I am so god damned tired of companies doing this. Fair use allows parody as long as the use does not cause confusion in the market place, ie: as long as it is obvious that it is parody and not the same 'product'. We have been in and out on similar but different fair use of a trademark ourselves, and finally got the company to see the light.
As much as I hate lawyers (and who doesn't?) it appears we need a new case or two at the highest level to reaffirm our rights to fair use in parody.
Just to further lionize IBM we might note that they also do some incredible engineering research.
All hail IBM!
But seriously, their contributions to Linux alone are pretty damn significant, a billion dollars, and the time of some of their best software engineers. Plus they laid the ground for copper on silicon as well. Also, laying out their own logo with atoms was a neat trick, too. Like I said, you NEED big corporations to do big things, and IBM has been acting pretty responsibly lately. (knocking on wood) Makes it easier to pay a little more for their products, since you feel like you are getting more than a cpu in a box, you are investing in Linux itself.
Now if they could only get the G4 chip up to speeds closer to the P4 as well, I would love to run Linux on a dual G4/2.5ghz on the desktop:D Who wouldn't?
Hey, Oregon is wanting to put GPS gear in your car, so they can tax you based on miles travelled, rather than by gallon of gas, which takes away the benefit of better mileage. Might as well get that SUV, since you will pay the same taxes.
Here in NC, I just filled up. $1.49 a gallon for unleaded. Over $0.42 of that is taxes. I guess that is not enough for them.
*cough* wasn't there a fault in win95A (a timer glitch?) that only let it run for 49 days without locking up?
And it took 2 years for anyone to notice because , lets face it, win95 got rebooted a whole lot more often than that because of all the other bugs.
Another quick note to address your comment after I reread my own parent. I meant uptime in months on the SERVER only, not the stations. I didn't make that clear. Some of the stations do have sound cards and more crapola because the users install shit. I don't allow it on the server, which runs OMG smooth, because of that fact.
cough* wasn't there a fault in win95A (a timer glitch?) that only let it run for 49 days without locking up?
Not that I am aware of, or it was fixed, since it has been running this stable for us for years now. As I told someone else, its a very stripped down install, with all media potential stripped out. I just know how it runs for us. I mean, its still windows and sucks for a lot of reasons, but it is what it is.
No version of windows 9x can compare to 2000 for a workstation. I'm shocked that you manage to get months of uptime for a server. But if you got more than about 2 or 3 days for a workstation, either you're not using it right, or you're some kind of miracle worker.
2k is ok, but I am stuck managing some really old boxes. They still work perfectly however. Pentium 100-166, with 16 to 32mb ram, upgraded 1gb drives. They are still pretty fast if you set them up the way I have. First, no sound card. Next, strip out everything out of the control panel that resembles media support, everything. (we dont need media, or so I say). Only use win95a, only use fat16 (only choice with A anyway). I have tried B and C, but they are not as stable as A. The server WAS an IBM 325, ppro 200 with 64mb ram (files and printers) with uw40 scsi drives. Just replaced after 4 years of being on 24/7 (never crashed) with a Dell 1400SC, still win95a (drivers was a bit tricky) with uw160 scsi drive carved into 2gb fat16 drives (lots of them) Its a 1.1ghz p3, with 256mb ram. Part of it is good ram, good servers, etc. means fewer errors (all ecc/registered ram) and part of it is because I have everything stripped out. I don't run anything but a very old version of NAV (updated weekly). I don't run any utils, no cleansweep, NOTHING. Not even a clock in the bar or the AV icon. Blank for a screensaver.
It really does run as I stated, plenty fast, super stable. I mean, after manually ripping through the OS, there isn't a whole lot left except the kernel and netbios networking. No restrictions on how many computers I can connect. Windows 95 defaulted to 10 users max, but its a simple setting in the network settings to support all you want, but you have to do it on ALL the workstations. 100mbit ethernet card throught a decent DLink 100 switch, 24 port.
The real problem is security, which it has absolutely none, but the 95 server doesn't have tcp/ip enabled, and the entire system is behind a good Linux firewall anyway:) Plenty of folks will say its crazy to run a system this way, and I do plan a major change this summer, but it has served us well. It the same basic system since 1996, just upgrading here and there. (486/66 server, to the ibm325, to the dell 1400sc).
This isn't for everyone, but we use the network for invoices and internet access only. We are also using a 16 bit windows version of peachtree designed for 3 users, with an average of 8 to 10 users at the same time. Cheap ass boss.
Looking at other progressive moves to improve Internet technology is probably the best bet.
Ironic that we are trying to talk have of the 95% that use Windows to use Linux, with all the changes that it brings, yet the idea of a single protocol is beyond us. I used to telnet and ftp. Now I ssh.
It would take the biggest companies on board, both services for 5 years, and a migration. When the internet gets 'fixed' that we can't change it, then its not fun anymore.
I remember when Gopher was the newest coolest thing. My first web experience was in a shell (on SunOs server, dial up), same as IRC, ftp, email (pine). For that matter, my first online experiences was BBSing and running a small multiline bbs of my own, fidonet and all. I have seen so much change, that it is hard to convince me that things cant change. Painful perhaps, but it certainly can be done. The question is if the result is worth the effort.
We get things close enough, and we are very resistant to change. When we QUIT changing is when we quit growing.
Address : www.dbcodegen.com only open port is 80 IIS6 Prize Money : $100 US winning entry - must replace the homepage with your contact so taht prize money can be paid. Ricky
$100 bucks huh? Either you are wanting people to work (hack) at slave labor prices, thus doing your dirty work on the cheap, or you only have $100 worth of faith in a product that costs alot more.
If someone just needs the $100, I could use some help this saturday spreading mulch and chainsawing several large trees here at the house. Pays cash. Bring gloves and a lunch. Beer provided afterward.
Better yet, compare 95A with 95C. Even B had Fat 32, only 2gig partitions in A, Internet Explorer, major TCP/IP upgrade, and a whole lot more. I still love 95a's speed on a 2gig partition. scandisk in less than a minute of a full scsi 2gb fat16 drive, and none of the media fluff to slow you down. Its still my favorite version of windows, and I admin about a dozen boxes that are still running it, including a file server. Uptime in the months range. Now, image that simple but logical interface on a good Linux kernel....... (I have)
IBM did significant development of computer theory. They've probably contributed more than any other company combined. Granted, they have screwed up at times, and screwed up royally, but they don't appear to be running around smashing others with only lawyer-based divisions, a'la Rambus. They're also contributing back into something that I use on a daily basis as my primary computer platform, even when they didn't invent UNIX. Right now, IBM is a community player, and while that could change in theory at any moment, they're more my friend than this freak who is trying to demonstrate a patent on hypertext transfer protocol...
I have always said that its ok to be the 800 pound gorilla, as long as you don't go around smashing things. We need 800 pound gorillas to do big things. I'm a fan of IBM personally, in spite of their past anti-trust position that they have left behind them. I still have several IBM 325 pcservers from 1997 that refuse to die. Microsoft could do well to note that the fans don't happen until you quit acting like a jerk.
As to reviews, I'll be curious to hear them as well. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to dig into this stuff -- hence the reason that my workhorse box runs a three year old version of debian instead of the latest and greatest...
The irony is I have a few boxes running redhat 7.2 (with a newer 2.4 kernel), and a few I am testing with redhat 9, and formally with rh8. I miss 7.2 and now they no longer support it, even though I am paying them to (rhn). Although I love RH9 on the desktop, it leaves me feeling a bit empty on the server side.
I miss Wine working without a workaround. I miss Linuxconf (no comments from the peanut crew, please, I know I can compile it, and that I shouldn't be using it to begin with). It seems like it is getting unnecessarily complicated, all in the name of "features". Redhat desktop install now takes up more space than Windows (granted, it does more). Their installer is showing its age, but I still like it better than the alternatives. On the server side, I want better simple gui tools I can use in a shell.
I just ordered a bunch of distros from www.cheapisos.com from an ad I saw here, rediculously cheap, to find another distro I like, so I can THEN buy a set from them (if they sell it). I'm funny that way, pay for stuff if I really use them. This is part of the reason I am interested in this new Trusted Debian. Im lazy, but not dumb. The more secure the system is, the less problems and maintenance you end up with. I want to try a copy of this since BSD isn't my cup of tea and I know Linux enough to do what I need. Its pretty easy to learn via web, usenet, email and once in a while here on/.
Marketing is not about getting rich. Marketing is about attempting to make yourself or your product a household name.
Money is not the only reason for doing such things, you know.
I've been in marketing in one form or another for 20 years. Funny thing, the only reason _I_ have been in marketing is to make money. Silly me.
I'm still betting it was less marketing and more simply naming it "trusted" as a goal. I mean, you have to call it SOMETHING to differentiate it from their regular distro. I usually associate marketing with more greedy goals. At least when it's done correctly.
That said, I can't wait to hear the actual reviews from real world sysadmins.
1. Create more secure operating system. 2. Give it away for free. 3. ???? 4. PROFIT!
Ok, I give, wtf _IS_ the third step that would require a marketing buzzword? I guess you can market for bragging rights, but I am guessing it was more of an afterthought than a business plan.
I bet I can name everyone that has gotten rich on Debian on one hand.............and still have 5 fingers left.
Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.
One of the benefits of having profit margins in the 50%+ range is you can do stuff like this. Well, maybe not morally or potentially legally, but you can afford it anyway.
What is the point of having a larger on-disk buffer, when you can just use an operating system that buffers disk efficiently? I'm no linux zealot, but I notice a HUGE difference in caching efficiency between the two.
Some of us use windows and linux, and it would be nice to have a dedicated cache that the kernel didn't have to monitor, OR could, (let the kernel hackers figure out if its worth the while). I would like to have the 256+mb as a DEDICATED cache, that can't or won't be used for anything except cache.
Of course there may be a way to do this in linux now, with the ram, but I don't know an easy way, and there isn't a way in windows. Another reason is that it would make reads faster, particularly when you are are writing and reading at the same time, which is common with large media files. Not everyone could use this, but many are and would pay the little extra to have it, especially if its a DIMM where we can decide how much, and if we want more in 6 months, to go from 256 to 1gig say, we can with just the DIMM.
Someone else said something in a post about how if its not battery backed up, it could get lost, but I have the whole computer on the backup, so its covered. Also, the cache should cache out pretty fast, its wanted mainly as a write buffer, so it should be able to dump the data to the drive pretty fast, just not requiring the cpu (ide) or slowing down reads. Most of the time it still sits there like any hard drive, plenty of time to sync.
Actually, a much larger cache would help, especially those of us that work with large graphic files (20mb to 120mb, initial scans up to 400mb)
The new shiney 8MB caches help, but I would love to see an IDE or SCSI drive with a slot for a DIMM. I know I can use RAID, but the performance is not good enough at a $ I can afford. But adding a 256mb or 512mb DIMM for cache, I could. Yes there are lots of caching cards, etc. out, but once again, price. it seems that it should be reasonably possible to have a "laptop" style dimm slot on a hard drive, with enough bios on the drive (and/or drivers for linux/windows) for a quite small amount of $, say $20 to $40 extra for the drive, not counting the actual DIMM itself.
Iraq do not have time to waste on setting up fake elections or puppet leaders for quite some time yet.
To make it more efficient foreign oil interests will provide the puppet and while the oppressive police/military force is gone everyone can ocntinue on their civil war that just paused some 30 years ago.
Unfortunately the foreign interests are only interested in the puppet doing what he is told so noone will try to end the emerging civil unrest.
Crowd control is spelled a-k-4-7. thats the proper way to deal with ungrateful demonstrators that dont understand their own good.
You do raise some good points. As pro-USA as I am, I am not stupid or short sited: I DO know that my own government has propped up dictators and has generally acted as a bad neighbor for many years. My HOPE is that because of the visibility, and the realization that it doesn't work, we will actually support democracy.
In this day and age, our best defense against terrorism IS democracy. Because of the high visability, I will give the US govt. the benefit of the doubt, while keeping a sharp eye out. IF they do it right by really promoting democracy and individual freedom in Iraq, they will lay down a foundation that will allow them to cope with the years of civil war that preceeded Saddam's rule.
The eastern block countries went through the same problems when the USSR fell. It was painful. Many died. Many long for the 'good old days', but 50 years from now, I believe all will look back and see that the pain was worth the results if they continue down the road to democracy.
Democracy is not pretty. It's not easy, as a matter of fact, it is the most difficult form of government. It makes some people die in the struggle. It causes very sharp, short term pain. But in the long run, it is the only way to get people personally invested in everyone's elses future, because we all have a stake. In a small way it can be compared to a company that is owned by all the employees: Each has a stake in the outcome, each is partially responsible for the success of everyone, each has a role or job, each has an equal voice.
Democracy IS an experiment in the history of man. We are not done perfecting it yet.
The alternative is that everbody's vote counts equally, whether you're in a big state or small state.
That is the point that creates a problem. One example: Over 75% of the population lives within 60 miles of an ocean. (I think its actually closer to 90%), yet we have presidents and influential politicians from all states because South Dakota has the same number of senators as California. Our founding fathers DID this on purpose, to keep the most populous states from dictating to the less populated states. If we had equal representation, farm policy would be lower on the list, for example.
They struck a balance with individual votes counting most, and land area counting next. People who live in "fly over country" DO get a slightly louder voice in our government, because they get more Senators per capita. They get electoral votes ONLY according to population, with a minimum. It was never designed to be equal to each person. It was designed to be equal to each STATE. The US is pretty unique in this respect. The cool thing is, you can move.
This is one reason why I think Iraq would do good to follow our model, divided into states, each with a certain amount of independence, like the USA. This would cut down on the fighting and arguements within the nation government because the day to day decisions would be decided locally. Maybe the Kurds don't want to support the same health policies that the Shia do. Leave it as a state policy then.
I can't argue with your frustration at the elections given the numbers don't lie. But again, I consider the alternatives, ALL the alternatives (non state system) and think this is part of why we are able to get along.
Every seat in congress is "winner takes all". It does not really help that there are hundreds of seats, you still need to be first past the post in a district.
Not exactly true in one respect. Some states require the candidate get over 50% of the vote, some states just declare the person with the most votes the winner.
So even if 20% of the US population supported a certain point of view, they would only be represented if they happened to be concentrated by location. (e.g. 1% of pop thinks Hawaii is important, they get represented, 3% are green, they don't cause they're spread geographically)
Perhaps they would be underrepresented at the federal level, but not local level, when the vast majority of law is produced. The potential underrepresentation is exactly why our constitution has a bill of rights, to protect the minority from the majority.
For most bodies of thought, they are NOT spread evenly accross the USA. This is why you have more liberals in California than in Alabama, for instance. No form of government is perfect, and to expect it to be is pretty naive.
I live in a country where there is such a system (the netherlands), multiple parties have to form a coalition in order to get a majority.
In America we have real problems with this. Most people who would vote with the Green party would take exception with them cooperating with the Republicans. Or Libratarians.
Even the the parties seem "left or right" the fact is there are many liberal Republicans and many conservative Democrats. about 1/3 of the US votes mainly Democrat, about 1/3 votes mainly Republican and the remaining 1/3 are swing voters.
While you CAN vote a straight party ticket here (Democrats only, for instance) most people do no not and vote instead for the PERSON rather than the political philosophy. This is more true in local politics than in National, but local politics has more impact on people here than Federal. I assume this is NOT true for countries with smaller populations. States make most of the laws, NOT federal. Feds just get all the national press.
Our political system is NOT as federal as it appears to people in other countries. Really. The whole Republic nature of our government pushes decisions to the lowest levels. Education, for instance, gets a TINY % of funding from federal. Its mainly CITY and COUNTY, not even state. Here we say all politics is local for good reason. Even the crime of murder is STATE law. Less than 1% of the time is it prosecuted in federal law. Most other crime is the same. Marijuana possession may get you a ticket in California, a fine in North Carolina, 1 years probation in Kansas, or 30 days jail in Lousiana. Its not prosecuted federally unless you have a few acres growing (minimum 5 years for growing)
It is also very difficult to compare elections in the US, a democratic republic of 285 million people, and The Netherlands which is a constitutional monarchy with 16 million people. With 17 times the population and 232 times the land mass (CIA World Factbook), and our history with monarchies, its not a shock that our systems are different.
Not always. 100 years ago, the Democratic party did not exist. We do have Independent parties in federal office ( a couple ) but we have several 3rd party candidates in state offices. Jesse Ventura ran as an independent and won, for instance.
Even within the parties, you have independent souls. Sam Nunn was a very conservative Democrat. Phil Spector is a very liberal Republican. Jim Jeffords, well, hes a putz, thats another story.;)
I look at all the problems that are typical in countries where there are several parties, and not sure I would like that either. Israel, where two different parties have to join forces to form a majority, and other parlamentary states. Same with England, although it is a bit more bipolar. In otherword, there are disadvantages to the "2+ some other guys" way our political system currently is, but from what I see of the alternatives, its not really a disadvantage, its just different.
The real problem is in the media. Some people say money is what candidates want. That is not true. They want votes. They know that this is the only way to keep their power.
Correct, which is why the media LOVES the new election reforms: It makes them more powerful. Now candidates are more reliant on free exposure from media. Special interest groups can NOT run ads 60 days before an election, so they must grease the palms of the media for their issue to, magically become 'news'. This greasing can come in running ads for companies that are owned by the people involved in the special interests, or by purchasing enough ads prior to the 60 day blockout to get special treatment. They are becoming more and more like the 4th branch of govt.
Now, I have to call and tell my credit card company that I am shipping to my work address every time that I need something delivered.
Actually you don't. Just call your credit card company ONCE and have them add your business address permanantly as an alternate to your billing address. I have both my shop and another company listed with my credit card company, plus the home that is the billing address. I just order, decide which one, and it goes through. All the verification does is see if the address is listed, it can be more than one.
Quite convenient since I ship to all three addresses on the same card, depending on what the item is.
On your other point: My regular UPS guy never gets me to sign. If there is a substitute, he always requires me to sign. I haven't figured out why yet.
I had to laugh when I saw your comment. I wasn't aware nerds had such good manicures, or cared. I didn't notice the nails until I went back. Didn't seem that bad to me, but I guess we all have their peeves.
Slashdot Mirror
I am so god damned tired of companies doing this. Fair use allows parody as long as the use does not cause confusion in the market place, ie: as long as it is obvious that it is parody and not the same 'product'. We have been in and out on similar but different fair use of a trademark ourselves, and finally got the company to see the light.
As much as I hate lawyers (and who doesn't?) it appears we need a new case or two at the highest level to reaffirm our rights to fair use in parody.
Just to further lionize IBM we might note that they also do some incredible engineering research.
:D Who wouldn't?
All hail IBM!
But seriously, their contributions to Linux alone are pretty damn significant, a billion dollars, and the time of some of their best software engineers. Plus they laid the ground for copper on silicon as well. Also, laying out their own logo with atoms was a neat trick, too. Like I said, you NEED big corporations to do big things, and IBM has been acting pretty responsibly lately. (knocking on wood) Makes it easier to pay a little more for their products, since you feel like you are getting more than a cpu in a box, you are investing in Linux itself.
Now if they could only get the G4 chip up to speeds closer to the P4 as well, I would love to run Linux on a dual G4/2.5ghz on the desktop
Now, just imagine a beowolf of....*SMACK!*
Hey, Oregon is wanting to put GPS gear in your car, so they can tax you based on miles travelled, rather than by gallon of gas, which takes away the benefit of better mileage. Might as well get that SUV, since you will pay the same taxes.
Here in NC, I just filled up. $1.49 a gallon for unleaded. Over $0.42 of that is taxes. I guess that is not enough for them.
*cough* wasn't there a fault in win95A (a timer glitch?) that only let it run for 49 days without locking up?
And it took 2 years for anyone to notice because , lets face it, win95 got rebooted a whole lot more often than that because of all the other bugs.
Another quick note to address your comment after I reread my own parent. I meant uptime in months on the SERVER only, not the stations. I didn't make that clear. Some of the stations do have sound cards and more crapola because the users install shit. I don't allow it on the server, which runs OMG smooth, because of that fact.
cough* wasn't there a fault in win95A (a timer glitch?) that only let it run for 49 days without locking up?
Not that I am aware of, or it was fixed, since it has been running this stable for us for years now. As I told someone else, its a very stripped down install, with all media potential stripped out. I just know how it runs for us. I mean, its still windows and sucks for a lot of reasons, but it is what it is.
No version of windows 9x can compare to 2000 for a workstation. I'm shocked that you manage to get months of uptime for a server. But if you got more than about 2 or 3 days for a workstation, either you're not using it right, or you're some kind of miracle worker.
:) Plenty of folks will say its crazy to run a system this way, and I do plan a major change this summer, but it has served us well. It the same basic system since 1996, just upgrading here and there. (486/66 server, to the ibm325, to the dell 1400sc).
2k is ok, but I am stuck managing some really old boxes. They still work perfectly however. Pentium 100-166, with 16 to 32mb ram, upgraded 1gb drives. They are still pretty fast if you set them up the way I have. First, no sound card. Next, strip out everything out of the control panel that resembles media support, everything. (we dont need media, or so I say). Only use win95a, only use fat16 (only choice with A anyway). I have tried B and C, but they are not as stable as A. The server WAS an IBM 325, ppro 200 with 64mb ram (files and printers) with uw40 scsi drives. Just replaced after 4 years of being on 24/7 (never crashed) with a Dell 1400SC, still win95a (drivers was a bit tricky) with uw160 scsi drive carved into 2gb fat16 drives (lots of them) Its a 1.1ghz p3, with 256mb ram. Part of it is good ram, good servers, etc. means fewer errors (all ecc/registered ram) and part of it is because I have everything stripped out. I don't run anything but a very old version of NAV (updated weekly). I don't run any utils, no cleansweep, NOTHING. Not even a clock in the bar or the AV icon. Blank for a screensaver.
It really does run as I stated, plenty fast, super stable. I mean, after manually ripping through the OS, there isn't a whole lot left except the kernel and netbios networking. No restrictions on how many computers I can connect. Windows 95 defaulted to 10 users max, but its a simple setting in the network settings to support all you want, but you have to do it on ALL the workstations. 100mbit ethernet card throught a decent DLink 100 switch, 24 port.
The real problem is security, which it has absolutely none, but the 95 server doesn't have tcp/ip enabled, and the entire system is behind a good Linux firewall anyway
This isn't for everyone, but we use the network for invoices and internet access only. We are also using a 16 bit windows version of peachtree designed for 3 users, with an average of 8 to 10 users at the same time. Cheap ass boss.
Looking at other progressive moves to improve Internet technology is probably the best bet.
Ironic that we are trying to talk have of the 95% that use Windows to use Linux, with all the changes that it brings, yet the idea of a single protocol is beyond us. I used to telnet and ftp. Now I ssh.
It would take the biggest companies on board, both services for 5 years, and a migration. When the internet gets 'fixed' that we can't change it, then its not fun anymore.
I remember when Gopher was the newest coolest thing. My first web experience was in a shell (on SunOs server, dial up), same as IRC, ftp, email (pine). For that matter, my first online experiences was BBSing and running a small multiline bbs of my own, fidonet and all. I have seen so much change, that it is hard to convince me that things cant change. Painful perhaps, but it certainly can be done. The question is if the result is worth the effort.
We get things close enough, and we are very resistant to change. When we QUIT changing is when we quit growing.
Address : www.dbcodegen.com only open port is 80 IIS6 Prize Money : $100 US winning entry - must replace the homepage with your contact so taht prize money can be paid. Ricky
$100 bucks huh? Either you are wanting people to work (hack) at slave labor prices, thus doing your dirty work on the cheap, or you only have $100 worth of faith in a product that costs alot more.
If someone just needs the $100, I could use some help this saturday spreading mulch and chainsawing several large trees here at the house. Pays cash. Bring gloves and a lunch. Beer provided afterward.
Better yet, compare 95A with 95C. Even B had Fat 32, only 2gig partitions in A, Internet Explorer, major TCP/IP upgrade, and a whole lot more. I still love 95a's speed on a 2gig partition. scandisk in less than a minute of a full scsi 2gb fat16 drive, and none of the media fluff to slow you down. Its still my favorite version of windows, and I admin about a dozen boxes that are still running it, including a file server. Uptime in the months range. Now, image that simple but logical interface on a good Linux kernel....... (I have)
had a 2:1 split on Feb 18. still worth less since those $60 shares would be worth relatively $30 each, and MSFT closed $25.50 today.
IBM did significant development of computer theory. They've probably contributed more than any other company combined. Granted, they have screwed up at times, and screwed up royally, but they don't appear to be running around smashing others with only lawyer-based divisions, a'la Rambus. They're also contributing back into something that I use on a daily basis as my primary computer platform, even when they didn't invent UNIX. Right now, IBM is a community player, and while that could change in theory at any moment, they're more my friend than this freak who is trying to demonstrate a patent on hypertext transfer protocol...
I have always said that its ok to be the 800 pound gorilla, as long as you don't go around smashing things. We need 800 pound gorillas to do big things. I'm a fan of IBM personally, in spite of their past anti-trust position that they have left behind them. I still have several IBM 325 pcservers from 1997 that refuse to die. Microsoft could do well to note that the fans don't happen until you quit acting like a jerk.
As to reviews, I'll be curious to hear them as well. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to dig into this stuff -- hence the reason that my workhorse box runs a three year old version of debian instead of the latest and greatest...
/.
The irony is I have a few boxes running redhat 7.2 (with a newer 2.4 kernel), and a few I am testing with redhat 9, and formally with rh8. I miss 7.2 and now they no longer support it, even though I am paying them to (rhn). Although I love RH9 on the desktop, it leaves me feeling a bit empty on the server side.
I miss Wine working without a workaround. I miss Linuxconf (no comments from the peanut crew, please, I know I can compile it, and that I shouldn't be using it to begin with). It seems like it is getting unnecessarily complicated, all in the name of "features". Redhat desktop install now takes up more space than Windows (granted, it does more). Their installer is showing its age, but I still like it better than the alternatives. On the server side, I want better simple gui tools I can use in a shell.
I just ordered a bunch of distros from www.cheapisos.com from an ad I saw here, rediculously cheap, to find another distro I like, so I can THEN buy a set from them (if they sell it). I'm funny that way, pay for stuff if I really use them. This is part of the reason I am interested in this new Trusted Debian. Im lazy, but not dumb. The more secure the system is, the less problems and maintenance you end up with. I want to try a copy of this since BSD isn't my cup of tea and I know Linux enough to do what I need. Its pretty easy to learn via web, usenet, email and once in a while here on
Marketing is not about getting rich. Marketing is about attempting to make yourself or your product a household name.
Money is not the only reason for doing such things, you know.
I've been in marketing in one form or another for 20 years. Funny thing, the only reason _I_ have been in marketing is to make money. Silly me.
I'm still betting it was less marketing and more simply naming it "trusted" as a goal. I mean, you have to call it SOMETHING to differentiate it from their regular distro. I usually associate marketing with more greedy goals. At least when it's done correctly.
That said, I can't wait to hear the actual reviews from real world sysadmins.
Two words: marketing buzzword.
1. Create more secure operating system.
2. Give it away for free.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!
Ok, I give, wtf _IS_ the third step that would require a marketing buzzword? I guess you can market for bragging rights, but I am guessing it was more of an afterthought than a business plan.
I bet I can name everyone that has gotten rich on Debian on one hand.............and still have 5 fingers left.
Even if it may result in more use and sales of their product, the name of the game is control and MS values that, it seems, more than potential profits. In fact, it probably costs them more dollars for their lawyers to draft various emails and notices than it would if a few Linux nerds run MS software. In fact, the latter probably costs them zip.
One of the benefits of having profit margins in the 50%+ range is you can do stuff like this. Well, maybe not morally or potentially legally, but you can afford it anyway.
What is the point of having a larger on-disk buffer, when you can just use an operating system that buffers disk efficiently? I'm no linux zealot, but I notice a HUGE difference in caching efficiency between the two.
Some of us use windows and linux, and it would be nice to have a dedicated cache that the kernel didn't have to monitor, OR could, (let the kernel hackers figure out if its worth the while). I would like to have the 256+mb as a DEDICATED cache, that can't or won't be used for anything except cache.
Of course there may be a way to do this in linux now, with the ram, but I don't know an easy way, and there isn't a way in windows. Another reason is that it would make reads faster, particularly when you are are writing and reading at the same time, which is common with large media files. Not everyone could use this, but many are and would pay the little extra to have it, especially if its a DIMM where we can decide how much, and if we want more in 6 months, to go from 256 to 1gig say, we can with just the DIMM.
Someone else said something in a post about how if its not battery backed up, it could get lost, but I have the whole computer on the backup, so its covered. Also, the cache should cache out pretty fast, its wanted mainly as a write buffer, so it should be able to dump the data to the drive pretty fast, just not requiring the cpu (ide) or slowing down reads. Most of the time it still sits there like any hard drive, plenty of time to sync.
Actually, a much larger cache would help, especially those of us that work with large graphic files (20mb to 120mb, initial scans up to 400mb)
The new shiney 8MB caches help, but I would love to see an IDE or SCSI drive with a slot for a DIMM. I know I can use RAID, but the performance is not good enough at a $ I can afford. But adding a 256mb or 512mb DIMM for cache, I could. Yes there are lots of caching cards, etc. out, but once again, price. it seems that it should be reasonably possible to have a "laptop" style dimm slot on a hard drive, with enough bios on the drive (and/or drivers for linux/windows) for a quite small amount of $, say $20 to $40 extra for the drive, not counting the actual DIMM itself.
Iraq do not have time to waste on setting up fake elections or puppet leaders for quite some time yet.
To make it more efficient foreign oil interests will provide the puppet and while the oppressive
police/military force is gone everyone can ocntinue on their civil war that just paused some 30 years ago.
Unfortunately the foreign interests are only interested in the puppet doing what he is told so noone will try to end the emerging civil unrest.
Crowd control is spelled a-k-4-7. thats the proper way to deal with ungrateful demonstrators that dont understand their own good.
You do raise some good points. As pro-USA as I am, I am not stupid or short sited: I DO know that my own government has propped up dictators and has generally acted as a bad neighbor for many years. My HOPE is that because of the visibility, and the realization that it doesn't work, we will actually support democracy.
In this day and age, our best defense against terrorism IS democracy. Because of the high visability, I will give the US govt. the benefit of the doubt, while keeping a sharp eye out. IF they do it right by really promoting democracy and individual freedom in Iraq, they will lay down a foundation that will allow them to cope with the years of civil war that preceeded Saddam's rule.
The eastern block countries went through the same problems when the USSR fell. It was painful. Many died. Many long for the 'good old days', but 50 years from now, I believe all will look back and see that the pain was worth the results if they continue down the road to democracy.
Democracy is not pretty. It's not easy, as a matter of fact, it is the most difficult form of government. It makes some people die in the struggle. It causes very sharp, short term pain. But in the long run, it is the only way to get people personally invested in everyone's elses future, because we all have a stake. In a small way it can be compared to a company that is owned by all the employees: Each has a stake in the outcome, each is partially responsible for the success of everyone, each has a role or job, each has an equal voice.
Democracy IS an experiment in the history of man. We are not done perfecting it yet.
The alternative is that everbody's vote counts equally, whether you're in a big state or small state.
That is the point that creates a problem. One example: Over 75% of the population lives within 60 miles of an ocean. (I think its actually closer to 90%), yet we have presidents and influential politicians from all states because South Dakota has the same number of senators as California. Our founding fathers DID this on purpose, to keep the most populous states from dictating to the less populated states. If we had equal representation, farm policy would be lower on the list, for example.
They struck a balance with individual votes counting most, and land area counting next. People who live in "fly over country" DO get a slightly louder voice in our government, because they get more Senators per capita. They get electoral votes ONLY according to population, with a minimum. It was never designed to be equal to each person. It was designed to be equal to each STATE. The US is pretty unique in this respect. The cool thing is, you can move.
This is one reason why I think Iraq would do good to follow our model, divided into states, each with a certain amount of independence, like the USA. This would cut down on the fighting and arguements within the nation government because the day to day decisions would be decided locally. Maybe the Kurds don't want to support the same health policies that the Shia do. Leave it as a state policy then.
I can't argue with your frustration at the elections given the numbers don't lie. But again, I consider the alternatives, ALL the alternatives (non state system) and think this is part of why we are able to get along.
Every seat in congress is "winner takes all". It does not really help that there are hundreds of seats, you still need to be first past the post in a district.
Not exactly true in one respect. Some states require the candidate get over 50% of the vote, some states just declare the person with the most votes the winner.
So even if 20% of the US population supported a certain point of view, they would only be represented if they happened to be concentrated by location. (e.g. 1% of pop thinks Hawaii is important, they get represented, 3% are green, they don't cause they're spread geographically)
Perhaps they would be underrepresented at the federal level, but not local level, when the vast majority of law is produced. The potential underrepresentation is exactly why our constitution has a bill of rights, to protect the minority from the majority.
For most bodies of thought, they are NOT spread evenly accross the USA. This is why you have more liberals in California than in Alabama, for instance. No form of government is perfect, and to expect it to be is pretty naive.
I live in a country where there is such a system (the netherlands), multiple parties have to form a coalition in order to get a majority.
In America we have real problems with this. Most people who would vote with the Green party would take exception with them cooperating with the Republicans. Or Libratarians.
Even the the parties seem "left or right" the fact is there are many liberal Republicans and many conservative Democrats. about 1/3 of the US votes mainly Democrat, about 1/3 votes mainly Republican and the remaining 1/3 are swing voters.
While you CAN vote a straight party ticket here (Democrats only, for instance) most people do no not and vote instead for the PERSON rather than the political philosophy. This is more true in local politics than in National, but local politics has more impact on people here than Federal. I assume this is NOT true for countries with smaller populations. States make most of the laws, NOT federal. Feds just get all the national press.
Our political system is NOT as federal as it appears to people in other countries. Really. The whole Republic nature of our government pushes decisions to the lowest levels. Education, for instance, gets a TINY % of funding from federal. Its mainly CITY and COUNTY, not even state. Here we say all politics is local for good reason. Even the crime of murder is STATE law. Less than 1% of the time is it prosecuted in federal law. Most other crime is the same. Marijuana possession may get you a ticket in California, a fine in North Carolina, 1 years probation in Kansas, or 30 days jail in Lousiana. Its not prosecuted federally unless you have a few acres growing (minimum 5 years for growing)
It is also very difficult to compare elections in the US, a democratic republic of 285 million people, and The Netherlands which is a constitutional monarchy with 16 million people. With 17 times the population and 232 times the land mass (CIA World Factbook), and our history with monarchies, its not a shock that our systems are different.
Not always. 100 years ago, the Democratic party did not exist. We do have Independent parties in federal office ( a couple ) but we have several 3rd party candidates in state offices. Jesse Ventura ran as an independent and won, for instance.
;)
Even within the parties, you have independent souls. Sam Nunn was a very conservative Democrat. Phil Spector is a very liberal Republican. Jim Jeffords, well, hes a putz, thats another story.
I look at all the problems that are typical in countries where there are several parties, and not sure I would like that either. Israel, where two different parties have to join forces to form a majority, and other parlamentary states. Same with England, although it is a bit more bipolar. In otherword, there are disadvantages to the "2+ some other guys" way our political system currently is, but from what I see of the alternatives, its not really a disadvantage, its just different.
The real problem is in the media. Some people say money is what candidates want. That is not true. They want votes. They know that this is the only way to keep their power.
Correct, which is why the media LOVES the new election reforms: It makes them more powerful. Now candidates are more reliant on free exposure from media. Special interest groups can NOT run ads 60 days before an election, so they must grease the palms of the media for their issue to, magically become 'news'. This greasing can come in running ads for companies that are owned by the people involved in the special interests, or by purchasing enough ads prior to the 60 day blockout to get special treatment. They are becoming more and more like the 4th branch of govt.
Now, I have to call and tell my credit card company that I am shipping to my work address every time that I need something delivered.
Actually you don't. Just call your credit card company ONCE and have them add your business address permanantly as an alternate to your billing address. I have both my shop and another company listed with my credit card company, plus the home that is the billing address. I just order, decide which one, and it goes through. All the verification does is see if the address is listed, it can be more than one.
Quite convenient since I ship to all three addresses on the same card, depending on what the item is.
On your other point: My regular UPS guy never gets me to sign. If there is a substitute, he always requires me to sign. I haven't figured out why yet.
I had to laugh when I saw your comment. I wasn't aware nerds had such good manicures, or cared. I didn't notice the nails until I went back. Didn't seem that bad to me, but I guess we all have their peeves.