in the pacific northwestern united states (I don't know about elseware), AT&T is running two seperate ad campaigns
1. pro-cable, anti-DSL
2. pro-Digital Phone Service (translation: DSL) anti-cable
both refer to bandwidth
they're competing with themselves
are they doing this intentionaly, or is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?
being an AT&T@Home user, I can tell you that their DHCP is both useless and irrtating
a: it simply doesn't appear to work within linux or any other OS besides windows
b: it always assigns the exact same IP address
c: even if it didn't assign the same IP address, because of how the network is organized, the hostname will remain the same
thus, DHCP use on the @Home network, at least in the northwest united states, is a waste of resources
whoa there buddy...
in my enviorment, being able to run DOS apps in win2k is vital, and there's no reason to remove MS-DOS compatability from win2k, it doesn't slow anything down unless it's actually in use, and the amount of drive space it takes up is nill in todays computers
IF the courts uphold any of this CRAP (which I doubt they really will) then Rambus will get their little settlement and nothing more... everyone's just going to dump the RAM like a bad habit
if you read the entire report you'll note some strange mentions of agreeing on standards etc.
just that every time the government does something like this it comes up with more ways to regulate us
it just gives me an uncomfortable feeling... I'm not sure I want the government contributing to OSS development all due to its possible implications
this whole thing makes me somewhat uncomfortable from the get-go
sure on the surface the report looks like a good thing at first glance, but it really seems to imply regulation of OSS, which is simply the oposite of what OSS is about
no I'm not implying that individual projects are not regulated by the people involved, but when a bigger body steps in, things sometimes go bad, and if the government steps in, what's going to happen?
I'm not saying the government WILL screw this up, I'm just wondering if it's possibly too big a risk to take?
The music industry can kiss my ass, like I'm going to HELP them do something like this.
it doesn't matter anyway, anything like this can be worked around with less than $10 in hardware
if people such as yourself would happen to think of a little trick known as "look through the rest of the thread before replying" this post would never have shown up
I really see no reason why we couldn't fork the tree for this and still maintain quick production... think about this:
2.4 ships, 2.5 starts, at this point they fork off a tree from 2.4 to start implimenting and testing this new patch... if all goes well it should be a very quick development, if not then which would you rather have, implimentation of this stalled along with everything else, or just this?
If this is done quickly enough, it can be added to 2.5 and 2.5 will only be delayed days possibly a week or two at most and it'll be in once 2.6 is released, and there you have it.
Now if all hell breaks loose when we put it into 2.4 and stress test it etc. then we'll know there's a problem and to NOT put it in 2.5 since it could delay 2.6 by god only knows how long.
My point is, this is a GREAT addition to the linux kernel if it works, but personaly I'm not willing to risk it delaying other development, are you?
I'm saying we shouldn't have technology this new in a kernel that will be unstable to begin with, this sort of thing should be done with a stable kernel outside of the normal development tree so that we know exactly how it will affect the normal operation of the kernel in a STABLE enviorment.
Once we've established how it will affect things, THEN it should be placed into the normal development tree.
"MontaVista would like to see this technology, or similar technology, utilized as a foundational feature of Linux 2.5,"
2.5? 2.5 will be an UNSTABLE release, these guys obviously don't have a clue what they're talking about... 2.4 isn't even done, and now they want entirely new technology to be part of a kernel version that by its very nature will be unstable? I don't think so!
amen
I've got a P75 sitting beside me right now that I still use as a server for various things, I'm soon going to punch in a P166MMX chip to speed things up a bit but I don't REALLY need it.
P.S.
Anyone interested in a partialy fried P90 chip that can only run underclocked to 75mhz?
I've got a little desk fan that I use sometimes when it's hot but not hot enough to turn the AC on... when you turn it on it can make the TV show snow in the middle for a split second and seems to have a lesser effect on the monitors for a moment, it doesn't seem to have any other effects except the following:
If you turn it on and off repeatedly and quickly, you can change the lights on a keyboard! wether or not this actually turns on/off numlock/capslock/scroll lock (what the heck is scroll lock anyway? I presume is an obsolete feature from early systems?) as I didn't bother to test after I discovered that little quirk
as a long time member of the Ultima Online emulator community (specificaly UOX and UOX variants) I can tell you that quite simply, there's nothing they can do about it... IF IT IS OPEN SOURCE
once it's open sourced then there's nothing that can be done to stop it.. even if they tried they wouldn't suceed
Origin finnaly decided that as long as nobody was making any money off it, there was no problem
that's what'll happen with verant.. the only reason you've gotten these letters is because they've got Sony behind them.. OSI just had EA... and where's the contest for deepest pockets?:)
I do belive we've reached the point now where even slashdotters MUST have great graphics in a game...
are the graphics in Everquest perfect? hell no... but then the graphics in other games aren't perfect either.. this is an inherent issue with computer games, graphics can't be perfect.
and in a project as large as Everquest they're sure as hell not going to be perfect, but they did a DAMN GOOD JOB
and to the other guy, yes they are on par with Quake2's graphics, I'd suggest you actually play the game before you bash its graphics
this isn't a problem in my book so long as the policy is reversed when IPv6 enters widespread use (beyond universities and Internet2 (I2 is using IPv6 right?)) since once that happens we'll have plenty of IP addresses avalible:)
you're being extremely unfair... the graphics are a lot better than Quake (which was released in 96) and at least on par with Quake2's graphics... of course since you've OBVIOUSLY played the game and thus can make a fair comment about it, you must already know this
IMHO NC's are the concept, not the ultimate result (so to speak)
Yes, NC's are a GREAT idea for the average person who wants to use a computer for things like research, general web browsing, and even some word processing, but in their current form yes I do think they are too limited.
What I think we need to focus on is not "How stupidly simple can we make this?" but rather "How stupidly EASY can we make this?"
Some of you might be saying "What? that's the same thing!" no, it's not.
You can make it stupidly easy without making it simple... the "easy" part needs to be in the User Interface, NOT the components themselves (although a quick redesign of the way a few things connect to eachother would be advisable *cough*jumpers*cough*POWER CABLES*cough*) because if we make the very lowest levels of the computer extreamly simple, we may wind up with a sitation where there is an abundant supply of computers for the average person, but few for someone like me, who can't STAND not being able to screw up my system easily:)
And one other thing: the case, please for the love of god make computer cases easier to open and shut:)
do beer and penguins mix? do you really want a drunk penguin running your computer?
# ls
ERROR - glug glug glug *burrrrrp* huh? oh sorry...
# %&$%^&@#$(&
Warning - Do not swear at the drunk penguin
Slashdot Mirror
in the pacific northwestern united states (I don't know about elseware), AT&T is running two seperate ad campaigns
1. pro-cable, anti-DSL
2. pro-Digital Phone Service (translation: DSL) anti-cable
both refer to bandwidth
they're competing with themselves
are they doing this intentionaly, or is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?
oops should clarify I'm well aware that proper DHCP works within linux, I was reffering to the fact that AT&T@Home's DHCP servers are poorly set up
being an AT&T@Home user, I can tell you that their DHCP is both useless and irrtating
a: it simply doesn't appear to work within linux or any other OS besides windows
b: it always assigns the exact same IP address
c: even if it didn't assign the same IP address, because of how the network is organized, the hostname will remain the same
thus, DHCP use on the @Home network, at least in the northwest united states, is a waste of resources
whoa there buddy...
in my enviorment, being able to run DOS apps in win2k is vital, and there's no reason to remove MS-DOS compatability from win2k, it doesn't slow anything down unless it's actually in use, and the amount of drive space it takes up is nill in todays computers
IF the courts uphold any of this CRAP (which I doubt they really will) then Rambus will get their little settlement and nothing more... everyone's just going to dump the RAM like a bad habit
I realize what they mean in that context... but since when does the government understand context ("I gave you the internet")
if you read the entire report you'll note some strange mentions of agreeing on standards etc.
just that every time the government does something like this it comes up with more ways to regulate us
it just gives me an uncomfortable feeling... I'm not sure I want the government contributing to OSS development all due to its possible implications
this whole thing makes me somewhat uncomfortable from the get-go
sure on the surface the report looks like a good thing at first glance, but it really seems to imply regulation of OSS, which is simply the oposite of what OSS is about
no I'm not implying that individual projects are not regulated by the people involved, but when a bigger body steps in, things sometimes go bad, and if the government steps in, what's going to happen?
I'm not saying the government WILL screw this up, I'm just wondering if it's possibly too big a risk to take?
The music industry can kiss my ass, like I'm going to HELP them do something like this. it doesn't matter anyway, anything like this can be worked around with less than $10 in hardware
Understand?
Welcome to hell.
I really see no reason why we couldn't fork the tree for this and still maintain quick production... think about this:
2.4 ships, 2.5 starts, at this point they fork off a tree from 2.4 to start implimenting and testing this new patch... if all goes well it should be a very quick development, if not then which would you rather have, implimentation of this stalled along with everything else, or just this?
If this is done quickly enough, it can be added to 2.5 and 2.5 will only be delayed days possibly a week or two at most and it'll be in once 2.6 is released, and there you have it.
Now if all hell breaks loose when we put it into 2.4 and stress test it etc. then we'll know there's a problem and to NOT put it in 2.5 since it could delay 2.6 by god only knows how long.
My point is, this is a GREAT addition to the linux kernel if it works, but personaly I'm not willing to risk it delaying other development, are you?
Once we've established how it will affect things, THEN it should be placed into the normal development tree.
"MontaVista would like to see this technology, or similar technology, utilized as a foundational feature of Linux 2.5,"
2.5? 2.5 will be an UNSTABLE release, these guys obviously don't have a clue what they're talking about... 2.4 isn't even done, and now they want entirely new technology to be part of a kernel version that by its very nature will be unstable? I don't think so!
amen I've got a P75 sitting beside me right now that I still use as a server for various things, I'm soon going to punch in a P166MMX chip to speed things up a bit but I don't REALLY need it. P.S. Anyone interested in a partialy fried P90 chip that can only run underclocked to 75mhz?
If you turn it on and off repeatedly and quickly, you can change the lights on a keyboard! wether or not this actually turns on/off numlock/capslock/scroll lock (what the heck is scroll lock anyway? I presume is an obsolete feature from early systems?) as I didn't bother to test after I discovered that little quirk
I'd much rather be using win3.1/3.11 than the crap that I have to use (win2k)
as a long time member of the Ultima Online emulator community (specificaly UOX and UOX variants) I can tell you that quite simply, there's nothing they can do about it... IF IT IS OPEN SOURCE once it's open sourced then there's nothing that can be done to stop it.. even if they tried they wouldn't suceed Origin finnaly decided that as long as nobody was making any money off it, there was no problem that's what'll happen with verant.. the only reason you've gotten these letters is because they've got Sony behind them.. OSI just had EA... and where's the contest for deepest pockets? :)
I do belive we've reached the point now where even slashdotters MUST have great graphics in a game...
are the graphics in Everquest perfect? hell no... but then the graphics in other games aren't perfect either.. this is an inherent issue with computer games, graphics can't be perfect.
and in a project as large as Everquest they're sure as hell not going to be perfect, but they did a DAMN GOOD JOB
and to the other guy, yes they are on par with Quake2's graphics, I'd suggest you actually play the game before you bash its graphics
this isn't a problem in my book so long as the policy is reversed when IPv6 enters widespread use (beyond universities and Internet2 (I2 is using IPv6 right?)) since once that happens we'll have plenty of IP addresses avalible :)
you're being extremely unfair... the graphics are a lot better than Quake (which was released in 96) and at least on par with Quake2's graphics... of course since you've OBVIOUSLY played the game and thus can make a fair comment about it, you must already know this
IMHO NC's are the concept, not the ultimate result (so to speak)
Yes, NC's are a GREAT idea for the average person who wants to use a computer for things like research, general web browsing, and even some word processing, but in their current form yes I do think they are too limited.
What I think we need to focus on is not "How stupidly simple can we make this?" but rather "How stupidly EASY can we make this?" Some of you might be saying "What? that's the same thing!" no, it's not.
You can make it stupidly easy without making it simple... the "easy" part needs to be in the User Interface, NOT the components themselves (although a quick redesign of the way a few things connect to eachother would be advisable *cough*jumpers*cough*POWER CABLES*cough*) because if we make the very lowest levels of the computer extreamly simple, we may wind up with a sitation where there is an abundant supply of computers for the average person, but few for someone like me, who can't STAND not being able to screw up my system easily :)
And one other thing: the case, please for the love of god make computer cases easier to open and shut :)
wait untill it can run and not crash after 2 minutes, say, late pre-beta
do beer and penguins mix? do you really want a drunk penguin running your computer? # ls ERROR - glug glug glug *burrrrrp* huh? oh sorry... # %&$%^&@#$(& Warning - Do not swear at the drunk penguin
why does the US Media insist on being stupid? you'd think we'd have enough stupidity to go around from the politicians :(