All of you will have an RF connector. This is the input you normally use for your TV antenna and represents the oldest and worst format available.
While I grant that/most/ people probably have an F-type connection on the back of their tv, I think assuming ALL have it is probably a little much. There's always one.
My real point though is that this is about where I stopped reading. F-type is the oldest and worst? Has he never seen/played a console on a tv connected with a 300 Ohm connection? I'm going to guess he probably hasn't. To me, this little slip just confirms my original thought upon browsing through his little "guide" that he really doesn't have a clue, and is just regurgitation what some sucker-savvy salesman told him about "Monster Cable".
Save your money. It's not worth it. Good cables are important, and can give you a better, or more reliably quality experience, but you don't need to buy monster cables to get that. Buy any of the higher end cables from any of the major electronics retailers and you'll get the same thing. Or even the walmart one.
Re:Recycle Bins - don't you just hate them?
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2
But still, no matter how long you've been a linux user it's still possible to accidently type "rm core *" rather than "rm core*" and not catch it
That's why you alias rm to rm -i for root, and get in the habit of using this wonderful thing called tab completion.
Most users don't care about what toolkit powers an app.
And that's fine. Just don't expect people who do care to dumb down their favorite system just because you want to use it and want it to look and act just like your chosen os.
[snip]
since no one is forced to use Linux, they'd all just put Windows back on their machines, or better yet, buy a Mac.
YES! This exactly what I'd like to see happen. I am not a "everyone should use linux" type of person. Linux is for people who like the way linux works, imo. If someone wants an operating system that works like windows then they should install windows. If they just want a reliable system that's easy to use and doesn't require much from the user, buy a mac, or even install BeOS. Don't bitch and moan about linux not being for you.
The great thing about Linux is that it's very malleable. It's OK for it to go the way of "point-and-grunt," if that's the kind of thing its users want.
That's just it, I don't think it/is/ what the users want. From everything I've seen there is a small but extremely vocal minority of people who basically want windows for linux.
I think it is too much to ask of users that they learn about things the OS should take care of. You think they should have to know about the way libraries work, relationships between them, and various widget sets. Why? Why not more details, or details about different parts of the system? Do you know how to program?
I don't. Why not more details? I dunno, there's probably more they should know, I didn't want to try and list everything. I don't think they should know these things to get started, but if they want to use a powerful system they should be prepared to put in the effort required. That means learning. yes, I do know how to program. More languages than I care to count right now. And yes, I think a full time linux user should have basic development knowledge. They should know at least enough to submit a halfway intelligent bug report. Maybe not when they start, but they should be prepared to put in the effort to learn that much.
people who like to dick around with administrative tasks more than actually use their computers
Heh. Woah. So, administrators don't "use" their computers? Is there some standard for what defines "using" a computer now? Word Processing? Playing games? Instant Messaging? What is it that counts as valid use?
I still expect it to just work.
That's fine. Then use an os that "just works". Don't use an OS that is meant for people who like to or don't mind tinkering. If you wanted a car that "just works" you wouldn't buy a 400hp turbocharged race-car with nitrous. You buy that if you are prepared for the effort and learning involved, and are willing to trade that for the power. Same with linux.
Two years ago, I switched to Mac OS X, and I can't see ever going back. OS X is very far from perfect, but there's no way Linux will ever be the better option for me.
Cool. Linux isn't for everyone. Nor should it try to be. If you're happy with OS-X then that's great. No OS is ever going to meet/everyone's/ needs, and trying to will only end up with an OS that purely addresses the lowest common denominator. Personally I agree with you, that OS-X and/or BeOS are probably the best OSes for people who can't or aren't willing to put in the effort linux requires. And that's not in any way intended to be a negative thing. It's not an insult. People are just different.
Why should they when they have better things to do? Other systems avoid this problem - last time I looked VCL and MFC apps are painted the same under Windows these days.
Hey great! Then guess what, these people who want that can use windows.
I didn't say making something easier to use removes choice. My comment was in response to the general feeling that we should all have one way to do things so that it's easier for those people too lazy to excercise their brain to figure out what they want.
Most desktop users don't know, or care what a toolkit is, and they shouldn't have to.
This argument is all too common imo. It basically boils down to "users shouldn't have to know anything about their computers to use them" I think this is bunk. It is exactly this kind of mentality that eventually results in the "point-and-grunt" interface that we have in windows. That is most definatley NOT the direction I want to see linux take.
I don't think users should know 4 programming languages, and how to edit their filesystem or anything, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they learn how the thing works, even tot he point of understanding the relationship of libraries, widget sets, etc.
This crap of removing choice in favor of making this easier for users is bunk. Part of the cost of moving to a better system like linux is getting a clue. deal with it people.
After all, you don't expect Readers Digest to be able to publish an abridged version of a book without the consent of the original author and/or publisher. So why do you expect Clean Flicks to be able to do it?
Because that's not even close to the same thing.
Reader's digest distributes copies THEY make of an orginal work, in abridged form. i.e. the author gets squat. Cleanflicks buys a copy that the DISTRIBUTOR makes, and then edits that and resells it. Thus, the author gets his cut.
That is why readers digest gets permission on the legal side. They may also ask out of respect for the author, but if so that's purely a voluntary thing. The only reason they HAVE to ask, is because they are exceeding the limitations of fair use.
So, you say this doesn't have anything to do with personal editing, but it does. If CleanFlicks is purchasing the copy, then they OWN it, and thus any editing they do is personal editing. They just then choose to resell it to someone else. Or do you think they don't have a right to sell the tape that they own? Or maybe you think they can't sell it because they modified it? Even if such modifications are clearly disclaimed?
What a crock. It'll be a sad day for linux when you can't customize your kernel. I don't WANT all the freaking modules for every piece of hardware the kernel supports. That's just ridiculous. I only actually USE a very small percentage. Are you going to suggest that the same kernel be bootable across all architectures too? Or maybe we should just always have to have a kernel and a copy of the full binary module tree for every possible hardware platform the kernel supports?
Sheesh. It's people like you that give laziness a bad name.
I also keep logs of people who access ports on my machine and regularly scan for indications they might belong to one of those organizations. (check reverse lookups, whois records, etc.)
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee they won't hire an outside party to do the dirty work, in which case more careful study of access logs is required.
Regardless, I'm guessing that ISP simply blocked the above netblock at their border firewall, with possible exceptions for standard services like SMTP and HTTP.
Lonetar + rescue ranger! It's a carryover from my SCO days. SCO server failure? If you've got lone-tar/airbag you're up w/out hassle. Freaking reliable.
Backups for linux are fire and forget too. Fortunately, I've never had a catastrophic failure under linux, so I've not had a need to test RR outside of a lab environment. (Where it works fine)
1) No war; Lincoln lets them go. I dunno, but there might have been a long shot if they'd helf back from attacking federal property. I seriously doubt it, though.
Heh. They tried. They didn't/want/ to attack. They were going to wait, and let them leave on their own terms. Lincoln used that to his advantage and sent reinforcements for the fort. The south had no choice to attack or they would/never/ leave.
One way or another, Lincoln was going to have that war. He just wanted the south to at least appear to start it, thus gaining the upper hand in the public relations game.
2) British military intervention. But given that the northern threat to drop all trade would clearly come, this was never a real option.
They were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy. That's the whole reason Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation. Once he had done that, the British govt withdrew support because of
the image that attached to the Confederacy and to the war.
However, you have to stay in the war long enough for this to happen, and the south didn't.
The south/couldn't/. No food, no men, no clothes, no shoes, no ammunition, no weapons. How do you fight a war like that?
Bet you a dollar you are wrong. General Lee was torn about whether he should serve his state, Virginia, or his country, the United States of America. I think that his country's recognition of his integrity, despite the fact that he "betrayed" the Union, would have warmed his heart.
Unfortunately, we'll likely never know who'd win that bet. However, while he certainly did not want to see the nation split, he also would want nothing to do with the US as it stood then, let alone the atrocity it has become today. If he thought states rights were being trampled then....wow.
I think he'd probably see it as the empty guesture it was. Some bizzare act of "forgiveness" for as you said "betraying" the US. But that's hogwash. He didn't betray anyone. The right to secede was and is right there in our founding documents. They should've been able to do so peacefully as they desired instead of having to fight a war to save lincoln's pride and chances for re-election.
Hey, I learned something today.;-) Turns out it is even worse than that, anytime you make regular stops it is illegal. Though it is also illegal to put things in someone's mailbox it's not the only limitation.
Um, you'd better mention that to UPS Ground service.
What is illegal is delivering to a post office box. UPS doesn't do that, so they're fine. If they started putting letters in your mailbox though, they'd be screwed.
Huh? Try not being able to handle a long drawn out war. The north had all the manufacturing/etc. The south had trouble keep supplies. No uniforms, shoes, ammunition, guns, etc. They started out ok, but quickly started running out.
On top of that, the south was still more sparsely populated than the north was, so they couldn't compete in sheer numbers either.
Add to that the brutal ravaging of the lands south of the border by northern soldiers and you have a country that really couldn't hope to win a drawn out war. Their only hope was to win quickly, and that just couldn't happen. Worse, their refusal to carry the war to the north prevented it.
Maybe that was blowing it, from a certain point of view, but to me it just exemplifies what was good about the south. Gives lie to those who would rewrite history and paint the south as evil warmongers and the north as angels who only wanted what was best.
In a related story, Robert E. Lee recently had his citizenship restored to him. No shit.
Yikes. Were he alive today I'm sure he'd rather die than accept it.
That was kind of my point. Modifying a car to give it extra hp isn't (usually) illegal, even though that extra hp could be used to break the law. It's also not illegal for your mechanic to do it. Same is (or should be) true of modding your game console. It doesn't matter if the mod could make it possible to do illegal things, all that matters is whether or not you do.
Modifying your car to increase the horsepower could be seen as modifying it to break the law, if you then break speed limits with that extra horsepower.
I wondered when someone was goign to mention this. I'm really surprised it took so long. If Covalent is doing it, and MS is co-announcing it's probably a binary only module, and for that matter will probably also be only for windows platforms.
The announcement isn't even out yet people. Lets hear what they're actually announcing before we try to decide if it is good/bad/indifferent.
IF a seperate system dictates permission. But all he stated was it wasn't any different from mounting a remote filesystem readonly. If the remote fs is dictating that, and your scenario is in effect then yes, the only difference will be in performance. (Direct IO to the drive is a fair bit faster than a hop through a router/firewall to another server). However, if all he did is "mount it readonly" then someone gaining root could remount it r/w if the other system were not locked down. Perhaps I am guilty of surface reading and not looking for what he was really saying, but even w/out the security gains you do gain a fair bit on performance.
Well, sure, if the admin is an idiot. But no system in the world is going to protect you from that.
But if he has a clue, and the read server is in the dmz, and the write server is on the internal network, and no access is allowed from dmz -> internal then how exactly is he going to get there?
And even if he did, hacking root doesn't guarantee you a hack on other machines unless the other machines have the same password(s), or have a trust relationship with that machine that can be exploited.
I don't think anyone said you couldn't serve bad content. Just that you couldn't physically replace existing content. Granted, that shouldn't be a HUGE gain, as you should be able to easily replace that data anyway. (Via backups, versioning, whatever)
I don't get your issue with rebooting. Why would you have to reboot to update static content? The other server still has write access, only the webserver has read only access.
The point is that it would be impossible to override this in software. I mean, following your logic you can also just make the files 444. But if someone gains access to that webserver at a high enough level they can change all that. With this scenario they can't.
First off, I want to say I debated on saying anything on this. I have a lot of respect for Rasterman. I found enlightenment back around the E-13 release, and I've followed its development ever since. He has done some amazing stuff. Particularly in light of the limitations of X. Plus, over the years on the list I've seen him regularly shut down people trying to tell him how to run his project. Raster has always set the direction for his project, and it was always about scratching his itch. Other developers contributed and helped to scratch itches they had in common and their own, and along the way implemented politely requested features that made sense and were in line with what they were trying to accomplish. Generally, this has been similar or the same as what I've wanted out of a desktop. Even when I've had doubts I've usually eneded up loving things he has implemented, or (as is one of E's great strengths) I could just disable it.
However, now Raster is trying to talk about the direction of linux in general. And while I'm certainly no-one within the community as compared to someone who has contributed as much as raster, as a long time *nix user, not just as an admin managing servers, but also running quite a few desktops, I think I have some room to speak here. What he's talking about direction-wise here is no longer just his project. I hope Raster will lend me some grace here in taking up a contrary position to some of his points.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it.
I don't disagree with his argument that the market isn't driven with by a technologically superior kernel. I think windows users care, they B&M about it all day long. They just don't care enough to endure the pain of switching. For many of them, learning the first time around was a chore and they don't want to go through it again. Others have been using windows so long they can't even conceive of something different.
My big disagreement on this point is its effect on Linux. I don't believe this kills linux on the desktop. If a superior availability of apps, and a greater market share were enough to kill all competition then why did linux come to be in the first place? How does apple survive? Why is OpenBeos there? Why are people fighting to keep the Amiga alive? (Really, I want to know on that last one.;-) J/K I've heard that speel from too many people to want to hear it again)
No, I say that linux should never DOMINATE the market, and if it does, chances are I'll have stopped using it long before then. But was that ever really our goal? I can't recall a time when Raster has EVER said that it was his goal to see everyone use E. More than that I have vague recollections of him saying the opposite. And other than the wackos (who do not, afaict, represent the core of linux users and developers) bent on linux ruling the world instead of cracking jokes about it I don't think anyone else in linux does either.
Instead, linux, its applications, the kernel, everything are all about choice. People write compatible apps not to outdo MS, but to provide alternatives. They make workalikes to make it easier to escape. Does that mean NOBODY should use windows? Well, the response to that varies. Maybe in its current form, but if there was enough competition that MS was forced to truly improve it I don't think people would say no, nobody should. I don't think the "desktop war" was ever a war. This isn't a zero sum game. There isn't just one winner and everyone else is a loser.
Instead, if you maintain users and enough people use/contribute to your project to keep it going then you are a winner.
[Linux's] life on the desktop is limited to nice areas (video production, though Mac is very strong and with a UNIX core now will probably end up ruling the roost).
Who cares? Do we only make products if EVERYONE is going to use them? What kind of sense is that? Everything has a target market. Are the Grandma's and Grandpa's of this world really our target market? I don't think so. Not that that means we don't care. What Linux does makes their life better indirectly simply by providing choice even if we aren't the best one for them. Linux has paved the way. It has demonstrated that you CAN compete with MS, you just can't be someone who can be bought or stomped on by their monopoly. By providing an active choice others can come along and try and follow that guide to provide an OS for G&G. Heck, that is probably one place where you really COULD make money consistantly on service vs. sales of software.;-)
The only place you are likely to see Linux is the embedded space. Purpose-built devices to do a few things well. There is no encumbent app space to catch up with as a lot of the apps are custom written. It's still a mostly level playing field. This is where the strengths of Linux can help make it shine.
I am not sure how you make this logical jump. Maybe if WinCE and MS Office didn't exist for handhelds. But considering your other points, if one accepts them at face value we'd have to say that MS has already one on that front too. They/already/ have the apps, and they/already/ have the name recognition. And, if you discount cross-platform preferences there (desktop -> PDA, which I know isn't the only potential for embedded devices but I'll use it here for reference) what about palm? It's already got brand recognition, and it has apps, and people are familiar with it.
Why? I say for choice. Myself, I choose linux. I just picked up an iPaq this week in fact. I'm running familiar on it. I tried WinCE. It was fun playing solitaire, but I need to do some stuff with it so installed familiar. I played with the X side for awhile and now I'm trying out opie, but what I really am looking forward to is playing with raster's creations he's been working on with his ipaq. So far, it's scary, but WinCE is more useful to me atm on the ipaq than linux is. Suspend doesn't work, I can't synchronize my todo lists, address book, etc. But I don't care. Part of using Linux is contributing. I'll keep hacking on it until it does what I want, and running linux allows me to do that.
I'm just so tired of people guaging linux's success by how accessible it is to the average user with below-average computer skills. You can't take someone elses target market and complain because they can't use a product not aimed at them. Please excuse, but I think that's just ridiculous.
I choose BSD with the advertising clause.
Woot! One of the many things I've always loved about Raster. Which brings me to another thing I love about Raster, his typing habits. If it wasn't for the fact that the content refelcts Raster I'd have to wonder if he wrote this at all.;-)
....
Gosh, upon previewing this is a really long post. If I rambled, I claim is my excuse that I'm under the influence of Tylenol PM.;-)
He, or actually his ego, died when the number of KDE installs eclipsed the number of Enlightenment installs, which happened when most Linux distros made KDE the default Desktop.
I think that's a crock. And I think any time at all spent on the enlightenment lists over the last few years would've (hopefully) kept you from spewing such obvious baloney.
While I don't pretend to speak for Raster, I have been on the list, (for the most part, in one form or another) since E-13. If you want to know my opinion (You don't? Well, I'll tell you anyway) I think it was the users that killed it for him. Particularly once Redhat made the stupid mistake of trying to marry it to Gnome.
Just about everything but oil. Octane booster, paint supplies/thinners/etc, engine degreaser, etc. The local autoparts stores here have a sign in the section indicating that you must be 18 to purchase the products. Ostensibly to prevent kids breathing it to get high.
Slashdot Mirror
While I grant that /most/ people probably have an F-type connection on the back of their tv, I think assuming ALL have it is probably a little much. There's always one.
My real point though is that this is about where I stopped reading. F-type is the oldest and worst? Has he never seen/played a console on a tv connected with a 300 Ohm connection? I'm going to guess he probably hasn't. To me, this little slip just confirms my original thought upon browsing through his little "guide" that he really doesn't have a clue, and is just regurgitation what some sucker-savvy salesman told him about "Monster Cable".
Save your money. It's not worth it. Good cables are important, and can give you a better, or more reliably quality experience, but you don't need to buy monster cables to get that. Buy any of the higher end cables from any of the major electronics retailers and you'll get the same thing. Or even the walmart one.
That's why you alias rm to rm -i for root, and get in the habit of using this wonderful thing called tab completion.
And that's fine. Just don't expect people who do care to dumb down their favorite system just because you want to use it and want it to look and act just like your chosen os.
[snip]
since no one is forced to use Linux, they'd all just put Windows back on their machines, or better yet, buy a Mac.
YES! This exactly what I'd like to see happen. I am not a "everyone should use linux" type of person. Linux is for people who like the way linux works, imo. If someone wants an operating system that works like windows then they should install windows. If they just want a reliable system that's easy to use and doesn't require much from the user, buy a mac, or even install BeOS. Don't bitch and moan about linux not being for you.
The great thing about Linux is that it's very malleable. It's OK for it to go the way of "point-and-grunt," if that's the kind of thing its users want.
That's just it, I don't think it /is/ what the users want. From everything I've seen there is a small but extremely vocal minority of people who basically want windows for linux.
I think it is too much to ask of users that they learn about things the OS should take care of. You think they should have to know about the way libraries work, relationships between them, and various widget sets. Why? Why not more details, or details about different parts of the system? Do you know how to program?
I don't. Why not more details? I dunno, there's probably more they should know, I didn't want to try and list everything. I don't think they should know these things to get started, but if they want to use a powerful system they should be prepared to put in the effort required. That means learning. yes, I do know how to program. More languages than I care to count right now. And yes, I think a full time linux user should have basic development knowledge. They should know at least enough to submit a halfway intelligent bug report. Maybe not when they start, but they should be prepared to put in the effort to learn that much.
people who like to dick around with administrative tasks more than actually use their computers
Heh. Woah. So, administrators don't "use" their computers? Is there some standard for what defines "using" a computer now? Word Processing? Playing games? Instant Messaging? What is it that counts as valid use?
I still expect it to just work.
That's fine. Then use an os that "just works". Don't use an OS that is meant for people who like to or don't mind tinkering. If you wanted a car that "just works" you wouldn't buy a 400hp turbocharged race-car with nitrous. You buy that if you are prepared for the effort and learning involved, and are willing to trade that for the power. Same with linux.
Two years ago, I switched to Mac OS X, and I can't see ever going back. OS X is very far from perfect, but there's no way Linux will ever be the better option for me.
Cool. Linux isn't for everyone. Nor should it try to be. If you're happy with OS-X then that's great. No OS is ever going to meet /everyone's/ needs, and trying to will only end up with an OS that purely addresses the lowest common denominator. Personally I agree with you, that OS-X and/or BeOS are probably the best OSes for people who can't or aren't willing to put in the effort linux requires. And that's not in any way intended to be a negative thing. It's not an insult. People are just different.
Hey great! Then guess what, these people who want that can use windows.
I didn't say making something easier to use removes choice. My comment was in response to the general feeling that we should all have one way to do things so that it's easier for those people too lazy to excercise their brain to figure out what they want.
This argument is all too common imo. It basically boils down to "users shouldn't have to know anything about their computers to use them" I think this is bunk. It is exactly this kind of mentality that eventually results in the "point-and-grunt" interface that we have in windows. That is most definatley NOT the direction I want to see linux take.
I don't think users should know 4 programming languages, and how to edit their filesystem or anything, but I don't think it's too much to ask that they learn how the thing works, even tot he point of understanding the relationship of libraries, widget sets, etc.
This crap of removing choice in favor of making this easier for users is bunk. Part of the cost of moving to a better system like linux is getting a clue. deal with it people.
Because that's not even close to the same thing.
Reader's digest distributes copies THEY make of an orginal work, in abridged form. i.e. the author gets squat. Cleanflicks buys a copy that the DISTRIBUTOR makes, and then edits that and resells it. Thus, the author gets his cut.
That is why readers digest gets permission on the legal side. They may also ask out of respect for the author, but if so that's purely a voluntary thing. The only reason they HAVE to ask, is because they are exceeding the limitations of fair use.
So, you say this doesn't have anything to do with personal editing, but it does. If CleanFlicks is purchasing the copy, then they OWN it, and thus any editing they do is personal editing. They just then choose to resell it to someone else. Or do you think they don't have a right to sell the tape that they own? Or maybe you think they can't sell it because they modified it? Even if such modifications are clearly disclaimed?
Sheesh. It's people like you that give laziness a bad name.
% whois -h whois.arin.net NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA (NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191)
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
US
Netname: RECORDIN50-191
Netblock: 12.150.191.0 - 12.150.191.255
I also keep logs of people who access ports on my machine and regularly scan for indications they might belong to one of those organizations. (check reverse lookups, whois records, etc.)
Unfortunately, there's no guarantee they won't hire an outside party to do the dirty work, in which case more careful study of access logs is required.
Regardless, I'm guessing that ISP simply blocked the above netblock at their border firewall, with possible exceptions for standard services like SMTP and HTTP.
Backups for linux are fire and forget too. Fortunately, I've never had a catastrophic failure under linux, so I've not had a need to test RR outside of a lab environment. (Where it works fine)
Heh. They tried. They didn't /want/ to attack. They were going to wait, and let them leave on their own terms. Lincoln used that to his advantage and sent reinforcements for the fort. The south had no choice to attack or they would /never/ leave.
One way or another, Lincoln was going to have that war. He just wanted the south to at least appear to start it, thus gaining the upper hand in the public relations game.
2) British military intervention. But given that the northern threat to drop all trade would clearly come, this was never a real option.
They were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy. That's the whole reason Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation. Once he had done that, the British govt withdrew support because of the image that attached to the Confederacy and to the war.
However, you have to stay in the war long enough for this to happen, and the south didn't.
The south /couldn't/. No food, no men, no clothes, no shoes, no ammunition, no weapons. How do you fight a war like that?
Unfortunately, we'll likely never know who'd win that bet. However, while he certainly did not want to see the nation split, he also would want nothing to do with the US as it stood then, let alone the atrocity it has become today. If he thought states rights were being trampled then....wow.
I think he'd probably see it as the empty guesture it was. Some bizzare act of "forgiveness" for as you said "betraying" the US. But that's hogwash. He didn't betray anyone. The right to secede was and is right there in our founding documents. They should've been able to do so peacefully as they desired instead of having to fight a war to save lincoln's pride and chances for re-election.
Hey, I learned something today. ;-) Turns out it is even worse than that, anytime you make regular stops it is illegal. Though it is also illegal to put things in someone's mailbox it's not the only limitation.
What is illegal is delivering to a post office box. UPS doesn't do that, so they're fine. If they started putting letters in your mailbox though, they'd be screwed.
Huh? Try not being able to handle a long drawn out war. The north had all the manufacturing/etc. The south had trouble keep supplies. No uniforms, shoes, ammunition, guns, etc. They started out ok, but quickly started running out.
On top of that, the south was still more sparsely populated than the north was, so they couldn't compete in sheer numbers either.
Add to that the brutal ravaging of the lands south of the border by northern soldiers and you have a country that really couldn't hope to win a drawn out war. Their only hope was to win quickly, and that just couldn't happen. Worse, their refusal to carry the war to the north prevented it.
Maybe that was blowing it, from a certain point of view, but to me it just exemplifies what was good about the south. Gives lie to those who would rewrite history and paint the south as evil warmongers and the north as angels who only wanted what was best.
In a related story, Robert E. Lee recently had his citizenship restored to him. No shit.
Yikes. Were he alive today I'm sure he'd rather die than accept it.
That was kind of my point. Modifying a car to give it extra hp isn't (usually) illegal, even though that extra hp could be used to break the law. It's also not illegal for your mechanic to do it. Same is (or should be) true of modding your game console. It doesn't matter if the mod could make it possible to do illegal things, all that matters is whether or not you do.
Modifying your car to increase the horsepower could be seen as modifying it to break the law, if you then break speed limits with that extra horsepower.
<Pedantic mode> /. already meets that criteria. What they print is quite often interesting and/or intelligent and is occasionally accurate.
I think
Perhaps you meant accurate, intelligent, and interesting?
</Pedantic mode>
The announcement isn't even out yet people. Lets hear what they're actually announcing before we try to decide if it is good/bad/indifferent.
But if he has a clue, and the read server is in the dmz, and the write server is on the internal network, and no access is allowed from dmz -> internal then how exactly is he going to get there?
And even if he did, hacking root doesn't guarantee you a hack on other machines unless the other machines have the same password(s), or have a trust relationship with that machine that can be exploited.
I don't get your issue with rebooting. Why would you have to reboot to update static content? The other server still has write access, only the webserver has read only access.
The point is that it would be impossible to override this in software. I mean, following your logic you can also just make the files 444. But if someone gains access to that webserver at a high enough level they can change all that. With this scenario they can't.
However, now Raster is trying to talk about the direction of linux in general. And while I'm certainly no-one within the community as compared to someone who has contributed as much as raster, as a long time *nix user, not just as an admin managing servers, but also running quite a few desktops, I think I have some room to speak here. What he's talking about direction-wise here is no longer just his project. I hope Raster will lend me some grace here in taking up a contrary position to some of his points.
Not on the desktop. Not on the PC. Not on anything that resembles what you call the desktop. Windows has won. Face it. The market is not driven by a technically superior kernel, or an OS that avoids its crashes a few times a day. Users don't (mostly) care. They just reboot and get on with it. I don't disagree with his argument that the market isn't driven with by a technologically superior kernel. I think windows users care, they B&M about it all day long. They just don't care enough to endure the pain of switching. For many of them, learning the first time around was a chore and they don't want to go through it again. Others have been using windows so long they can't even conceive of something different.
My big disagreement on this point is its effect on Linux. I don't believe this kills linux on the desktop. If a superior availability of apps, and a greater market share were enough to kill all competition then why did linux come to be in the first place? How does apple survive? Why is OpenBeos there? Why are people fighting to keep the Amiga alive? (Really, I want to know on that last one. ;-) J/K I've heard that speel from too many people to want to hear it again)
No, I say that linux should never DOMINATE the market, and if it does, chances are I'll have stopped using it long before then. But was that ever really our goal? I can't recall a time when Raster has EVER said that it was his goal to see everyone use E. More than that I have vague recollections of him saying the opposite. And other than the wackos (who do not, afaict, represent the core of linux users and developers) bent on linux ruling the world instead of cracking jokes about it I don't think anyone else in linux does either.
Instead, linux, its applications, the kernel, everything are all about choice. People write compatible apps not to outdo MS, but to provide alternatives. They make workalikes to make it easier to escape. Does that mean NOBODY should use windows? Well, the response to that varies. Maybe in its current form, but if there was enough competition that MS was forced to truly improve it I don't think people would say no, nobody should. I don't think the "desktop war" was ever a war. This isn't a zero sum game. There isn't just one winner and everyone else is a loser.
Instead, if you maintain users and enough people use/contribute to your project to keep it going then you are a winner.
[Linux's] life on the desktop is limited to nice areas (video production, though Mac is very strong and with a UNIX core now will probably end up ruling the roost).
Who cares? Do we only make products if EVERYONE is going to use them? What kind of sense is that? Everything has a target market. Are the Grandma's and Grandpa's of this world really our target market? I don't think so. Not that that means we don't care. What Linux does makes their life better indirectly simply by providing choice even if we aren't the best one for them. Linux has paved the way. It has demonstrated that you CAN compete with MS, you just can't be someone who can be bought or stomped on by their monopoly. By providing an active choice others can come along and try and follow that guide to provide an OS for G&G. Heck, that is probably one place where you really COULD make money consistantly on service vs. sales of software. ;-)
The only place you are likely to see Linux is the embedded space. Purpose-built devices to do a few things well. There is no encumbent app space to catch up with as a lot of the apps are custom written. It's still a mostly level playing field. This is where the strengths of Linux can help make it shine.
I am not sure how you make this logical jump. Maybe if WinCE and MS Office didn't exist for handhelds. But considering your other points, if one accepts them at face value we'd have to say that MS has already one on that front too. They /already/ have the apps, and they /already/ have the name recognition. And, if you discount cross-platform preferences there (desktop -> PDA, which I know isn't the only potential for embedded devices but I'll use it here for reference) what about palm? It's already got brand recognition, and it has apps, and people are familiar with it.
Why? I say for choice. Myself, I choose linux. I just picked up an iPaq this week in fact. I'm running familiar on it. I tried WinCE. It was fun playing solitaire, but I need to do some stuff with it so installed familiar. I played with the X side for awhile and now I'm trying out opie, but what I really am looking forward to is playing with raster's creations he's been working on with his ipaq. So far, it's scary, but WinCE is more useful to me atm on the ipaq than linux is. Suspend doesn't work, I can't synchronize my todo lists, address book, etc. But I don't care. Part of using Linux is contributing. I'll keep hacking on it until it does what I want, and running linux allows me to do that.
I'm just so tired of people guaging linux's success by how accessible it is to the average user with below-average computer skills. You can't take someone elses target market and complain because they can't use a product not aimed at them. Please excuse, but I think that's just ridiculous.
I choose BSD with the advertising clause.
Woot! One of the many things I've always loved about Raster. Which brings me to another thing I love about Raster, his typing habits. If it wasn't for the fact that the content refelcts Raster I'd have to wonder if he wrote this at all. ;-)
I think that's a crock. And I think any time at all spent on the enlightenment lists over the last few years would've (hopefully) kept you from spewing such obvious baloney.
While I don't pretend to speak for Raster, I have been on the list, (for the most part, in one form or another) since E-13. If you want to know my opinion (You don't? Well, I'll tell you anyway) I think it was the users that killed it for him. Particularly once Redhat made the stupid mistake of trying to marry it to Gnome.
Just about everything but oil. Octane booster, paint supplies/thinners/etc, engine degreaser, etc. The local autoparts stores here have a sign in the section indicating that you must be 18 to purchase the products. Ostensibly to prevent kids breathing it to get high.