While putting the computer outside is a stupid idea, I can think of a very simple system over there. Just drill two 1-inch wide holes in the wall next to your computer, attach two tubes to it and link them at the CPU fan level. This way the fan will get fresh air from outside to the CPU, and then throw it out. After all, that's what the compressor is all about: Getting something cold. The air outside should do it.
Of course, you need to drill holes in your house...
And if your specification of 'etc' was meant to cover everything as you are implying, Yes it did.
then that renders your statement utterly pointless No it doesn't. I was talking about BW hogs, and chose to give a few example of bandwidth hog. P2P users and popular servers are good example of bandwidth hogs, but there is pretty much no limitation. I was still talking about BW hogs. My statement didn't rely in any way in the fact that a BW log would be a P2P user or a server host. Maybe you should read my original post once again.
I did not make the assumption that everyone running a server or a P2P is a bw hog. I actually meant it in the exact opposite way: A bandwidth hog is using either P2P, running servers or something else. I don't think that this assumption is any wrong, especially since I specified "etc...";-)
On the head, on the hands, feet, articulations, also between the legs. He also didn't hit hard. All that he didn't do and should have done. Of course, he was 70 and the guy could have grabbed the bat easily and hit him back, so I guess he was wise on this one...
Patents are stupid. Get over it. Any patent-based lawsuit like this one it just going to shed some light on the fact that patents are stupid. Patents are stupid.
The problem is that 5% of the users are using 90% of the bandwidth (P2P, running servers, etc...). Since their service is supposed to be unlimited (or invisibly capped in Comcast's case), they are supposed to accept those users too. The problem is now that these users are going to stress their backbone and lines. So they just dump them. You can think of it as dumping 5% of their customer that "abuse" the unlimited service causing slowliness for all 95% others regular users. It's a lie and it is unethical, but there is nothing we can do about it.
I have a 1500/128 DSL with SBC, and SBC seems not to suffer from the stupidity of Comcast.
The interesting thing is, I used to live in France and the cable company out there is also considered as a bunch of ass**les and they do the same piece of unethical stuff, where other competing companies (satellite, DSL,...) are more or less better. Cable is almost dead in France because of that.
I remember a friend of mine that was 70 at the time and called his Cable company to get a quote. The salesman wouldn't leave his appartment without having hime sign for a contract, arguing that he had 30 days to refute it. The law in France says that everything that is sold through a door-to-door salesman has a 30 day refutal period. When my friend was pissed off enough to call the cops, the salesman took his cordless phone and wouldn'g give it back to him unless he signed a contract. My friend took a baseball bat out of his closet and started hitting the guy. He finally left. He sworn on his life never to have business with any cable company of affiliates ever again. Unfortunately, he didn't want any trouble and didn't hit the salesman anywhere it could have hurt. When I heard the story, I suddenly felt a urgent need to hit the salesman harder;-) but it was too late. I hate people abusing old people!
Well, it's hard to say without knowing what is in these two boxes single proc boxes, isn't it? Huh?
If you need to run an Oracle DB, are you going to choose 2 machines monoproc or one machine dualproc? A dual opteron WILL run faster than two mono-opteron, right? At least for running one DB.
There you go, you can't run ONE oracle DB on TWO machines. Pretty simple when you think about it...
So yes, 2 single proc boxes is not going to run an Oracle installation faster than a two-way box
That is exactly why it is good. They have no presure to make any software any better (to run on their hardware, that is) because they have no competition. So an alternative could even destroy the proprietary software and they could decide to go with the OSOS (Open Source Operating System). That would be jst great and would probably ensure that the software would get everything it can out of the hardware.
Look at the Rockbox player. It would never had played videos if it wasn't for OSS.
Regular PDA/cellphones/calculators manufacturers tend to release one, maybe two version of their software, because maybe they don't think it is worth it to get to an extra-optimize software. OSS is made of nerds for which it is a top priority. The combination of both could be lethal for any competitor.
So let me get that straight: Someone make a wild guess in 5 seconds about someone he doesn't have a clue about, and he is Insightful. I point out that his assertions are just speculation, I am a Troll.
Time have changed, moderators are on crack or did I miss something?
The "attack" did not come from any open-source symphasizers. Talking out of your ass After 24 hours the main argument that SCO was faking this was that their ftp server was up. Talking out of your ass It was very common knowledge and you can be absolutlely certain the hacker was reading the news about the hack. Talking out of your ass Any Leet SCO-hating fanatic would have doubled the attacks on the main server, or perhaps attacked every machine *except* the ftp site. Talking out of your ass That would have been the most clear "I hate you SCO and I'm going to mess with you as much as possible" attack. In your opinion If they hated SCO they would want their attack to match the insults being directed at SCO as much as possible. Talking out of your ass Instead the attack suddenly switched to be as exactly as possible a refutation of the publicity about the attack. Talking out of your ass There is no question what the motives of the "attacker" are. And it is absolutly disgusting that SCO can get positive publicity for this nasty little stunt. Talking, once again, out of your ass.
I have one question though: How come you seriously believe that in 5 minutes of thinking, while posting on slashdot, you can figure out who is the guy that did that? Do you have a secret magic vision? It looks to me that you just put up a couple of assumptions that would quickly remove the doubt from the OSS. In fact, you just do the opposite.
Some people on slashdot amazes me. Just put up something that looks not too bad, post it, and all of a sudden it becomes the truth. You're not any different from what makes SCO's essence these days: You're spreading FUD.
The fact that you got modded Interesting is a real puzzlement.
I might very well be a problem for you. The less people use a given OSS, say MySoft, the less feedback they have. That result in less QA, less features, and a generally crappier product.
We've got to stop picturing all closed source companies as our enemies if we want OSS to grow and expand. There is no reason the two world could not collaborate to a certain point. As a matter of fact, they already do: OS-X is a derivative of FreeBSD to some extent. That would not have been possible with Linux, obviously.
There is another "GPL" license for libraries that take care of this problem: The L-GPL. AFAIK, GPL libraries would make your product GPL, not L-GPL libraries.
The problem with the GPL is that it makes any modification automatically GPL. It's a blessing when another open-source project uses your code. It's a problem for the closed-source company that wants to use your library.
If it was on a BSD-style license, some closed-source companies would consider using it. Of course, they wouldn't be constrained to give you back their changes, but that doesn't mean they would not do it. See, most of the developers out there are working for closed-source companies. If you want a broad distribution, it can be helpful relying on them too.
One question I don't know the answer to: Has Apple given back *anything* to the *BSD community?
What this guy is missing is that Linux was irrelevant in 1995. So following his line of thought, nobody should have cared. But then it wouldn't have been relevant now. Hmm, interesting.
If you care only about the relevant stuff (according to your definition, stuff that gets more than 5% of the market), then you just blind yourself for other (sometimes better) opportunities.
According to him, QNX is irrelevant and people should not even try to use it. But what do I use for my real-time system? XP?
How many months can I run a PC as a firewall before I meet the $200 price tag for a dedicated unit that is obsolete the instant you open the box?
Hmmm, first of all, an out of the box firewall is not $200, but more like $50. You can even find cheaper.
Let's compute the cost of a PC running 24x7 for you. Your number is here for a 300watt PC. At idle time, it will draw approx half of that: That's $1.20 bi-monthly, or.60 monthly. That's two hours/day. For 24, we need to multiply by 12..60x12 = 7.2. Giving that your machine is most likely not IDLE all the time, we can round it to $10/month
So there you go: 5 month to reach the price of an out of the box unit, whose power consumption is so lower than 150watt that it is negligible here.
Of course, that was under the assumption that your PC can get idle. If you're talking about your old P166, there is most likely no HDD idle timeout and no CPU idle time. So you can bet on a $15/month electric bill increase.
The solution is simple. I do it every day. Create a spam account (an email account you don't give to anyone but spammers, by putting it into some posts in slashdot for example, or by registering onto stupid websites).
Every day, take 1 minute to respond to a spam or two. Fill in a dummy address, phone number, etc.
If every slashdotter does that, that will flood the spammers with fakes responses and it'll become too much work for them to sort them all out. End of spam.
Well, as much as I like Sonic Foundry's softwares, I can give you a list of probably 20 products that exist and are complementary on Windows to edit any type of video stream (MPEG, MPEG2, DivX, QT, RA,...) that just doesn't exist on Linux. You can sure find one equivalent for every BIG software on windows. But for all the small free/share ware that cement the whole thing to provide you a seemless (feature-wise) solution? Nowhere near that on Linux, sorry.
That is actually not the only thing that restrict me from turning all my machines to Linux today.
There is plenty of small utilities that just doesn't exist for Linux.
microsoft isn't stable and robust enough for mission critical stuff
AFAIK, Win2k and WinXP are excellent server platforms. It's just that you have to run one firewall for every one of your Win servers to avoid worms and exploits. Other than that, performance and stability wise, I don't think Windows plaform are a lot worse than the competitors.
Of course, don't try to install ANYTHING except you mission critical stuff on your servers, but that is a wise admin decision not matter what OS you run.
When FAT was first created, software patents weren't as common as they are now
Yes, at that time it is true. But most of the devices/corps that are targetted here came up with a FAT system in the last few years, where patents are common.
Note IBM's BIOS -- if they'd had patents applying to it, Compaq, and consequently the PC clones as a whole, never would have gotten started
Untrue, because IBM made public the fact that they allowed clones, while Microsoft never said "We're giving away FAT"
Likewise, there are no patents applying to the original, unextended FAT16 spec; a cleanroom implementation of these would be entirely in the clear, and an individual aware of such could easily (though erroniously) presume that more modern versions of the spec are likewise unencumbered.
So you are saying that someone saying: "Version 2.0 of this technology is free of patents, so let's use version 3.5" would be in his right? I'd call this someone a fool.
the FAT32 spec has also been published under terms implying
IANAL, but in terms of using anyone else's technology, I would never rely on something implied. Anyone doing that, I'd call a fool (once again).
And finally, Microsoft has a history of using patents strictly for defense and cross-licensing purposes
I feel a little redundant here, but only a fool would base the technology of his company on the fact that BillionDollarCorp never enforces its patents.
For these reasons, a person performing an independent implementation of FAT could be reasonably confident that they would not be prosecuted for performing or distributing such work
So you are saying that in a time where software patents are a major problem, you can use a proprietary patented technology based on the fact that: 1. An earlier version of the technology was patent free 2. This company has never enforced its patents before. 3. Said company vaguely implied in its specs that you could use it for free.
Well, if you base your legal claim on that, I know who is going to win in court...
If anyone should get a life, it is probably you. At least, I post on slashdot when I have something to say, unlike you, when you have something to rant about.
Don't be mistaken, I hate Microsoft. As much as I can. And if I am typing this post from a Win2k machine, it is just because I am at work.
Slashdot Mirror
While putting the computer outside is a stupid idea, I can think of a very simple system over there. Just drill two 1-inch wide holes in the wall next to your computer, attach two tubes to it and link them at the CPU fan level. This way the fan will get fresh air from outside to the CPU, and then throw it out. After all, that's what the compressor is all about: Getting something cold. The air outside should do it.
Of course, you need to drill holes in your house...
And if your specification of 'etc' was meant to cover everything as you are implying,
Yes it did.
then that renders your statement utterly pointless
No it doesn't. I was talking about BW hogs, and chose to give a few example of bandwidth hog. P2P users and popular servers are good example of bandwidth hogs, but there is pretty much no limitation. I was still talking about BW hogs. My statement didn't rely in any way in the fact that a BW log would be a P2P user or a server host. Maybe you should read my original post once again.
I did not make the assumption that everyone running a server or a P2P is a bw hog. I actually meant it in the exact opposite way: A bandwidth hog is using either P2P, running servers or something else. I don't think that this assumption is any wrong, especially since I specified "etc..." ;-)
On the head, on the hands, feet, articulations, also between the legs. He also didn't hit hard. All that he didn't do and should have done. Of course, he was 70 and the guy could have grabbed the bat easily and hit him back, so I guess he was wise on this one...
Patents are stupid. Get over it. Any patent-based lawsuit like this one it just going to shed some light on the fact that patents are stupid. Patents are stupid.
Oh, and patents are stupid.
The problem is that 5% of the users are using 90% of the bandwidth (P2P, running servers, etc...). Since their service is supposed to be unlimited (or invisibly capped in Comcast's case), they are supposed to accept those users too. The problem is now that these users are going to stress their backbone and lines. So they just dump them. You can think of it as dumping 5% of their customer that "abuse" the unlimited service causing slowliness for all 95% others regular users. It's a lie and it is unethical, but there is nothing we can do about it.
...) are more or less better. Cable is almost dead in France because of that.
;-) but it was too late. I hate people abusing old people!
I have a 1500/128 DSL with SBC, and SBC seems not to suffer from the stupidity of Comcast.
The interesting thing is, I used to live in France and the cable company out there is also considered as a bunch of ass**les and they do the same piece of unethical stuff, where other competing companies (satellite, DSL,
I remember a friend of mine that was 70 at the time and called his Cable company to get a quote. The salesman wouldn't leave his appartment without having hime sign for a contract, arguing that he had 30 days to refute it. The law in France says that everything that is sold through a door-to-door salesman has a 30 day refutal period. When my friend was pissed off enough to call the cops, the salesman took his cordless phone and wouldn'g give it back to him unless he signed a contract. My friend took a baseball bat out of his closet and started hitting the guy. He finally left. He sworn on his life never to have business with any cable company of affiliates ever again. Unfortunately, he didn't want any trouble and didn't hit the salesman anywhere it could have hurt. When I heard the story, I suddenly felt a urgent need to hit the salesman harder
Could it be something about cable?
Well, it's hard to say without knowing what is in these two boxes single proc boxes, isn't it?
Huh?
If you need to run an Oracle DB, are you going to choose 2 machines monoproc or one machine dualproc? A dual opteron WILL run faster than two mono-opteron, right? At least for running one DB.
There you go, you can't run ONE oracle DB on TWO machines. Pretty simple when you think about it...
So yes, 2 single proc boxes is not going to run an Oracle installation faster than a two-way box
That is exactly why it is good. They have no presure to make any software any better (to run on their hardware, that is) because they have no competition. So an alternative could even destroy the proprietary software and they could decide to go with the OSOS (Open Source Operating System). That would be jst great and would probably ensure that the software would get everything it can out of the hardware.
Look at the Rockbox player. It would never had played videos if it wasn't for OSS.
Regular PDA/cellphones/calculators manufacturers tend to release one, maybe two version of their software, because maybe they don't think it is worth it to get to an extra-optimize software. OSS is made of nerds for which it is a top priority. The combination of both could be lethal for any competitor.
Imagine an OS getting 99% of its hardware....
So let me get that straight: Someone make a wild guess in 5 seconds about someone he doesn't have a clue about, and he is Insightful. I point out that his assertions are just speculation, I am a Troll.
Time have changed, moderators are on crack or did I miss something?
Oh well, who cares?
The "attack" did not come from any open-source symphasizers.
Talking out of your ass
After 24 hours the main argument that SCO was faking this was that their ftp server was up.
Talking out of your ass
It was very common knowledge and you can be absolutlely certain the hacker was reading the news about the hack.
Talking out of your ass
Any Leet SCO-hating fanatic would have doubled the attacks on the main server, or perhaps attacked every machine *except* the ftp site.
Talking out of your ass
That would have been the most clear "I hate you SCO and I'm going to mess with you as much as possible" attack.
In your opinion
If they hated SCO they would want their attack to match the insults being directed at SCO as much as possible.
Talking out of your ass
Instead the attack suddenly switched to be as exactly as possible a refutation of the publicity about the attack.
Talking out of your ass
There is no question what the motives of the "attacker" are. And it is absolutly disgusting that SCO can get positive publicity for this nasty little stunt.
Talking, once again, out of your ass.
I have one question though: How come you seriously believe that in 5 minutes of thinking, while posting on slashdot, you can figure out who is the guy that did that? Do you have a secret magic vision? It looks to me that you just put up a couple of assumptions that would quickly remove the doubt from the OSS. In fact, you just do the opposite.
Some people on slashdot amazes me. Just put up something that looks not too bad, post it, and all of a sudden it becomes the truth. You're not any different from what makes SCO's essence these days: You're spreading FUD.
The fact that you got modded Interesting is a real puzzlement.
I might very well be a problem for you. The less people use a given OSS, say MySoft, the less feedback they have. That result in less QA, less features, and a generally crappier product.
We've got to stop picturing all closed source companies as our enemies if we want OSS to grow and expand. There is no reason the two world could not collaborate to a certain point. As a matter of fact, they already do: OS-X is a derivative of FreeBSD to some extent. That would not have been possible with Linux, obviously.
There is another "GPL" license for libraries that take care of this problem: The L-GPL. AFAIK, GPL libraries would make your product GPL, not L-GPL libraries.
The problem with the GPL is that it makes any modification automatically GPL. It's a blessing when another open-source project uses your code. It's a problem for the closed-source company that wants to use your library.
If it was on a BSD-style license, some closed-source companies would consider using it. Of course, they wouldn't be constrained to give you back their changes, but that doesn't mean they would not do it. See, most of the developers out there are working for closed-source companies. If you want a broad distribution, it can be helpful relying on them too.
One question I don't know the answer to: Has Apple given back *anything* to the *BSD community?
What this guy is missing is that Linux was irrelevant in 1995. So following his line of thought, nobody should have cared. But then it wouldn't have been relevant now. Hmm, interesting.
If you care only about the relevant stuff (according to your definition, stuff that gets more than 5% of the market), then you just blind yourself for other (sometimes better) opportunities.
According to him, QNX is irrelevant and people should not even try to use it. But what do I use for my real-time system? XP?
How many months can I run a PC as a firewall before I meet the $200 price tag for a dedicated unit that is obsolete the instant you open the box?
.60 monthly. That's two hours/day. For 24, we need to multiply by 12. .60x12 = 7.2. Giving that your machine is most likely not IDLE all the time, we can round it to $10/month
Hmmm, first of all, an out of the box firewall is not $200, but more like $50. You can even find cheaper.
Let's compute the cost of a PC running 24x7 for you. Your number is here for a 300watt PC. At idle time, it will draw approx half of that: That's $1.20 bi-monthly, or
So there you go: 5 month to reach the price of an out of the box unit, whose power consumption is so lower than 150watt that it is negligible here.
Of course, that was under the assumption that your PC can get idle. If you're talking about your old P166, there is most likely no HDD idle timeout and no CPU idle time. So you can bet on a $15/month electric bill increase.
1. That will destroy you cassette player after a while
;-)
2. Quality SUCKs big time, unless you re-adjust the cassette inside the player every 5 minutes.
Other than that, nothing to report
Because that would be easy to abuse. Anyone could send zillions of spam pointing to Microsoft and the MS website would go down. Too easy man.
The human brain has to take a part in the process, even if it is a small one.
The solution is simple. I do it every day. Create a spam account (an email account you don't give to anyone but spammers, by putting it into some posts in slashdot for example, or by registering onto stupid websites).
Every day, take 1 minute to respond to a spam or two. Fill in a dummy address, phone number, etc.
If every slashdotter does that, that will flood the spammers with fakes responses and it'll become too much work for them to sort them all out. End of spam.
Is Darl going to try and rebutt Linus' statement in the next letter, or is he going to go spread more FUD?
Uh, isn't that the same thing?
Not necessarily, but Darl excell in mixing unmixable stuff, so he could do it. My guess is that he will rebutt Linus' statement with some more FUD.
Well, as much as I like Sonic Foundry's softwares, I can give you a list of probably 20 products that exist and are complementary on Windows to edit any type of video stream (MPEG, MPEG2, DivX, QT, RA,...) that just doesn't exist on Linux. You can sure find one equivalent for every BIG software on windows. But for all the small free/share ware that cement the whole thing to provide you a seemless (feature-wise) solution? Nowhere near that on Linux, sorry.
That is actually not the only thing that restrict me from turning all my machines to Linux today.
There is plenty of small utilities that just doesn't exist for Linux.
So it is not ready yet which was the whole point of the original post. Thanks for the clarification.
microsoft isn't stable and robust enough for mission critical stuff
AFAIK, Win2k and WinXP are excellent server platforms. It's just that you have to run one firewall for every one of your Win servers to avoid worms and exploits. Other than that, performance and stability wise, I don't think Windows plaform are a lot worse than the competitors.
Of course, don't try to install ANYTHING except you mission critical stuff on your servers, but that is a wise admin decision not matter what OS you run.
When FAT was first created, software patents weren't as common as they are now
Yes, at that time it is true. But most of the devices/corps that are targetted here came up with a FAT system in the last few years, where patents are common.
Note IBM's BIOS -- if they'd had patents applying to it, Compaq, and consequently the PC clones as a whole, never would have gotten started
Untrue, because IBM made public the fact that they allowed clones, while Microsoft never said "We're giving away FAT"
Likewise, there are no patents applying to the original, unextended FAT16 spec; a cleanroom implementation of these would be entirely in the clear, and an individual aware of such could easily (though erroniously) presume that more modern versions of the spec are likewise unencumbered.
So you are saying that someone saying: "Version 2.0 of this technology is free of patents, so let's use version 3.5" would be in his right? I'd call this someone a fool.
the FAT32 spec has also been published under terms implying
IANAL, but in terms of using anyone else's technology, I would never rely on something implied. Anyone doing that, I'd call a fool (once again).
And finally, Microsoft has a history of using patents strictly for defense and cross-licensing purposes
I feel a little redundant here, but only a fool would base the technology of his company on the fact that BillionDollarCorp never enforces its patents.
For these reasons, a person performing an independent implementation of FAT could be reasonably confident that they would not be prosecuted for performing or distributing such work
So you are saying that in a time where software patents are a major problem, you can use a proprietary patented technology based on the fact that:
1. An earlier version of the technology was patent free
2. This company has never enforced its patents before.
3. Said company vaguely implied in its specs that you could use it for free.
Well, if you base your legal claim on that, I know who is going to win in court...
7) Hitler forced little children to learn the GPL by heart. That must mean something!
Oh wait...
I always feel great rplying to AC. Anyways...
If anyone should get a life, it is probably you. At least, I post on slashdot when I have something to say, unlike you, when you have something to rant about.
Don't be mistaken, I hate Microsoft. As much as I can. And if I am typing this post from a Win2k machine, it is just because I am at work.