tied to that hardware-authentication program they've got coming up.
MS's whole Internet initiative is based on the fact that they own such a large portion of the desktop marketshare and that making all (Internet-connected) Windows users into Passport users will make Microsoft the link between users and the Internet. They will get revenue from refering users to commerce sites, plus some from banner ads due to high traffic on MSN/Passport-enabled sites, and however many other ways they can think to exploit having such a large number of registered users.
Well, the logic in saying that there is a loss in giving away software is that people who would ordinarily pay for the software can get it for no money, and thus the developer of the software does not get the (monetary) compensation he would get under a closed model. Sure, there will be donations, and some people will buy the software prepackaged, even though it is free ($), but there will also be many people who will just take. Even if a company decides to sell GPL software rather than give it away, all it takes is one person to buy it, who can distribute it freely as he sees fit. Many software ventures are purely (or at least in large part) profit-motivated, so the GPL is not good for them, because although it is a sustainable model, it is not optimal if profits are the primary concern. For projects like GNU, where the aim is to better computing, GPL is an excellent model, because anyone can contribute, etc. But it is easy to see why business ventures are afraid that GPL will ruin their profit models.
You sound awfully foolish. Just because it hasn't yet been done doesn't mean it can't. Believe me when I say that I am skeptical as well, but it is not so far-fetched that it is impossible. As long as there is human ambition involved, the sky's the limit.
when you say that some kid ruined your auctions, what do you mean by that? i am fascinated by the dynamics of auctions (online especially) and the economics and psychology involved. please clarify. thanks
ok, so i wasn't so clear. when i said "not any OS," i meant, not any desktop/server/workstation OS. yeah, a cell phone, palm or fridge would need to have an OS and VM to run java, but i know the difference between a VM and a compiler.
ok, i also somewhat misinterpreted the original post. i'm sorry...i didn't mean to flame. my bad.
actually, dumbass, java was originally written with this exact purpose in mind. write once run anywhere means anywhere not any OS. they have run somewhat astray of their goal, but java first came out, it was touted as being a unifying language for devices and computers. cellular phones, organizers, telephones, televisions, portable audio devices, and even your refrigerator, plus a whole bunch of other junk.
maybe i'm missing something, but what taxpayer-funded software is he talking about?
and, isn't the "problem" with free software that if people can freely redistribute and modify it, then sales of the original developer will be hurt, which would cause corporations to be less likely to develop software (and so called innovative technologies)? if the development is being funded by tax money, then there is no need to worry about sales. the developers would continue to do their thing anyway if all they are worried about money and it doesn't make sense to release the software under anything but a free liscence, since the development is already subsidized and freeing the software will win the support of a community of talented developers some of whom are almost always willing to contribute to a worthy project.
someone please clarify.
Re:Oracle/Java on FreeBSD
on
Is BSD Dying?
·
· Score: 1
sounds like real bullshit. sorry, but it had to be said.
in order to really understand quantum computing (to the end of designing quantum computers), you have to know the subtleties of quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics, etc. etc.
maybe this class will tell you "what quantum computing is like," but i don't think it is what he is looking for.
All the stories in the news concerning UNIX and GNU/Linux with respect to GUIs has been talk of GNOME being ported to standard Unix platforms (Sun and HP). Mostly, these moves are profit-motivated; Sun and HP hope to win marketshare by "embracing open-source" (if i hear that phrase in another press release or news.com story, i will go insane). SGI providing their desktop environment for GNU/Linux and other free systems is just another of SGI's moves to improve the viability of these free software systems. Obviously, profit is their ultimate goal, but they are not hoarding their proprietary technologies as much as the other companies are, while using select free software to win brownie points from the free software community. Even if people don't want to use it, it is great that SGI is making so much of their amazing technology free software. It's a shame they have gotten such a bad rap recently and are having trouble making money because SGI is one of the most amazing computer companies in existence. Their systems simply rule and they are one of the only companies i see who makes a real effort to advance free software. SGI deserves the support of the users it benefits.
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX
on
How Qwest Runs Things
·
· Score: 1
Until October 4, 2000, OpenBSD's Website read "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" and "Two years without a local hole in the default install!" The second part was dropped on October 4th (5th, maybe) when a local hole was found in chpass. It still has been three years since the last remote hole in OpenBSD, which is fantastically impressive. OpenBSD (and all BSDs) is open souce. The reason that more security issues are found in Linux is that there are more security issues in Linux. OpenBSD has proven nearly impenetrable in its default install. It is amazing and the other BSDs are very secure as well. GNU/Linux is a great system, and many distros are pretty secure--certainly more secure than windoze, but Linux does not compare to BSD in terms of security, as far as i know. The Linux kernel generall is released more frequently, but OpenBSD is updated daily and currents can be obtained pretty easily. Distributions (the whole system) are generally not released more often than bianually, which is how often OpenBSD (the whole system) is released. OpenBSD was audited for security problems and is just that secure, it's not just that more people look through the Linux code.
honestly, you were not missing a thing. everything on there was about how minimal and difficult BSD systems are. every step of the way, they were discouraging users from setting up BSD systems and spreading misinformation about liscencing, performance, expandability, upgradability, useability, security and anything else you can think of. they did not emphasize any of the strenghts of any of the BSDs. it was overall a pathetic site and will not be missed at all, especially considering how young it is and how many other resources there are for BSD users. it is a shame to see people dropping BSD support, but this site was definitely not worth the bits. just total junk. good riddance, trust me.
next months ruling: all art involving children is banned and all thinking about children is banned (and the thought police will get you if you even try to think about them) because both of these things might allow your pedophilic appetites to be whetted.
Image thumbnails built into the file manager may be nice idea for some, but for (many) others, it is not worth the performance hit or the code bloat. It is good to have snazzy extras as options, which if not enabled will never be loaded, and thus will not take up system resources or introduce potential security problems (not to say that this particular thing does either of these, but there are examples...) GNOME's primary goals should be simplicity and elegance, not (potentially poorly implemented) extra features which slow down users.
...and it's under 2 right now, so wouldn't that mean you're out $15,000? Exactly. End of argument, you win--but hey, can't knock the optimistic attitude:-). don't worry, I bought some AAPL at $25, thinking it was a sure bet. there goes my Nomad Jukebox;) Don't worry, they'll be back. I was going to buy Apple back in 1998 when they were at a (split-adjusted) $8/share (it was about $16 at the time, but they split 2 for 1 since). When the price was at $120, I was kicking myself for listening to my father (I had to...i was in 10th grade, i think, and had no money for investing). Now, I am moderately upset, but now is probably a good time to buy. If they deliver on the macworld promises, and demote the cube to a paperweight, they will have a fine year. Maybe we'll see some now "ihardware" at macworld ny in june. if not, it will be something else spectacular. love itunes:-).
well, i know it is not free (as in GNU) but i thought that sun was planning some weird quasi-open program in which the solaris source would be made available under a highly restrictive liscence. maybe they axed it; i don't know.
there are, however, 2 USB ports and 2 "RS-232C/RS-423 serial ports (DB25)" (i've never heard of those, unless they are just normal serial ports). if one were so inclined, they could hack support for USB (or the other kind of serial) keyboards and mice (isn't the solaris source available now?). If they don't like that, there is always Linux or NetBSD, both of which run on UltraSparc, and maybe this will bring about a port of OpenBSD, which as of now, only supports regular Sparc. Plus, I don't think there is a video adapter.
I do not think that this is common. Most computers need a hub or switch to connect to each other via ethernet. The autosensing ethernet is a fabulous idea. Apple is doing great things with networking technologies. They have built in ethernet (on-board) to every macintosh for a long time now. The G4 desktops all come with built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Even the $1700 dollar model. I think a typical Gigabit card costs about half that. The extra investment is certainly worth the whole computer. The iMac is probably the only $799 computer with built-in ethernet (maybe there are a handful of others, but i would imagine it is a PCI card). All macs are also airport-wireless enabled, too (the notebooks included). Now is a great time to be a mac-owner. My next computer will probably be a G4 desktop. With iTunes, those things are amazing for audio. OS X is very exciting, too (if a little expensive--but i bet it is worth it).
Slashdot Mirror
I do not currently filter slashdot's ads (as i do for just about every other site's ads...where would i be without mozilla?) because they are at the top of the screen, are relatively unobtrusive, and are actually sometimes relevant to my interestes. I will not, however, stand for those disgutsting CNET/ZDNET-stle ads. They are just eyesores, and no amount of cool ThinkGeek merchandise can make them worth looking at. So, if you [slashdot management types] think you'll be making more money with bigger ads, think again. You will just be offending lots of customers and making people like myself (who don't mind your current advertisement scheme) start not looking at ads at all. That said, I hope other readers are stupid enough not to care.
I heard there was spyware in bearshare, but I've never heard exactly what it does. any details? whatever you can tell me would be appreciated.
Sorry, but I think you might be mistaken. As far as I can tell, people will be able to encode their own .nap files from mp3, cd, etc. and will be able to share freely. For someone to download from someone else, the downloader will have to pay Napster a fee. If they don't do it this way and instead they do it the way you suggest, then they are the same as emusic and are stupid because emusic drops several million each quarter and will soon be on the internet trash heap. Well, it was clear long ago that Napster was headed to said trash heap as well. What a shame, Napster was pretty nice in its hey-day.
Actually, early versions of Napster did offer file resuming. I used the original Napster v2.0 (with resuming) until they blocked every client pre-beta 9. I used beta 9 for a while, but once all my searches showed no results, I switched over to Gnutella and others. Now Bearshare is my primary client, but I also use Gnucleus (though it's not as stable) and Limewire (though it's not as fast and doesn't yield as good results). Morpheus is supposed to be good (same as Kazaa, I think) and there is also WinMX, Audiogalaxy, iMesh, etc. though I can't really say yet how good they are. I guess time will tell.
:-).
Before Napster went to shit, but after it was clear that this was inevilable, I downloaded 24/7 to get everything I possibly could while the service was still usable. Now I share my files on gnutella. There are more like me, have faith
"...How long before MSNBC requires it? Windows? IE? Your Visa company works with Microsoft Money, so you can bet that sooner or later, you'll need passport to balance your checkbook and credit cards. Paranoid delusion? Of course not..."
Actually, I think I heard somewhere that in order to use WinXP's internet features, you will need a Passport account. It will store your user info, preferences, etc. and I wouldn't be surprised if it were tied to that hardware-authentication program they've got coming up.
MS's whole Internet initiative is based on the fact that they own such a large portion of the desktop marketshare and that making all (Internet-connected) Windows users into Passport users will make Microsoft the link between users and the Internet. They will get revenue from refering users to commerce sites, plus some from banner ads due to high traffic on MSN/Passport-enabled sites, and however many other ways they can think to exploit having such a large number of registered users.
Well, the logic in saying that there is a loss in giving away software is that people who would ordinarily pay for the software can get it for no money, and thus the developer of the software does not get the (monetary) compensation he would get under a closed model. Sure, there will be donations, and some people will buy the software prepackaged, even though it is free ($), but there will also be many people who will just take. Even if a company decides to sell GPL software rather than give it away, all it takes is one person to buy it, who can distribute it freely as he sees fit. Many software ventures are purely (or at least in large part) profit-motivated, so the GPL is not good for them, because although it is a sustainable model, it is not optimal if profits are the primary concern. For projects like GNU, where the aim is to better computing, GPL is an excellent model, because anyone can contribute, etc. But it is easy to see why business ventures are afraid that GPL will ruin their profit models.
You sound awfully foolish. Just because it hasn't yet been done doesn't mean it can't. Believe me when I say that I am skeptical as well, but it is not so far-fetched that it is impossible. As long as there is human ambition involved, the sky's the limit.
when you say that some kid ruined your auctions, what do you mean by that? i am fascinated by the dynamics of auctions (online especially) and the economics and psychology involved. please clarify. thanks
ok, so i wasn't so clear. when i said "not any OS," i meant, not any desktop/server/workstation OS. yeah, a cell phone, palm or fridge would need to have an OS and VM to run java, but i know the difference between a VM and a compiler.
ok, i also somewhat misinterpreted the original post. i'm sorry...i didn't mean to flame. my bad.
actually, dumbass, java was originally written with this exact purpose in mind. write once run anywhere means anywhere not any OS. they have run somewhat astray of their goal, but java first came out, it was touted as being a unifying language for devices and computers. cellular phones, organizers, telephones, televisions, portable audio devices, and even your refrigerator, plus a whole bunch of other junk.
l /sun.html
Oh yeah, and enjoy these links:
http://java.sun.com/j2me/
http://www.palmos.com/alliance/guide/levels/globa
http://www.embedded.oti.com/
maybe i'm missing something, but what taxpayer-funded software is he talking about?
and, isn't the "problem" with free software that if people can freely redistribute and modify it, then sales of the original developer will be hurt, which would cause corporations to be less likely to develop software (and so called innovative technologies)? if the development is being funded by tax money, then there is no need to worry about sales. the developers would continue to do their thing anyway if all they are worried about money and it doesn't make sense to release the software under anything but a free liscence, since the development is already subsidized and freeing the software will win the support of a community of talented developers some of whom are almost always willing to contribute to a worthy project.
someone please clarify.
sounds like real bullshit. sorry, but it had to be said. in order to really understand quantum computing (to the end of designing quantum computers), you have to know the subtleties of quantum mechanics, advanced mathematics, etc. etc. maybe this class will tell you "what quantum computing is like," but i don't think it is what he is looking for.
All the stories in the news concerning UNIX and GNU/Linux with respect to GUIs has been talk of GNOME being ported to standard Unix platforms (Sun and HP). Mostly, these moves are profit-motivated; Sun and HP hope to win marketshare by "embracing open-source" (if i hear that phrase in another press release or news.com story, i will go insane). SGI providing their desktop environment for GNU/Linux and other free systems is just another of SGI's moves to improve the viability of these free software systems. Obviously, profit is their ultimate goal, but they are not hoarding their proprietary technologies as much as the other companies are, while using select free software to win brownie points from the free software community. Even if people don't want to use it, it is great that SGI is making so much of their amazing technology free software. It's a shame they have gotten such a bad rap recently and are having trouble making money because SGI is one of the most amazing computer companies in existence. Their systems simply rule and they are one of the only companies i see who makes a real effort to advance free software. SGI deserves the support of the users it benefits.
Until October 4, 2000, OpenBSD's Website read "Three years without a remote hole in the default install!" and "Two years without a local hole in the default install!" The second part was dropped on October 4th (5th, maybe) when a local hole was found in chpass. It still has been three years since the last remote hole in OpenBSD, which is fantastically impressive. OpenBSD (and all BSDs) is open souce. The reason that more security issues are found in Linux is that there are more security issues in Linux. OpenBSD has proven nearly impenetrable in its default install. It is amazing and the other BSDs are very secure as well. GNU/Linux is a great system, and many distros are pretty secure--certainly more secure than windoze, but Linux does not compare to BSD in terms of security, as far as i know. The Linux kernel generall is released more frequently, but OpenBSD is updated daily and currents can be obtained pretty easily. Distributions (the whole system) are generally not released more often than bianually, which is how often OpenBSD (the whole system) is released. OpenBSD was audited for security problems and is just that secure, it's not just that more people look through the Linux code.
honestly, you were not missing a thing. everything on there was about how minimal and difficult BSD systems are. every step of the way, they were discouraging users from setting up BSD systems and spreading misinformation about liscencing, performance, expandability, upgradability, useability, security and anything else you can think of. they did not emphasize any of the strenghts of any of the BSDs. it was overall a pathetic site and will not be missed at all, especially considering how young it is and how many other resources there are for BSD users. it is a shame to see people dropping BSD support, but this site was definitely not worth the bits. just total junk. good riddance, trust me.
no offense, but you used "AFAICT" too much today.
Yes, once would also have been too much.
next months ruling: all art involving children is banned and all thinking about children is banned (and the thought police will get you if you even try to think about them) because both of these things might allow your pedophilic appetites to be whetted.
Image thumbnails built into the file manager may be nice idea for some, but for (many) others, it is not worth the performance hit or the code bloat. It is good to have snazzy extras as options, which if not enabled will never be loaded, and thus will not take up system resources or introduce potential security problems (not to say that this particular thing does either of these, but there are examples...) GNOME's primary goals should be simplicity and elegance, not (potentially poorly implemented) extra features which slow down users.
...and it's under 2 right now, so wouldn't that mean you're out $15,000? :-). ;) :-).
Exactly. End of argument, you win--but hey, can't knock the optimistic attitude
don't worry, I bought some AAPL at $25, thinking it was a sure bet. there goes my Nomad Jukebox
Don't worry, they'll be back. I was going to buy Apple back in 1998 when they were at a (split-adjusted) $8/share (it was about $16 at the time, but they split 2 for 1 since). When the price was at $120, I was kicking myself for listening to my father (I had to...i was in 10th grade, i think, and had no money for investing). Now, I am moderately upset, but now is probably a good time to buy. If they deliver on the macworld promises, and demote the cube to a paperweight, they will have a fine year. Maybe we'll see some now "ihardware" at macworld ny in june. if not, it will be something else spectacular. love itunes
well, i know it is not free (as in GNU) but i thought that sun was planning some weird quasi-open program in which the solaris source would be made available under a highly restrictive liscence. maybe they axed it; i don't know.
there are, however, 2 USB ports and 2 "RS-232C/RS-423 serial ports (DB25)" (i've never heard of those, unless they are just normal serial ports). if one were so inclined, they could hack support for USB (or the other kind of serial) keyboards and mice (isn't the solaris source available now?). If they don't like that, there is always Linux or NetBSD, both of which run on UltraSparc, and maybe this will bring about a port of OpenBSD, which as of now, only supports regular Sparc. Plus, I don't think there is a video adapter.
I do not think that this is common. Most computers need a hub or switch to connect to each other via ethernet. The autosensing ethernet is a fabulous idea. Apple is doing great things with networking technologies. They have built in ethernet (on-board) to every macintosh for a long time now. The G4 desktops all come with built-in Gigabit Ethernet. Even the $1700 dollar model. I think a typical Gigabit card costs about half that. The extra investment is certainly worth the whole computer. The iMac is probably the only $799 computer with built-in ethernet (maybe there are a handful of others, but i would imagine it is a PCI card). All macs are also airport-wireless enabled, too (the notebooks included). Now is a great time to be a mac-owner. My next computer will probably be a G4 desktop. With iTunes, those things are amazing for audio. OS X is very exciting, too (if a little expensive--but i bet it is worth it).