Re:The VAX port stopped working a long time ago
on
NetBSD v3.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Use OpenBSD then. The latest version of OpenBSD runs well on a VAX. When I got my VAX, I was intending to put NetBSD on it but then I discovered the documentation for netbooting the VAX to install was poor and inconsistent, to say the least (with many of the web pages being 404 - Not Found). By contrast, the OpenBSD instructions were contained in the actual installation documentation, just where you'd expect, along with the other methods of installation. The OpenBSD documentation was clear and concise, and very shortly I was MOP booting the OpenBSD installer.
I started with the Sinclair ZX-81 (about the same time) and then ZX Spectrum (and used the BBC Micro). On the ZX-81 and Spectrum, the peripheral interconnect bus was documented with the user guide you got with the computer. You could buy a book with a complete disassembly and annotation of the Spectrum ROM (these things were written in asm anyway, so there wasn't really any such thing as 'closed source').
In the world of larger computers, Unix was open source (even if it was proprietary). BSD (which has always been open source) had its development begin in the 1970s.
This is beside the point, in any case. Microsoft were successfully prosecuted for using their monopoly to drive competitors out of other markets. To break this monopoly, one of the remedies is that they must document their proprietary protocols. Microsoft isn't Texas Instruments (which was just one of many many 8-bit computer manufacturers and not a monopoly) - Microsoft have a monopoly, and therefore are subject to anti trust rules. Just like someone who commits a crime has conditions placed on them, Microsoft have broken anti trust regulations in Europe and are having conditions placed on them. If Microsoft didn't want to face the consequences, they shouldn't have used their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets. Only Microsoft are to blame here for their illegal abuse of their monopoly - no one else. Or do you believe corporations should be exempt from the law?
I hold an FAA PP-ASEL/AMEL/G/IA (for those who are not familiar with the FAA pilot ratings, that's private pilot, airplane single engine land, plus airplane multiengine land, plus glider, plus instrument airplane). Back in 1997 when I was working on my private, I used MSFS plus CH pedals/yoke to learn how to do crosswind landings properly. Although the MSFS plane doesn't react precisely as a real one does, it does react in the correct sense and the correct magnitude. I found MSFS very helpful in learning crosswind landings.
Also, I found MSFS very helpful as a basic instrument trainer for my instrument rating (although I wish it had better instrument failure modes - the proper PCATD style sims are much better for that, especially as they have a separate station for the Bastard Instructor From Hell)
The "supreme being" is kind of implied by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty fucking supreme to me.
They were *also* convicted in the European Union. The EU isn't fining Microsoft because they violated US law; they are fining Microsoft because they were violating *European* law.
If Microsoft don't pay, it is a criminal offence (contempt of court) and the EU have several methods at their disposal:
- seize Microsoft assets in the EU (buildings, bank account balances, intellectual property) - prosecute the directors who are responsible for the decision for Microsoft Europe to be in contempt of court
This is an antitrust issue. Your whole EXACT SAME issues thing is a non-sequitor because:
- Apple is not a convicted monopolist - RedHat is not a convicted monopolist - SuSE is not a convicted monopolist
Microsoft *is* a convicted monopolist, that is why they are being fined. They are being fined because they are using their desktop monopoly to force out competitors in other markets, such as the server market. Additionally, they are using their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets and sell things like the XBox below cost price, which will eventually force other competitors without the luxury of using a monopoly to subsidise their games market to exit the market.
Linux distros, on the other hand, use open and documented protocols. It is no problem using a Sun Solaris NIS and NFS server with a Linux desktop client, or a Linux server with a Sun Solaris desktop client. RedHat and SuSE do not have desktop monopolies which they use to lock out competitors from the server market (and vice versa).
Additionally, MSDN doesn't exactly document the proprietary and non-standard extensions to Kerberos that prevent anyone other than Microsoft from creating a server that can provide Active Directory to Windows clients.
Microsoft would not be being fined if their business conduct did not include using their Windows monopoly to subsidise their entry into other markets. It is not fair game for MS to counter sue for bias and prejudice because there is no bias and prejudice - all the other people you cite do not use Microsoft business practises.
Microsoft are trading in Europe, a market far bigger than the United States. To trade in Europe, Microsoft Europe needs to follow the laws of the European Union. Just like a European company like BP has to follow the laws of the United States when trading in the United States.
In any case, you (like many others) in this discussion have missed a very important point - no one is asking Microsoft to open its source code, only document and make available information about its protocols so other operating systems may properly interoperate (for example, with Microsoft's non-standard Kerberos implementation).
If they threatened this, it would demonstrate to the world that Microsoft thinks it is above the law. (It would probably also gain them another prosecution in the European courts too). They would never threaten to leave the European market because this would cause them to lose control of the PC desktop worldwide - a market of 400 million switching to Apple and Linux would have huge repercussions outside of Europe. If they did this - other nations would argue that Microsoft could do this to them too, so governments would make sure their national infrastructure would not depend on Microsoft. It would be suicide for Microsoft to even contemplate threatening this.
No one is asking Microsoft to release source code, just to document protocols such as their modified Kerberos used by Active Directory so other systems can interoperate. (In any case, the computer industry in the beginning was much more open - it's only later on that closed source and closed protocols started to appear).
Microsoft isn't a normal company; it holds a monopoly, therefore, they are subject to the rules of a monopoly. What you're saying is essentially an analogue to saying "Humans have always been killing other humans, I can't believe the EU would be so facist to compel people to stop killing others by having punishment for murder!".
If the hypothetical situation of Microsoft stopping sales of Windows and Office happened, the impact wouldn't be quite as great as you expect. Firstly, existing copies of Windows and Office would continue to work just fine. Secondly, imagine the glee of companies such as IBM and Sun who now have a market of 450 million people which now lacks the Microsoft 800-lb gorilla - so Microsoft would never even contemplate doing that. Apple would not join Microsoft in such a deal either, because they'd be throwing an enormous opportunity to take a huge chunk of that market for themselves.
Last time I bought a number plate (in mid-2002), I just walked into the shop and told them what registration to put on it. No checks, no nothing. Of course, this is the Isle of Man, not the UK - but you can get 'UK style' plates made up here too with the UK style lettering (the 'Ellan Vannin' style plates that we mostly use here use a different font to UK plates, and have characters that UK plates lack like the - character).
Cyclists already have to follow the highway code - if they don't, they can be fined for a traffic offence.
If a cyclist plows into the side of your car, it's likely he will have to _fix himself_ which has a very high pain cost - and in any case, legally, the cyclist can't just bugger off (and is liable for the damage he caused to your car). If a car driver plows into the side of a cyclist, it's much worse. The cyclist already gets the short end of the stick.
As a car driver, I've never had a cyclist damage my car, but I've had two car drivers cause damage to my car (and I was landed with a big bill - because even though the other drivers were insured, their insurance companies tried to get out of paying, and ended up paying for far less than the repairs cost). As a cyclist, I've had a car driver knock me off my bike because she simply didn't look where she was going, and turned left straight across my path. Although in the bike case, I lost no money...guess which one I found the worse?
Well, firstly, who created God? If God can just exist, well, why not the Big Bang? Mainly, all attributing everything to God does is just push the explanation out a level - it doesn't actually explain anything because now you must explain how God came to exist.
The eye isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. For example, my eyes are defective. I need to wear glasses to drive - so I am proof that it is not so that 'the eye either works or it does not'.
You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't. The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being". Teaching evolution theory does not say "A supreme being cannot exist". The theory of evolution doesn't even mention supreme beings.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory by any definition and therefore should not be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or an atheist, it makes no difference - ID is *not* a scientific theory. If intelligent design is to be taught, then it should be taught either in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. It has no place in a science class because it simply is not science.
Scientific theories are NOT about faith - in fact, part of the scientific method is to *disprove* theories, wheras faith is exactly the opposite - simply believing it's true and not challenging it. Scientists are always looking at probing the theory of evolution, trying to find its weaknesses and trying to disprove evolution theory as it stands because *this is what science is about*. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not set out anything that's falsifiable. Things that must be taken on faith are by definition not falsifiable.
Finally, saying "Evolution is only a theory" also grossly misses the point about what a scientific theory is. People who don't know what a scientific theory is often equate it with a "hunch" (sort of like how detectives have theories in TV shows, which are actually hunches). This is not what a scientific theory is.
For a broader understanding of what a scientific theory is and is not (it is NOT 'fact' as you state, and no scientist worth their salt would claim theory to be a fact), start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
An ISP would be *very* happy for the P2P traffic to go to the competition. Heavy P2P users are all big loss-makers for an ISP. They use up far more traffic than they pay for in their monthly fees. That's why Cox is blocking BitTorrent - they want the P2P users to make their competition incur losses. The ISP would like nothing more than P2P users being driven away from their network. ISPs have a great deal to gain from driving away P2P traffic - it's a huge loss maker! Try pricing up some of the real carrier grade connectivity (such as a T1) then compare it to the price of a typical broadband ISP.
Part of the problem is the fiction that ISPs put out in their advertising that the connectivity is "unlimited". It would be much better if ISPs were honest and sold (perhaps multiple different packages) with a bandwidth allowance, just like a co-lo provider does.
Slashdot is comprised of more than one person. The people complaining about "reimplementing Unix, poorly" are not necessarily the same people who complain that Windows is insecure.
- The Windows programming culture assumes a single user, single tasking computer. - Users on Windows are administrator by default
The first is the developers fault, the second is Microsoft's. At least Microsoft are trying to fix their end. But even 4 years after Windows XP was released, software is being released by developers who should know better that still require either admin rights or much tinkering to get to run as non-admin. The most recent one I encountered was an application for BACS payments a couple of weeks ago - their tech support's answer was "run as admin". I managed to get it to work for non admins (since this was on a Windows domain) only by caclsing (aka chmodding) the application's directory writeable by all!
It's obvious that the developer had simply not tested the program as non admin.
I know you said Unix, but as far as Unix workalikes are concerned, SElinux (which is turned on by default on RedHat products) can do all this and more.
If you use an anonymizing proxy outside the EU though, all the logs will show is lots of HTTPS connections to this proxy, and not where the communication ended. Buy a shell account on a server outside the EU, ssh to it, and use this account for email, and they will have no data about where your emails came from or went.
Slashdot Mirror
Use OpenBSD then. The latest version of OpenBSD runs well on a VAX. When I got my VAX, I was intending to put NetBSD on it but then I discovered the documentation for netbooting the VAX to install was poor and inconsistent, to say the least (with many of the web pages being 404 - Not Found). By contrast, the OpenBSD instructions were contained in the actual installation documentation, just where you'd expect, along with the other methods of installation. The OpenBSD documentation was clear and concise, and very shortly I was MOP booting the OpenBSD installer.
I started with the Sinclair ZX-81 (about the same time) and then ZX Spectrum (and used the BBC Micro). On the ZX-81 and Spectrum, the peripheral interconnect bus was documented with the user guide you got with the computer. You could buy a book with a complete disassembly and annotation of the Spectrum ROM (these things were written in asm anyway, so there wasn't really any such thing as 'closed source').
In the world of larger computers, Unix was open source (even if it was proprietary). BSD (which has always been open source) had its development begin in the 1970s.
This is beside the point, in any case. Microsoft were successfully prosecuted for using their monopoly to drive competitors out of other markets. To break this monopoly, one of the remedies is that they must document their proprietary protocols. Microsoft isn't Texas Instruments (which was just one of many many 8-bit computer manufacturers and not a monopoly) - Microsoft have a monopoly, and therefore are subject to anti trust rules. Just like someone who commits a crime has conditions placed on them, Microsoft have broken anti trust regulations in Europe and are having conditions placed on them. If Microsoft didn't want to face the consequences, they shouldn't have used their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets. Only Microsoft are to blame here for their illegal abuse of their monopoly - no one else. Or do you believe corporations should be exempt from the law?
That's because it isn't a virus - it's a trojan horse.
I hold an FAA PP-ASEL/AMEL/G/IA (for those who are not familiar with the FAA pilot ratings, that's private pilot, airplane single engine land, plus airplane multiengine land, plus glider, plus instrument airplane). Back in 1997 when I was working on my private, I used MSFS plus CH pedals/yoke to learn how to do crosswind landings properly. Although the MSFS plane doesn't react precisely as a real one does, it does react in the correct sense and the correct magnitude. I found MSFS very helpful in learning crosswind landings.
Also, I found MSFS very helpful as a basic instrument trainer for my instrument rating (although I wish it had better instrument failure modes - the proper PCATD style sims are much better for that, especially as they have a separate station for the Bastard Instructor From Hell)
The whole thing about Real was only *one* aspect of the anti-trust case in the EU. The EU case is no more of a sham than the US antitrust case was.
The "supreme being" is kind of implied by the term intelligent design, that there was an intelligent designer(s) behind what we see in biology on Earth. That sounds pretty fucking supreme to me.
They were *also* convicted in the European Union. The EU isn't fining Microsoft because they violated US law; they are fining Microsoft because they were violating *European* law.
If Microsoft don't pay, it is a criminal offence (contempt of court) and the EU have several methods at their disposal:
- seize Microsoft assets in the EU (buildings, bank account balances, intellectual property)
- prosecute the directors who are responsible for the decision for Microsoft Europe to be in contempt of court
and there's probably many more.
This is an antitrust issue. Your whole EXACT SAME issues thing is a non-sequitor because:
- Apple is not a convicted monopolist
- RedHat is not a convicted monopolist
- SuSE is not a convicted monopolist
Microsoft *is* a convicted monopolist, that is why they are being fined. They are being fined because they are using their desktop monopoly to force out competitors in other markets, such as the server market. Additionally, they are using their desktop monopoly to cross subsidise their entries into other markets and sell things like the XBox below cost price, which will eventually force other competitors without the luxury of using a monopoly to subsidise their games market to exit the market.
Linux distros, on the other hand, use open and documented protocols. It is no problem using a Sun Solaris NIS and NFS server with a Linux desktop client, or a Linux server with a Sun Solaris desktop client. RedHat and SuSE do not have desktop monopolies which they use to lock out competitors from the server market (and vice versa).
Additionally, MSDN doesn't exactly document the proprietary and non-standard extensions to Kerberos that prevent anyone other than Microsoft from creating a server that can provide Active Directory to Windows clients.
Microsoft would not be being fined if their business conduct did not include using their Windows monopoly to subsidise their entry into other markets. It is not fair game for MS to counter sue for bias and prejudice because there is no bias and prejudice - all the other people you cite do not use Microsoft business practises.
Microsoft are trading in Europe, a market far bigger than the United States. To trade in Europe, Microsoft Europe needs to follow the laws of the European Union. Just like a European company like BP has to follow the laws of the United States when trading in the United States.
In any case, you (like many others) in this discussion have missed a very important point - no one is asking Microsoft to open its source code, only document and make available information about its protocols so other operating systems may properly interoperate (for example, with Microsoft's non-standard Kerberos implementation).
If they refused to pay, the European directors of Microsoft will eventually be held liable and will go to prison.
If they threatened this, it would demonstrate to the world that Microsoft thinks it is above the law. (It would probably also gain them another prosecution in the European courts too). They would never threaten to leave the European market because this would cause them to lose control of the PC desktop worldwide - a market of 400 million switching to Apple and Linux would have huge repercussions outside of Europe. If they did this - other nations would argue that Microsoft could do this to them too, so governments would make sure their national infrastructure would not depend on Microsoft. It would be suicide for Microsoft to even contemplate threatening this.
No one is asking Microsoft to release source code, just to document protocols such as their modified Kerberos used by Active Directory so other systems can interoperate. (In any case, the computer industry in the beginning was much more open - it's only later on that closed source and closed protocols started to appear).
Microsoft isn't a normal company; it holds a monopoly, therefore, they are subject to the rules of a monopoly. What you're saying is essentially an analogue to saying "Humans have always been killing other humans, I can't believe the EU would be so facist to compel people to stop killing others by having punishment for murder!".
If the hypothetical situation of Microsoft stopping sales of Windows and Office happened, the impact wouldn't be quite as great as you expect. Firstly, existing copies of Windows and Office would continue to work just fine. Secondly, imagine the glee of companies such as IBM and Sun who now have a market of 450 million people which now lacks the Microsoft 800-lb gorilla - so Microsoft would never even contemplate doing that. Apple would not join Microsoft in such a deal either, because they'd be throwing an enormous opportunity to take a huge chunk of that market for themselves.
Humans are register based, not stack based, that's why :-)
Last time I bought a number plate (in mid-2002), I just walked into the shop and told them what registration to put on it. No checks, no nothing. Of course, this is the Isle of Man, not the UK - but you can get 'UK style' plates made up here too with the UK style lettering (the 'Ellan Vannin' style plates that we mostly use here use a different font to UK plates, and have characters that UK plates lack like the - character).
Cyclists already have to follow the highway code - if they don't, they can be fined for a traffic offence.
If a cyclist plows into the side of your car, it's likely he will have to _fix himself_ which has a very high pain cost - and in any case, legally, the cyclist can't just bugger off (and is liable for the damage he caused to your car). If a car driver plows into the side of a cyclist, it's much worse. The cyclist already gets the short end of the stick.
As a car driver, I've never had a cyclist damage my car, but I've had two car drivers cause damage to my car (and I was landed with a big bill - because even though the other drivers were insured, their insurance companies tried to get out of paying, and ended up paying for far less than the repairs cost). As a cyclist, I've had a car driver knock me off my bike because she simply didn't look where she was going, and turned left straight across my path. Although in the bike case, I lost no money...guess which one I found the worse?
Well, firstly, who created God? If God can just exist, well, why not the Big Bang? Mainly, all attributing everything to God does is just push the explanation out a level - it doesn't actually explain anything because now you must explain how God came to exist.
The eye isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. For example, my eyes are defective. I need to wear glasses to drive - so I am proof that it is not so that 'the eye either works or it does not'.
No - pdp-11s having sex would result in a VAX, not a pdp-12!
You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what science is. You never hear real scientists saying "Evolution is fact!" because it isn't. The theory of evolution doesn't say "There is no supreme being". Teaching evolution theory does not say "A supreme being cannot exist". The theory of evolution doesn't even mention supreme beings.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory by any definition and therefore should not be taught in a science class because it simply isn't science. Whether you're Christian, Muslim or an atheist, it makes no difference - ID is *not* a scientific theory. If intelligent design is to be taught, then it should be taught either in a philosophy class or a religious studies class. It has no place in a science class because it simply is not science.
Scientific theories are NOT about faith - in fact, part of the scientific method is to *disprove* theories, wheras faith is exactly the opposite - simply believing it's true and not challenging it. Scientists are always looking at probing the theory of evolution, trying to find its weaknesses and trying to disprove evolution theory as it stands because *this is what science is about*. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory because it does not set out anything that's falsifiable. Things that must be taken on faith are by definition not falsifiable.
Finally, saying "Evolution is only a theory" also grossly misses the point about what a scientific theory is. People who don't know what a scientific theory is often equate it with a "hunch" (sort of like how detectives have theories in TV shows, which are actually hunches). This is not what a scientific theory is.
For a broader understanding of what a scientific theory is and is not (it is NOT 'fact' as you state, and no scientist worth their salt would claim theory to be a fact), start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Oh, stop that, you make me want to vomit. Tech savvy teens are not beginning to question the moral ethics of anything, they just want free stuff.
An ISP would be *very* happy for the P2P traffic to go to the competition. Heavy P2P users are all big loss-makers for an ISP. They use up far more traffic than they pay for in their monthly fees. That's why Cox is blocking BitTorrent - they want the P2P users to make their competition incur losses. The ISP would like nothing more than P2P users being driven away from their network. ISPs have a great deal to gain from driving away P2P traffic - it's a huge loss maker! Try pricing up some of the real carrier grade connectivity (such as a T1) then compare it to the price of a typical broadband ISP.
Part of the problem is the fiction that ISPs put out in their advertising that the connectivity is "unlimited". It would be much better if ISPs were honest and sold (perhaps multiple different packages) with a bandwidth allowance, just like a co-lo provider does.
Slashdot is comprised of more than one person. The people complaining about "reimplementing Unix, poorly" are not necessarily the same people who complain that Windows is insecure.
The two chief problems with LUA in Windows are:
- The Windows programming culture assumes a single user, single tasking computer.
- Users on Windows are administrator by default
The first is the developers fault, the second is Microsoft's. At least Microsoft are trying to fix their end. But even 4 years after Windows XP was released, software is being released by developers who should know better that still require either admin rights or much tinkering to get to run as non-admin. The most recent one I encountered was an application for BACS payments a couple of weeks ago - their tech support's answer was "run as admin". I managed to get it to work for non admins (since this was on a Windows domain) only by caclsing (aka chmodding) the application's directory writeable by all!
It's obvious that the developer had simply not tested the program as non admin.
I know you said Unix, but as far as Unix workalikes are concerned, SElinux (which is turned on by default on RedHat products) can do all this and more.
If you use an anonymizing proxy outside the EU though, all the logs will show is lots of HTTPS connections to this proxy, and not where the communication ended. Buy a shell account on a server outside the EU, ssh to it, and use this account for email, and they will have no data about where your emails came from or went.