As someone who is not a very good perl hacker (I am not a programmer) but who has to write programs anyway, I was glad to actually read the article (no, I am not new here) and find out about the UTF8 problems with 5.8.0. I had been too lazy and ignorant to search for it earlier, but it does explain why some of my code broke when I went from 5.6.x to 5.8. Guess I should have read the docs, since I went through some hoops to change/fix what I didn't understand, and still don't.
The cool thing is, I still get paid for this, even though I have no idea wtf I am doing. Gotta love America.
If non-free software becomes a vital part of Linux (as is already starting to happen), then the choice that GNU set out to provide will be lost.
Exactly what "non-free" software is there in Linux that is vital? SuSe has their installer that is non-free, but so what, you can install it manually if you choose. There are several non-free applications for Linux, but those are applications, not a part of Linux itself. This is actually a good thing, since it takes good applications to make an OS popular, regardless of licensing.
ie: Photoshop for Linux? I will buy it in a snap, since that is one of two apps I run that force me to use windows (the other being Quark). Until the Gimp gets CMYK support, I have no choice.
I know this is going to piss off a few of you, but while I appreciate RMS and what he has accomplished, he is not a god. He is a terribly flawed individual (like the rest of us) that 'invented' a new software philosophy. Sometimes this philosophy gets in the way. He did what seems obvious now, but at the time was revolutionary. For this, I agree "thank you RMS". He is also a great programmer. But not a god.
The problem I have with RMS is how militant he can be about software being free. ALL software. I agree the OS, the platform that all applications run on, is best if free because it levels the playing field for all developers, and increases the possibility that we can create a more secure OS over time. But non-free software is not the devils work. I have no problem with a company having applications that are not free. Like I said, I would buy Photoshop for Linux today.
REAL choice must include closed software, or there is no choice. If you develop a useful program, you should have the choice to decide what license it is released under, including closed licensing. The concept of "freedom" means you are free to chose these programs or open sourced programs, or make your own. Sometimes I feel that Free Software advocates lose this point. Obviously you CAN release your software under any license, but so many FSF advocates look down upon closed software and are closed minded about proprietary software, that it ends up LIMITING choice.
A perfect example is Lindows, which is trashed regularly here because it is not totally free. It seems to me this is hypocritical because people are screaming "give us choice! give us freedom!" then quickly pass judgement on any package that doesn't meet their biased definition of "free".
Free "as in speech" means you have to listen to lots of speech that you don't agree with. If you really believe in Free "as in speech" then you should be more willing to defend things you don't like, purely for the right to be expressed. To do otherwise IS the definition of hypocracy.
I was going to say...i had picked up a copy of slack 9 from cheapiso.com and just go around the installing it the other day. unfortunately, a bad ata controller prevented the full install, (replaced today) but the install process was pretty damn easy. a bit different for those of us used to redhat, but it was pretty easy and almost intuitive. It took about half the time to get to the install that it takes redhat.
The interface is pretty. think good ansi bbs interface:D cant wait until tomorrow, gonna dual boot it with 98 on a 60gb drive, on an old amd 1700xp/512ram box i have. should be interesting.
Mandrake. Almost as easy as Windows (no automatic checking mode turned on). Redhat's up2date is pretty much the same.
Right on the money. I used Mandrake on client machines and RH on servers in the pre-rhn (up2date) days. Now I use just RH, and can update, remove, install, etc. just about any package, even if I am not sitting in front of that particular box.
If the update fails, it tells me and I can do something about it. I can easily make any package where you can't update it or uninstall it unless you do so manually at the box, or not. Never had a problem using it (other than their stupid SSL debacle) in almost 2 years.
Not even Windows (the 'easiest' to use OS) will let you update a computer in Dallas while you are in Houston. Up2date will, and even let you schedule it.
One of my kids is a court lawyer. While the case lasts, the client is as pure as Alaskan snow and is opposed by evil, lying scum. The moment the cash is in the bank the lying loser deserves everything he got. The better you are at thinking like this, the more you really believe it, the better you are as a lawyer. It was said of my father that he could always see at least three sides to any case, so he was hopeless at litigation.
That is a point many lose sight of. Lawyers are not supposed to decide who is right and wrong, thats the judges job. The Lawyer is an advocate, pure and simple. His job is to represent the best interests of his CLIENT, not society at large. Again, that is the judges job. Lawyers are supposed to muddy issues up, and present the best possible spin for his client, within the bounds of the law. In order to do this, you have to often be "devil's advocate".
This is based on my working for years as a Criminal Defense Investigator. My job was to dig up information that helped the client, explore potential information that could hurt the client, and help find precidents that supported the claims of the defendant (paralegal work). It wasn't to prove anything or make moral judgements. Anything less would have not been advocating the position of the client.
This is also why I quit, after I accidently discovered I have a soul. Its a nasty job that has to be done, but I am glad I no longer do it.
There is no surprise here. Do you know anything else SCO is doing for a living besides PR?
Yes, as a matter of fact, they seem to have a business plan that is based upon filing lawsuits and pumping and dumping their own stock. Last I checked, they have yet to make any money purely off their PR ventures, but are doing quite well at pumping and dumping stock, at least on an individual basis.
Reminds me of Homer Simpson (doesn't everything?) when he invested in "pumpkin futures" in October, and was sure that they were going to continue to rise through January...
Its not just a matter of how low you buy, but how high you sell.
Water treatment has saved more lives than any medical discovery,process,whatever.
Don't mean to argue, but you are almost right. Maybe water treatment is the SECOND live saver, but the invention that has increased life expectancy more than any other is actually REFRIGERATION. 100 years ago, food poisoning was way more common, and often the cause of death. Ask an insurance expert, who has access to life expectancy tables for the last 100 or so years.
Even the Simpsons know if you don't have a refrigerator, you should at least put your milk in a cool, wet sack...
Maybe we are. There's an awful lot of unexplained cancer deaths this past 50 years. It's the funniest thing. Before that people didn't really get cancer.
One aspect of what you say is true: People get more cancer now than 50 years ago. Maybe this is because people live MUCH LONGER now than 50 years ago, so they died of other causes before they were old enough to get cancer.
200 years ago no one got Alzheimer's either, but then again, most people died before they were 60....
"Whenever someone thinks that they can replace SSL/SSH with something much better that they designed this morning over coffee, their computer speakers should generate some sort of penis-shaped sound wave and plunge it repeatedly into their skulls until they achieve enlightenment." --Peter Gutmann
Reminds me of the bathroom scene in the original "Scary Movie", where the the guy takes a penis all the way through one ear and out the next. Laughed my ass off. Both times.
Barr was/is considered a weirdo to most of the Republican party. He isn't part of the ruling wing. His help is about equivalent to getting McCain's help - not much.
Hold up...he is NOT considered a weirdo to CONSERVATIVES. He is taken considerably more serious than McCain (McCain/Feingold election reform laws fixed that). McCain is NOT a conservative. While not all Republicans are conservative (and not all conservatives are Republican) the majority are, and he his view is still considered.
The simple fact is, republicans and/or conservatives ARE more independent than Democrats, IMHO. Democrats are more willing to work with each other, even if they do not agree with the issue. This is benefitial and detrimental in several ways. But Barr was and is still taken serious. He isn't the biggest power broker, but he still has power, and the media love to have him on because he is/was controversial. This gives him a bully pulpit to speak from. He has populist appeal.
I would agree that Ashcroft is a liability to conservatives. The thing is, he seems to really be a good guy, but with flawed ideas. This point could be (and will be) argued, but he seems to really have the best interests at heart, but the implimentation is a real problem.
I wouldn't bet on 11/5 either. Lots of people TALK about wanting Bush out, but the same was said of Reagan, who won 49 of 50 states. Even people that do not agree with Bush tend to think he is an honorable guy. In times of trouble, people tend to like Republicans in the White House. Personally, I think he is entirely too liberal. He is NOT a conservative by any standard. Just wanting lower taxes doesn't make you conservative. He just happens to be the most conservative of the choices available.
Some people don't seem to understand that any time a goverment tax/fee/regulation is created for a given industry or company, the cost is passed on to the consumer.
Yes, thats the idea. That makes the company less competitive. If their $30 produce that they sell for $45 now costs $35, either they make less money via margin, or they lose market share by raising prices. As long as there is competition, it is effective.
wrong. you need to check your tax law. there are several specific taxes that are added to a phone bill. you should see a T1 bill.
they are actual taxes that are federally mandated. Each one is quite small, but they add up. They pay for everything from 911 service to subsidizing phone service to rural areas.
They are making sure you know its a tax so you will bitch about it, but not at them. The problem IS the taxes are rediculous.
E.g. query on does_not_exist.com returns: does_not_exist.com. 900 IN NS does_not_exist.com. does_not_exist.com. 900 IN A 64.94.110.11 (as additonal information)
yea, that will work fine for everyone using that one DNS server. But if the root servers don't use that, then it wont work. When you request a non-valid domain that no root server has the SOA listed for, its wont work. I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Unless you are suggesting updating the SOA for every possible domain name as they are requested. Like I said, infinite amount of possible domains. 50 lines of perl could cause a few millions SOA records a day on a single T1 easily. They have to create a.com - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz(+).com and there will be more bogus SOA records than real ones in a matter of days. Yea, the owners of the root servers would just love that. 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x - 65535x the records to keep up with, all to benefit Verisign only? Ha. Now imagine 100 or 1000 people running this script, even setup as distributed computing. I know shit, but even I could do this in PERL. And it is not a DDOS, its a legitimate script to test what FQDN are available.
If you are talking about patching everyone's BIND to do this, then no, it certainly won't happen. ISC isn't going to put that in there, and I can too easily take it out if they did, and so would every dns server operator, since it would cause too much work on the server, all for the financial benefit of Verisign.
Either way, there are alot more steps to dns. I am FAR from a bind expert, but I am pretty confident it would be easy to prevent this on an individual level anyway, through iptables or a recompiling bind and the root servers would freak out and shitlist Verisign for even thinking about this.
That may be so, but I prefer to abide by licenses. Which is one of the reasons that I switched to Linux.
Its easy for "I" (singular) to switch to Linux. Its much harder to switch an entire corporation. The Sun Java Desktop is on TOP of Linux, and presents an opportunity for companies to switch that can't yet because of desktop and software issues. This is more than my opinion, talk to people in IT in small to mid sized companies. Its a pain in the ass to switch to a Linux on the desktop in the corporate scene for many of us, no matter how bad we want to.
My point with licensing is how liberal Sun is, not how easy it is to pirate. The fact that it is easy to pirate is a MARKETING decision that Sun made to steal market share from MS by tolorating others stealing some of their software.
You can stand on your soapbox if you choose, but the rest of us live in the real world where decisions are based on usability and costs.
Also, since Sun's page doesn't make it clear, I assume that the desktop can't be redirected to another machine without a new seat license.
I would not be so sure. One of the ways that Sun tries to make MS look bad is their liberal licensing. If you buy StarOffice, you are allowed to put it on up to 5 of machines that you only use. Laptop, desktop, home box, etc. There is no forced registration, etc. so you can actually install it as much as you want, just not legally. Kinda like "the honor system". My limited experience with Sun shows that they are not as anal as MS with licensing. There is no serial number to enter for StarOffice 6, for instance, nor has a software firewall ever warned me it was trying to phone home after an install.
Remember when Microsoft wanted you to have a seperate seat license for every web visitor within a 15 minute period on IIS? I will never forget.
I don't think this is purely because Sun trusts you, or is being generous, but rather because they know everyone HATES the MS licensing. From Sun's perspective, its better that you buy 25 licenses and put it on 65 machines, than to buy 65 MS licenses. They seem to tolorate a higher level of pirating in order to gain market share. I mean, they used to GIVEAWAY StarOffice 5.2, simply to hurt MS and steal marketshare. It was marginal but adequate for many.
Microsoft used to be this way back in the Windows 3.x days, before they were on 95% of the desktops. Many attribute the rise of Windows, in part, to the ease of pirating it when it was not so popular. So my hopes are that Sun will be rather liberal in allowing remote desktops and such, and keep making it easy to use and PAY FOR their stuff. One additional note, I looked for a while, but can't find the license on their site. Odd.
I hate to reply to myself, but I found out why I got a free Basic entitlement, and wanted to share it. It is at http://www.redhat.com/software/rhn/offerings/ and has a chart of features.
They seem to giving you one free basic account when you buy your first one, so $60 gets you TWO entitlements. $60 each after that. Not a bad deal.
RedHat may be making less money, but there's no evidence that their software is any "cheaper" for the customer. RH's pricing is designed to be about the same as Microsoft's.
Not true. Linux is not cheaper than Microsoft for everything, but it has saved in several ways. I am using several IBM dual cpu ppro 200 servers which will not operate with win2k3 server but install Linux just fine. I purchased 6 decked out used servers for $3,000. To buy new would have cost at LEAST $12,000 ($2000 x 6) plus $4800 in licensing. ($800 x 6) This is not including any licenses for clients, which would be another thousand. Instead we bought the 6 used boxes and downloaded RH9 for free, and paying for 3 basic entitlements. Our total expenses for 6 good servers (including unlimited client licenses) is less than $3500 including tax and rhn. For a Windows solution, it would have been at least $17,800.
We are looking at Linux on the desktop, but our estimates show its about the same price as Windows. Our motivation to change clients isn't money, its licensing and the BSA. I also have a problem with any software that limits how many clients you can connect, which is alot of software (including some software packages for Linux). I shouldn't have to pay for software based on how I use it, but rather how much support I need.
If I never use support, it should not matter if I have one client or one thousand since their cost is the same. Actually, their cost is less if there is only one version of the software instead of all the tiers and licensing stuff.
Redhat actually has a better long term model, a service model which will work despite the changes in economy. The service model basically says, take our software for free, but if you want help using this software, sign up for support.
This will work great for Operating Systems, Microsoft could easily give away Windows and charge for support, antivirus, upgrades, etc. China is now moving toward Linux, when big governments such as these move toward Linux, this means the revenue stream grows x10, government has the money to buy support, and they are the kind of customers who cannot afford to make mistakes and are likely to buy support.
You really hit on something here with your "Windows for free, pay for updates" statement. I have thought about this plenty, and found that I would sign up for this if MS would stop limiting how many workgroup clients you can use on xp home and pro, etc. For that matter, their existing price structure would be fine if they would remove those artificial/licensing policies.
If they just did like they did with WFW or Win95, where you connect all you want, how you want, easily and charge for automatic updates and applications. I wouldn't even care that it was closed source as long as they quit trying to "Netscape" everyone else in the industry. We wouldn't even be considering our migration to Linux.
The biggest blow MS could deal to Linux, however, would be to adopt this model. If they made it easy to copy Windows again for non-corporate use, and let you basically use it for free without any updates or support, then most companies would not consider switching simply because Windows is a known quantity, is pretty easy to use for most people, and the existing software base is huge.
If you could LEGALLY copy XP on all your boxes and only pay for the ones you want updates on (or pay for a corporate service plan) and you were responsible for the funding of IT, wouldn't you at least consider it? MS would still charge full for Office and other software, plus support, AV, services, etc.
If you didn't have to hassle with any of the client licensing garbage (or the wierd keys that want to call home when you change hardware) it would look pretty damn good.
It is the job of the IT industry to enable their customers to do new things that weren't possible before, but also to make doing existing things cheaper.
The fact that there's less money to be made from selling software is good news for the economy. (Roughly speaking, there are exceptions..) They should be spending their money on business intelligence, not on infrastructure that is roughly speaking "solved".
Nice point. Cheaper software makes it easier for small businesses to grow, and large businesses still need the support and tech's to impliment this software, so they hire, spend, develop, and contribute (via GPL). Anything that lowers the cost to start up and grow a business is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for consumers who now have more choice in the market place.
Personally, I have a few rhn $60/year basic accounts (and they just gave me one for free). I also have servers that do not have the service yet but still benefit from it. It is nice to contribute toward the success of open sourced software in a small way, but more importantly, they offer a killer service that pays for itself in the first month or two.
Being able to update several machines while I am at home, in a web browser, has allowed me to manage twice the servers. We use older servers, and tend to run ONE service on each box. Each box is configured as a backup server for another server, so we have great fallover protection. rhn is pretty stable and reliable. In almost two years, I have never had a problem with any updates it installs. You can even install and uninstall software remotely.
They have done a few things I didn't like, like cutting off support for 6.x and 7.x too fast. It WAS dumb of them to allow their certificate to expire, causing a problem where everyone had to manually download and install two RPMs for up2date.
But I can speak as a satisfied customer, overall. Their lowest tier of support (Basic Entitlement) is offering value and a very good service for many of us.
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob! The spelling 'Monte' is appropriate for French or Spanish, but not English. Spell it 'Monty', you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
It certainly isn't because of boot times. Even Microsoft couldn't fix this one. XP boots to the log-on banner fast enough, but once I log-on, I have to sit and wait another 60 seconds until the rest of the OS loads.
If you are running Linux at init 5, it does the same thing.
You can have windows automatically login to an account on boot pretty easily. Even add a password to BIOS if you just want someone to not have access. (Assuming they won't dive into the case). I find that windows boots MUCH faster if you dont mess with their crappy login screen. That is just more crap to load.
I gave up on the idea of security on my xp box at work, it just logs in. Its not like I have porn on the box. (thats what the laptop is for:p) I mean come on, there IS no security on windows anyway, unless you encrypt your entire hard drive. Get a copy of Knoppix if you have any doubt.:D
Re:Predicted Predicted response
on
Booting Linux Faster
·
· Score: 2, Informative
as far as I know you don't have to reboot a linux machine to patch it. You can even reload a new kernel without patching it.
If you are talking about a module, maybe, but not a completely new kernel version. Many (if not most) of us are using RH 'official' kernels instead of building our own now. Since most of the non-essentials are modules anyway, they are actually pretty efficient kernels. I do build my own kernels on VERY specific application servers, but really its just so I remember how to. Since this article is about cutting boot times, its not really relevant to servers anyway.
Most of my servers spend more time POSTing than booting (Dell and IBM) so cutting the time in 1/2 that the init scripts loads will only save 10%-20% of the boot time. Not that important for a box I install a new kernel on, then schedule a reboot (not wise) or just get to work early and reboot first thing in the morning while the coffee brews. Not getting hits/traffic/use at 7am, and only have to do maybe twice a year, since not every kernel bug affects every server.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone who is not a very good perl hacker (I am not a programmer) but who has to write programs anyway, I was glad to actually read the article (no, I am not new here) and find out about the UTF8 problems with 5.8.0. I had been too lazy and ignorant to search for it earlier, but it does explain why some of my code broke when I went from 5.6.x to 5.8. Guess I should have read the docs, since I went through some hoops to change/fix what I didn't understand, and still don't.
The cool thing is, I still get paid for this, even though I have no idea wtf I am doing. Gotta love America.
If non-free software becomes a vital part of Linux (as is already starting to happen), then the choice that GNU set out to provide will be lost.
Exactly what "non-free" software is there in Linux that is vital? SuSe has their installer that is non-free, but so what, you can install it manually if you choose. There are several non-free applications for Linux, but those are applications, not a part of Linux itself. This is actually a good thing, since it takes good applications to make an OS popular, regardless of licensing.
ie: Photoshop for Linux? I will buy it in a snap, since that is one of two apps I run that force me to use windows (the other being Quark). Until the Gimp gets CMYK support, I have no choice.
I know this is going to piss off a few of you, but while I appreciate RMS and what he has accomplished, he is not a god. He is a terribly flawed individual (like the rest of us) that 'invented' a new software philosophy. Sometimes this philosophy gets in the way. He did what seems obvious now, but at the time was revolutionary. For this, I agree "thank you RMS". He is also a great programmer. But not a god.
The problem I have with RMS is how militant he can be about software being free. ALL software. I agree the OS, the platform that all applications run on, is best if free because it levels the playing field for all developers, and increases the possibility that we can create a more secure OS over time. But non-free software is not the devils work. I have no problem with a company having applications that are not free. Like I said, I would buy Photoshop for Linux today.
REAL choice must include closed software, or there is no choice. If you develop a useful program, you should have the choice to decide what license it is released under, including closed licensing. The concept of "freedom" means you are free to chose these programs or open sourced programs, or make your own. Sometimes I feel that Free Software advocates lose this point. Obviously you CAN release your software under any license, but so many FSF advocates look down upon closed software and are closed minded about proprietary software, that it ends up LIMITING choice.
A perfect example is Lindows, which is trashed regularly here because it is not totally free. It seems to me this is hypocritical because people are screaming "give us choice! give us freedom!" then quickly pass judgement on any package that doesn't meet their biased definition of "free".
Free "as in speech" means you have to listen to lots of speech that you don't agree with. If you really believe in Free "as in speech" then you should be more willing to defend things you don't like, purely for the right to be expressed. To do otherwise IS the definition of hypocracy.
cfdisk is also available which is menu based.
:D cant wait until tomorrow, gonna dual boot it with 98 on a 60gb drive, on an old amd 1700xp /512ram box i have. should be interesting.
I was going to say...i had picked up a copy of slack 9 from cheapiso.com and just go around the installing it the other day. unfortunately, a bad ata controller prevented the full install, (replaced today) but the install process was pretty damn easy. a bit different for those of us used to redhat, but it was pretty easy and almost intuitive. It took about half the time to get to the install that it takes redhat.
The interface is pretty. think good ansi bbs interface
Mandrake. Almost as easy as Windows (no automatic checking mode turned on). Redhat's up2date is pretty much the same.
Right on the money. I used Mandrake on client machines and RH on servers in the pre-rhn (up2date) days. Now I use just RH, and can update, remove, install, etc. just about any package, even if I am not sitting in front of that particular box.
If the update fails, it tells me and I can do something about it. I can easily make any package where you can't update it or uninstall it unless you do so manually at the box, or not. Never had a problem using it (other than their stupid SSL debacle) in almost 2 years.
Not even Windows (the 'easiest' to use OS) will let you update a computer in Dallas while you are in Houston. Up2date will, and even let you schedule it.
One of my kids is a court lawyer. While the case lasts, the client is as pure as Alaskan snow and is opposed by evil, lying scum. The moment the cash is in the bank the lying loser deserves everything he got. The better you are at thinking like this, the more you really believe it, the better you are as a lawyer. It was said of my father that he could always see at least three sides to any case, so he was hopeless at litigation.
That is a point many lose sight of. Lawyers are not supposed to decide who is right and wrong, thats the judges job. The Lawyer is an advocate, pure and simple. His job is to represent the best interests of his CLIENT, not society at large. Again, that is the judges job. Lawyers are supposed to muddy issues up, and present the best possible spin for his client, within the bounds of the law. In order to do this, you have to often be "devil's advocate".
This is based on my working for years as a Criminal Defense Investigator. My job was to dig up information that helped the client, explore potential information that could hurt the client, and help find precidents that supported the claims of the defendant (paralegal work). It wasn't to prove anything or make moral judgements. Anything less would have not been advocating the position of the client.
This is also why I quit, after I accidently discovered I have a soul. Its a nasty job that has to be done, but I am glad I no longer do it.
There is no surprise here. Do you know
anything else SCO is doing for a living
besides PR?
Yes, as a matter of fact, they seem to have a business plan that is based upon filing lawsuits and pumping and dumping their own stock. Last I checked, they have yet to make any money purely off their PR ventures, but are doing quite well at pumping and dumping stock, at least on an individual basis.
Reminds me of Homer Simpson (doesn't everything?) when he invested in "pumpkin futures" in October, and was sure that they were going to continue to rise through January...
Its not just a matter of how low you buy, but how high you sell.
Water treatment has saved more lives than any medical discovery,process,whatever.
Don't mean to argue, but you are almost right. Maybe water treatment is the SECOND live saver, but the invention that has increased life expectancy more than any other is actually REFRIGERATION. 100 years ago, food poisoning was way more common, and often the cause of death. Ask an insurance expert, who has access to life expectancy tables for the last 100 or so years.
Even the Simpsons know if you don't have a refrigerator, you should at least put your milk in a cool, wet sack...
Maybe we are. There's an awful lot of unexplained cancer deaths this past 50 years. It's the funniest thing. Before that people didn't really get cancer.
One aspect of what you say is true: People get more cancer now than 50 years ago. Maybe this is because people live MUCH LONGER now than 50 years ago, so they died of other causes before they were old enough to get cancer.
200 years ago no one got Alzheimer's either, but then again, most people died before they were 60....
Eastern diet is high in soy & tea (both very high in iron-absorbtion supressing chemicals, like tannins which are only available in green teas)..
:D
Actually, tannins are are also available in red wines. (not white) So everyone go buy a fresh box of red wine because its good for you
"Whenever someone thinks that they can replace SSL/SSH with something much better that they designed this morning over coffee, their computer speakers should generate some sort of penis-shaped sound wave and plunge it repeatedly into their skulls until they achieve enlightenment."
--Peter Gutmann
Reminds me of the bathroom scene in the original "Scary Movie", where the the guy takes a penis all the way through one ear and out the next. Laughed my ass off. Both times.
Barr was/is considered a weirdo to most of the Republican party. He isn't part of the ruling wing. His help is about equivalent to getting McCain's help - not much.
Hold up...he is NOT considered a weirdo to CONSERVATIVES. He is taken considerably more serious than McCain (McCain/Feingold election reform laws fixed that). McCain is NOT a conservative. While not all Republicans are conservative (and not all conservatives are Republican) the majority are, and he his view is still considered.
The simple fact is, republicans and/or conservatives ARE more independent than Democrats, IMHO. Democrats are more willing to work with each other, even if they do not agree with the issue. This is benefitial and detrimental in several ways. But Barr was and is still taken serious. He isn't the biggest power broker, but he still has power, and the media love to have him on because he is/was controversial. This gives him a bully pulpit to speak from. He has populist appeal.
I would agree that Ashcroft is a liability to conservatives. The thing is, he seems to really be a good guy, but with flawed ideas. This point could be (and will be) argued, but he seems to really have the best interests at heart, but the implimentation is a real problem.
I wouldn't bet on 11/5 either. Lots of people TALK about wanting Bush out, but the same was said of Reagan, who won 49 of 50 states. Even people that do not agree with Bush tend to think he is an honorable guy. In times of trouble, people tend to like Republicans in the White House. Personally, I think he is entirely too liberal. He is NOT a conservative by any standard. Just wanting lower taxes doesn't make you conservative. He just happens to be the most conservative of the choices available.
Some people don't seem to understand that any time a goverment tax/fee/regulation is created for a given industry or company, the cost is passed on to the consumer.
Yes, thats the idea. That makes the company less competitive. If their $30 produce that they sell for $45 now costs $35, either they make less money via margin, or they lose market share by raising prices. As long as there is competition, it is effective.
wrong. you need to check your tax law. there are several specific taxes that are added to a phone bill. you should see a T1 bill.
they are actual taxes that are federally mandated. Each one is quite small, but they add up. They pay for everything from 911 service to subsidizing phone service to rural areas.
They are making sure you know its a tax so you will bitch about it, but not at them. The problem IS the taxes are rediculous.
E.g. query on does_not_exist.com returns:
does_not_exist.com. 900 IN NS does_not_exist.com.
does_not_exist.com. 900 IN A 64.94.110.11 (as additonal information)
yea, that will work fine for everyone using that one DNS server. But if the root servers don't use that, then it wont work. When you request a non-valid domain that no root server has the SOA listed for, its wont work. I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Unless you are suggesting updating the SOA for every possible domain name as they are requested. Like I said, infinite amount of possible domains. 50 lines of perl could cause a few millions SOA records a day on a single T1 easily. They have to create a.com - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz(+).com and there will be more bogus SOA records than real ones in a matter of days. Yea, the owners of the root servers would just love that. 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x - 65535x the records to keep up with, all to benefit Verisign only? Ha. Now imagine 100 or 1000 people running this script, even setup as distributed computing. I know shit, but even I could do this in PERL. And it is not a DDOS, its a legitimate script to test what FQDN are available.
If you are talking about patching everyone's BIND to do this, then no, it certainly won't happen. ISC isn't going to put that in there, and I can too easily take it out if they did, and so would every dns server operator, since it would cause too much work on the server, all for the financial benefit of Verisign.
Either way, there are alot more steps to dns. I am FAR from a bind expert, but I am pretty confident it would be easy to prevent this on an individual level anyway, through iptables or a recompiling bind and the root servers would freak out and shitlist Verisign for even thinking about this.
If anyone cares, there is a very odd and interesting "History of Unix", whereas Unix is treated like a cult (makes sense). Actually quite funny.
That may be so, but I prefer to abide by licenses. Which is one of the reasons that I switched to Linux.
Its easy for "I" (singular) to switch to Linux. Its much harder to switch an entire corporation. The Sun Java Desktop is on TOP of Linux, and presents an opportunity for companies to switch that can't yet because of desktop and software issues. This is more than my opinion, talk to people in IT in small to mid sized companies. Its a pain in the ass to switch to a Linux on the desktop in the corporate scene for many of us, no matter how bad we want to.
My point with licensing is how liberal Sun is, not how easy it is to pirate. The fact that it is easy to pirate is a MARKETING decision that Sun made to steal market share from MS by tolorating others stealing some of their software.
You can stand on your soapbox if you choose, but the rest of us live in the real world where decisions are based on usability and costs.
Also, since Sun's page doesn't make it clear, I assume that the desktop can't be redirected to another machine without a new seat license.
I would not be so sure. One of the ways that Sun tries to make MS look bad is their liberal licensing. If you buy StarOffice, you are allowed to put it on up to 5 of machines that you only use. Laptop, desktop, home box, etc. There is no forced registration, etc. so you can actually install it as much as you want, just not legally. Kinda like "the honor system". My limited experience with Sun shows that they are not as anal as MS with licensing. There is no serial number to enter for StarOffice 6, for instance, nor has a software firewall ever warned me it was trying to phone home after an install.
Remember when Microsoft wanted you to have a seperate seat license for every web visitor within a 15 minute period on IIS? I will never forget.
I don't think this is purely because Sun trusts you, or is being generous, but rather because they know everyone HATES the MS licensing. From Sun's perspective, its better that you buy 25 licenses and put it on 65 machines, than to buy 65 MS licenses. They seem to tolorate a higher level of pirating in order to gain market share. I mean, they used to GIVEAWAY StarOffice 5.2, simply to hurt MS and steal marketshare. It was marginal but adequate for many.
Microsoft used to be this way back in the Windows 3.x days, before they were on 95% of the desktops. Many attribute the rise of Windows, in part, to the ease of pirating it when it was not so popular. So my hopes are that Sun will be rather liberal in allowing remote desktops and such, and keep making it easy to use and PAY FOR their stuff. One additional note, I looked for a while, but can't find the license on their site. Odd.
I hate to reply to myself, but I found out why I got a free Basic entitlement, and wanted to share it. It is at http://www.redhat.com/software/rhn/offerings/ and has a chart of features.
:)
They seem to giving you one free basic account when you buy your first one, so $60 gets you TWO entitlements. $60 each after that. Not a bad deal.
(no i don't work for them or own stock in them
RedHat may be making less money, but there's no evidence that their software is any "cheaper" for the customer. RH's pricing is designed to be about the same as Microsoft's.
Not true. Linux is not cheaper than Microsoft for everything, but it has saved in several ways. I am using several IBM dual cpu ppro 200 servers which will not operate with win2k3 server but install Linux just fine. I purchased 6 decked out used servers for $3,000. To buy new would have cost at LEAST $12,000 ($2000 x 6) plus $4800 in licensing. ($800 x 6) This is not including any licenses for clients, which would be another thousand. Instead we bought the 6 used boxes and downloaded RH9 for free, and paying for 3 basic entitlements. Our total expenses for 6 good servers (including unlimited client licenses) is less than $3500 including tax and rhn. For a Windows solution, it would have been at least $17,800.
We are looking at Linux on the desktop, but our estimates show its about the same price as Windows. Our motivation to change clients isn't money, its licensing and the BSA. I also have a problem with any software that limits how many clients you can connect, which is alot of software (including some software packages for Linux). I shouldn't have to pay for software based on how I use it, but rather how much support I need.
If I never use support, it should not matter if I have one client or one thousand since their cost is the same. Actually, their cost is less if there is only one version of the software instead of all the tiers and licensing stuff.
Redhat actually has a better long term model, a service model which will work despite the changes in economy. The service model basically says, take our software for free, but if you want help using this software, sign up for support.
This will work great for Operating Systems, Microsoft could easily give away Windows and charge for support, antivirus, upgrades, etc. China is now moving toward Linux, when big governments such as these move toward Linux, this means the revenue stream grows x10, government has the money to buy support, and they are the kind of customers who cannot afford to make mistakes and are likely to buy support.
You really hit on something here with your "Windows for free, pay for updates" statement. I have thought about this plenty, and found that I would sign up for this if MS would stop limiting how many workgroup clients you can use on xp home and pro, etc. For that matter, their existing price structure would be fine if they would remove those artificial/licensing policies.
If they just did like they did with WFW or Win95, where you connect all you want, how you want, easily and charge for automatic updates and applications. I wouldn't even care that it was closed source as long as they quit trying to "Netscape" everyone else in the industry. We wouldn't even be considering our migration to Linux.
The biggest blow MS could deal to Linux, however, would be to adopt this model. If they made it easy to copy Windows again for non-corporate use, and let you basically use it for free without any updates or support, then most companies would not consider switching simply because Windows is a known quantity, is pretty easy to use for most people, and the existing software base is huge.
If you could LEGALLY copy XP on all your boxes and only pay for the ones you want updates on (or pay for a corporate service plan) and you were responsible for the funding of IT, wouldn't you at least consider it? MS would still charge full for Office and other software, plus support, AV, services, etc.
If you didn't have to hassle with any of the client licensing garbage (or the wierd keys that want to call home when you change hardware) it would look pretty damn good.
It is the job of the IT industry to enable their customers to do new things that weren't possible before, but also to make doing existing things cheaper.
The fact that there's less money to be made from selling software is good news for the economy. (Roughly speaking, there are exceptions..) They should be spending their money on business intelligence, not on infrastructure that is roughly speaking "solved".
Nice point. Cheaper software makes it easier for small businesses to grow, and large businesses still need the support and tech's to impliment this software, so they hire, spend, develop, and contribute (via GPL). Anything that lowers the cost to start up and grow a business is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for consumers who now have more choice in the market place.
Personally, I have a few rhn $60/year basic accounts (and they just gave me one for free). I also have servers that do not have the service yet but still benefit from it. It is nice to contribute toward the success of open sourced software in a small way, but more importantly, they offer a killer service that pays for itself in the first month or two.
Being able to update several machines while I am at home, in a web browser, has allowed me to manage twice the servers. We use older servers, and tend to run ONE service on each box. Each box is configured as a backup server for another server, so we have great fallover protection. rhn is pretty stable and reliable. In almost two years, I have never had a problem with any updates it installs. You can even install and uninstall software remotely.
They have done a few things I didn't like, like cutting off support for 6.x and 7.x too fast. It WAS dumb of them to allow their certificate to expire, causing a problem where everyone had to manually download and install two RPMs for up2date.
But I can speak as a satisfied customer, overall. Their lowest tier of support (Basic Entitlement) is offering value and a very good service for many of us.
Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob! The spelling 'Monte' is appropriate for French or Spanish, but not English. Spell it 'Monty', you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Seriously though , why does this meret a slashdot posting?
:D I mean, even the term "spam" is purely attributed to Monte Python. Its a nerd thing.
Its Monte Python, for god's sake! Thats why!
I would say "You must be new here" but I don't need the karma.
It certainly isn't because of boot times. Even Microsoft couldn't fix this one. XP boots to the log-on banner fast enough, but once I log-on, I have to sit and wait another 60 seconds until the rest of the OS loads.
:p) I mean come on, there IS no security on windows anyway, unless you encrypt your entire hard drive. Get a copy of Knoppix if you have any doubt. :D
If you are running Linux at init 5, it does the same thing.
You can have windows automatically login to an account on boot pretty easily. Even add a password to BIOS if you just want someone to not have access. (Assuming they won't dive into the case). I find that windows boots MUCH faster if you dont mess with their crappy login screen. That is just more crap to load.
I gave up on the idea of security on my xp box at work, it just logs in. Its not like I have porn on the box. (thats what the laptop is for
as far as I know you don't have to reboot a linux machine to patch it. You can even reload a new kernel without patching it.
If you are talking about a module, maybe, but not a completely new kernel version. Many (if not most) of us are using RH 'official' kernels instead of building our own now. Since most of the non-essentials are modules anyway, they are actually pretty efficient kernels. I do build my own kernels on VERY specific application servers, but really its just so I remember how to. Since this article is about cutting boot times, its not really relevant to servers anyway.
Most of my servers spend more time POSTing than booting (Dell and IBM) so cutting the time in 1/2 that the init scripts loads will only save 10%-20% of the boot time. Not that important for a box I install a new kernel on, then schedule a reboot (not wise) or just get to work early and reboot first thing in the morning while the coffee brews. Not getting hits/traffic/use at 7am, and only have to do maybe twice a year, since not every kernel bug affects every server.