as I understood it, it was Sun that licenced only java 1.1 to MS, back in the early days. Then they refused to licence the later versions. Hence, MS had no choice - they couldn't legally develop or deploy the latest Java. Don't forget when MS had.NET and stopped bundling java, there was an outcry.
I think Sun thought they were striking a blow against MS, but just shot themselves in the foot.
Standards mean that there exists a minimum that is guaranteed to work. If a vendor wants to extend it, fine (some extensions make it back into later standards), and you're free to use those extensions or not, but the base is level with a standard. As things go today, without a standard, Sun can deprecate as much of your code as it wants.
As I recall, one of the reasons Larry's Network Computer failed was because you could buy a PC, (even with Windows pre-installed), and buy an X server software (and Office) and it was *still* cheaper than his Network Client, without having to shell out for the Oracle software you'd need to run it properly. And it had a rubbish processor.
'course Larry (and Scott) want to sell you the server hardware and software you'll need to do this - and it won't be anything other than stupidly expensive. So much so that it'll easily wipe out all those TCO 'savings'.
and you won't have sound either. Sorry, Larry doesn't have a clue then, and he still doesn't.
non-compliant menas (accoridng to Sun) 'better than ours'. Nothing MS did broke your java apps running on windows.
Sure they did add features, but you were quite free not to use them, or to use them and say 'my app only runs on windows'. Frankly, what's the problem there, you could write your app using JNI to integrate with some Windows-only component. It wouldn't be cross-platform anymore but would be still compliant.
If Sun had actually sent Java off to become a standard, instead of pretending to, and MS has broken the standard then they'd be the bad boys here, but as it stands, I don't think Sun has anything but legal cr*p on their side.
or computers for that matter, since the clever old brits invented them. Just think if the descendants of Alan Turing (or the british government) had a patent on The Computer...
In nearly all languages the non-gender specific terms are the masculine. Its politically-correct nonsense to start writing using the feminine as all-encompassing.
ie. We have mankind to refer to all humanity. When you use the term 'Womankind', you are deliberately referring solely to all human women, and not men.
I find people who use the feminine quite daft - women have special terms to refer to just them, whereas us men have to share our pronouns with them all the time! Now that's sexist:-)
really. and its supposed to be so cheap as for the costs to be negligible for people migrating to it. How, then, does the industry supporting it get billions of dollars of revenue?
who was talking about buying training - he was talking about getting the IT people tarined so that they could use the OS - a windows user, who, for aguments sake, has never used unix will be completely clueless about how to manage a unix box. (same with a unix person moving to windows, though they don't like to admit it).
Obviously there are different ways to achieve the samw results, but you do need to know what those things are.
So, taking a set of boxes running NT4 for the last 7 years and replacing them with Linux may not cost you much, but then, leaving them running NT4 won't cost you anything at all.
The cost of getting your admins up to speed, and then paying them to do the installations, and then buying the new software to replace the old NT4 stuff, and then training the users to use the new software..... well, it turns out to be a great deal. Don't try to say 'but maintenance will be cheaper'.. those NT4 boxes are running NT4 for a reason - that they work and have always worked, no-one needed to upgrade them, and probably don't even think twice about them.
'Linux is free so it must be cheaper then windows' doesn't always apply in the real world where there a lot more factors to consider.
there's a way round that - explain the hole, explain why it works and give sample snippets of code. Do NOT provide a full working demo (with binaries) on how to hack a system.
Real coders can take the snippets and make a hacking program, the script kiddies cannot. I can explain a buffer overflow flaw, and give sample code, without letting the kiddies wreak havoc.
eg. try this link for a full explanation (with pics) of buffer overflow. http://cis.stvincent.edu/swd/profession al.html
I'm surprised no-ones mentioned this, just goes to show exactly how underrated it is.
Its Ridley Scott's first film, bit of a boring plot about 2 napoleonic soldiers who cut chunks out of each other now and again, but you watch the film for the lighting. Ridley must have had the actors hanging around for weeks waiting for the right conditions to film.
Check out the dawn duel scenes, the images are practically works of art. Check out the Russian Front scenes, I felt cold just watching it (not to mention the glorious purple sky).
oh yes, one additional note - it doesn't matter who actually sent out the spam, the site being advertised counts as the originator as they either sent the spam, or they contracted someone else to do it., so you can sue them - no need to determine the actual emailer. I think the only restriction being that you have to sue them in their country of origin, so its a bit pointless me suing a US spammer, but you guys go ahead and do it for me, please.
there was a/. article recently where the poster successfully sued a spammer using the fax laws. He claimed that he used a dial-up fax/modem to receive the email spam, and therefore it fell into the same category as junk fax. Apparently the junk fax law states something along the lines of 'a junk fax is a transmission using a normal phone line where the recipient uses fax hardware to receive'. So a dial-up fax/modem counts as a fax machine, and an email is a fax if its received using a fax machine.
unfortunately I cannot find the original article where the poster gave full instaructons on how to successfully sue -/. is full of spam articles these days. sorry.
Re:Someday even MPAA will see the commerical benfi
on
8.6 GB Internet?
·
· Score: 1
I reckon so too, but not for many years. This will not help that much - reading the article says that they only improved the efficiency of the network.
So, don't expect 8Gbps over your phone line, but the speed at the ISP end would be much improved (3x) so they could start dropping their prices or offering faster connections... like I said, not for a long while;-)
depends - if you're talking about throughput, then yes you are. eg a 512kbps adsl line means 512kbps of data + overhead delivered to the computer, not data only.
Goodput is the amount of 'real' data delivered.
Check out the ADSL speed testers - they'll try to calculate and display that overhead.
2. How many large companies have their users write mail using the server, instead of their client PC? (which would do the signing).
3. Maybe Lotus Notes users, but they're used to extreme slowness;-)
Seriously, I'm typing this and the CPU is busy doing nothing, in its terms. I'd not notice one iota. If I tried sending 10,000 mails automatically on the other hand, I'd have to go get one hell of a lot of coffees.
yeah, I kinda agree, but I still think you are blaming MS for the way the world has turned out because they didn't make a good enough OS.
But I don't think that any other way weould have worked - don't forget MS made and sold Xenix, just that no-one wanted it, they wanted 123 running on.. whatever it happened to run on.. and so DOS captured the market. If that hadn't happened - ie. there were competing OSs to run apps on, there wouldn't be a standard for the market to get fully behind, and we'd still be using 10Mhz chips. either that, or a different company would have produced DOS, though with a different name, and/. would be condemning it instead.
MS has done quite well to get us away from DOS though - they've finally been able to chuck the DOS stream with XP, but its taken so many years before the paying public have let them do it. They've been quite responsible given the limitations we've (collective we) imposed on them.
if you read the link, they are investigating different ways of charging the sender - only 1 is by cash, the only one written about on the site is to use CPU cycles, with the algorithm they'd use.
Frankly, I don't care if MS made my mail program go slower - if they embedded it in OE and switched it on by default, then it'd be a very good thing.
Then why didn't people buy the Sun boxes for a lower price, etc etc. I never said it was down to price - PCs used to be very expensive after all.
I was there, I used Unix at uni, and an Amiga at home. Loved the technology. I still think it was better than some current stuff.
However, that still doesn't explain why PCs became dominant. If it wasn't price, and it wasnt technology, and I seriously doubt it was marketing, MS didn't have the finance to market it, and IBM didn't care about the PC so didn't want to. They say it was because of commodity hardware that it took off - you weren't tied into a single vendor so lots of people bought this commodity item. (which is why the Amiga didn't take off, though it was seriously better)(oh, and there was no compaq or similar in the times I'm referring to). Apple only really lived through the graphic design community, but that was a 'closed shop' to other technologies, just as universities were unix-shops.
In other words, the technology didn't count for squat. If you were a closed shop, you used what you were told to. For the rest of the world, we chose a commodity technology.
So this is my point for the thread - the unix developers should have grabbed the opportunity to develop a unix for the PC, but they chose to tie their customers into their hardware, which only those customers with large wallets could afford.
15 years on, they've lost out, and we've lost out.
I think though, that the unix vendors couldn't have done it - putting a multi-user OS on a PC (in those days) was a tremendous overhead. DOS was better as it was more suitable for the tasks you'd want the PC to do... and so, we end up with computing as it is today. I do think there was anything that could have been done without the benefit of hindsight.
Imagine how much more the non-Microsoft vendors would have been able to do if they could have gotten their volumes up.
The big point to bear in mind there is *if*. They didn't, or they couldn't. Either way, it took the PC with DOS to kick-start the mainstream computing revolution we enjoy today.
"MS has held back the industry by at least a decade"... you can't say that reasonably. Unix had 20 years to make an inpression, perhaps another 20 would have allowed it to produce the commodity hardware we enjoy today.. but there again, how many years do we need to give them before they started to deliver? Its not desktop app software - Linux comes with all the software you'd expect a home user to want to run. That stuff was available years ago.
The unix vendors have held back the industry, not MS. The technology may be worse, but I don't see you using even a 5 year Sun workstation. why not if it is so much better?!?!
You're one of those people who bought a Betamax video recorder didn't you..
Frankly, technological excellence aside, if it wasn't for DOS and those IBM PCs that IBM didn't care about, we wouldn't be using these computers we sit at today - the wintel alliance has brought us a revolution in computing power, that those 20 years of unix failed to deliver even slightly.
300 years. big deal. We have wattle and daub houses that were built in the tudor era that are still standign - not many admittedly, and the ones that are left are a bit bent in places, but then what would you expect..
Stone will last for ever until civil war comes along and knocks them down. Don't forget we have stonehenge that is stll mostly standing from prehistory!
Concrete is the modern version fo stone - breeze blocks covered in bricks is just as good as stone blocks. Steel reinforced concrete should be far better that that. In fact, unless they were built with shoddy foundations, most modern buildings should last forever.
I doubt that it'll take 5 years to get a new protocol out - all it takes is MS Outlook Express v7 to appear with 'great new anti-spam features', AOL to do the same, free software chaps to upgrade their mail programs (which, of course, they'll do instantly) and the world will be running the all-new SMTPv2 protocol in a matter of weeks.
Who wouldn't upgrade their software for free if it stopped spam.. mind you, if MS offered OEv7 almost everybody would upgrade it immediately anyway.
Well, I think you've got it right - although not for the point you were making;-)
All those Samurai you were on about - the analogy is that none of them had day jobs, all of them were involved in Free Software projects.
Nobody *works* for the love of the craft - except junior programmers who havn't yet realised what a 9-5 every day for ten years does to you - but those who work on free software, they do it for love of that project, respect from their peers, etc etc. They are the samurai in this story.
BTW, they all died in the end. So much for Linux saving the world;-)
almost certainly there will be hosts solely connected to the private network, and never to the public. No doubt this can work for the government who will not allow just anyone to plug a new host in. (perhaps they have a single hosts file;-)
I think they cannot implement a truly secure solution over the public net as the protocols were never designed with security in mind - ie. anything that happens is a hack or a bodge on top of those insecure protocols. Whilst these may be good enough for you or me in practical terms, the government would want a quantifiably secure system, and the only way you get that is to disconnect yourself from the rest of the world.
There are plenty of systems that do this BTW - I used to work for a company that did credit card processing. They had a single PC connected to the internet and not the lan, all the others were on the internal lan only. I've seen banks not connect to the internet at all.
Slashdot Mirror
as I understood it, it was Sun that licenced only java 1.1 to MS, back in the early days. Then they refused to licence the later versions. Hence, MS had no choice - they couldn't legally develop or deploy the latest Java. Don't forget when MS had .NET and stopped bundling java, there was an outcry.
I think Sun thought they were striking a blow against MS, but just shot themselves in the foot.
Standards mean that there exists a minimum that is guaranteed to work. If a vendor wants to extend it, fine (some extensions make it back into later standards), and you're free to use those extensions or not, but the base is level with a standard. As things go today, without a standard, Sun can deprecate as much of your code as it wants.
As I recall, one of the reasons Larry's Network Computer failed was because you could buy a PC, (even with Windows pre-installed), and buy an X server software (and Office) and it was *still* cheaper than his Network Client, without having to shell out for the Oracle software you'd need to run it properly. And it had a rubbish processor.
'course Larry (and Scott) want to sell you the server hardware and software you'll need to do this - and it won't be anything other than stupidly expensive. So much so that it'll easily wipe out all those TCO 'savings'.
and you won't have sound either. Sorry, Larry doesn't have a clue then, and he still doesn't.
non-compliant menas (accoridng to Sun) 'better than ours'. Nothing MS did broke your java apps running on windows.
Sure they did add features, but you were quite free not to use them, or to use them and say 'my app only runs on windows'. Frankly, what's the problem there, you could write your app using JNI to integrate with some Windows-only component. It wouldn't be cross-platform anymore but would be still compliant.
If Sun had actually sent Java off to become a standard, instead of pretending to, and MS has broken the standard then they'd be the bad boys here, but as it stands, I don't think Sun has anything but legal cr*p on their side.
then one of the add-on modules they envisage being developed would be a noise generator. A machine that goes 'bang' in fact...
Either that, or the soldiers would have to be trained to shout 'dakka dakka dakka' as they fire.
well, here's the list of the best.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/top100.html
or computers for that matter, since the clever old brits invented them. Just think if the descendants of Alan Turing (or the british government) had a patent on The Computer...
In nearly all languages the non-gender specific terms are the masculine. Its politically-correct nonsense to start writing using the feminine as all-encompassing.
:-)
ie. We have mankind to refer to all humanity. When you use the term 'Womankind', you are deliberately referring solely to all human women, and not men.
I find people who use the feminine quite daft - women have special terms to refer to just them, whereas us men have to share our pronouns with them all the time! Now that's sexist
to being a multi-BILLION dollar industry today
really. and its supposed to be so cheap as for the costs to be negligible for people migrating to it. How, then, does the industry supporting it get billions of dollars of revenue?
who was talking about buying training - he was talking about getting the IT people tarined so that they could use the OS - a windows user, who, for aguments sake, has never used unix will be completely clueless about how to manage a unix box. (same with a unix person moving to windows, though they don't like to admit it).
Obviously there are different ways to achieve the samw results, but you do need to know what those things are.
So, taking a set of boxes running NT4 for the last 7 years and replacing them with Linux may not cost you much, but then, leaving them running NT4 won't cost you anything at all.
The cost of getting your admins up to speed, and then paying them to do the installations, and then buying the new software to replace the old NT4 stuff, and then training the users to use the new software..... well, it turns out to be a great deal. Don't try to say 'but maintenance will be cheaper'.. those NT4 boxes are running NT4 for a reason - that they work and have always worked, no-one needed to upgrade them, and probably don't even think twice about them.
'Linux is free so it must be cheaper then windows' doesn't always apply in the real world where there a lot more factors to consider.
there's a way round that - explain the hole, explain why it works and give sample snippets of code. Do NOT provide a full working demo (with binaries) on how to hack a system.
n al.html
Real coders can take the snippets and make a hacking program, the script kiddies cannot. I can explain a buffer overflow flaw, and give sample code, without letting the kiddies wreak havoc.
eg. try this link for a full explanation (with pics) of buffer overflow.
http://cis.stvincent.edu/swd/professio
I'm surprised no-ones mentioned this, just goes to show exactly how underrated it is.
Its Ridley Scott's first film, bit of a boring plot about 2 napoleonic soldiers who cut chunks out of each other now and again, but you watch the film for the lighting. Ridley must have had the actors hanging around for weeks waiting for the right conditions to film.
Check out the dawn duel scenes, the images are practically works of art. Check out the Russian Front scenes, I felt cold just watching it (not to mention the glorious purple sky).
oh yes, one additional note - it doesn't matter who actually sent out the spam, the site being advertised counts as the originator as they either sent the spam, or they contracted someone else to do it., so you can sue them - no need to determine the actual emailer.
I think the only restriction being that you have to sue them in their country of origin, so its a bit pointless me suing a US spammer, but you guys go ahead and do it for me, please.
there was a /. article recently where the poster successfully sued a spammer using the fax laws. He claimed that he used a dial-up fax/modem to receive the email spam, and therefore it fell into the same category as junk fax. Apparently the junk fax law states something along the lines of 'a junk fax is a transmission using a normal phone line where the recipient uses fax hardware to receive'. So a dial-up fax/modem counts as a fax machine, and an email is a fax if its received using a fax machine.
/. is full of spam articles these days. sorry.
unfortunately I cannot find the original article where the poster gave full instaructons on how to successfully sue -
I reckon so too, but not for many years. This will not help that much - reading the article says that they only improved the efficiency of the network.
;-)
So, don't expect 8Gbps over your phone line, but the speed at the ISP end would be much improved (3x) so they could start dropping their prices or offering faster connections... like I said, not for a long while
depends - if you're talking about throughput, then yes you are. eg a 512kbps adsl line means 512kbps of data + overhead delivered to the computer, not data only.
Goodput is the amount of 'real' data delivered.
Check out the ADSL speed testers - they'll try to calculate and display that overhead.
No, I don't run Outlook Express for any company.
;-)
1. How many large companies run OE?!!?!
2. How many large companies have their users write mail using the server, instead of their client PC? (which would do the signing).
3. Maybe Lotus Notes users, but they're used to extreme slowness
Seriously, I'm typing this and the CPU is busy doing nothing, in its terms. I'd not notice one iota. If I tried sending 10,000 mails automatically on the other hand, I'd have to go get one hell of a lot of coffees.
yeah, I kinda agree, but I still think you are blaming MS for the way the world has turned out because they didn't make a good enough OS.
.. whatever it happened to run on .. and so DOS captured the market. If that hadn't happened - ie. there were competing OSs to run apps on, there wouldn't be a standard for the market to get fully behind, and we'd still be using 10Mhz chips. either that, or a different company would have produced DOS, though with a different name, and /. would be condemning it instead.
But I don't think that any other way weould have worked - don't forget MS made and sold Xenix, just that no-one wanted it, they wanted 123 running on
MS has done quite well to get us away from DOS though - they've finally been able to chuck the DOS stream with XP, but its taken so many years before the paying public have let them do it. They've been quite responsible given the limitations we've (collective we) imposed on them.
if you read the link, they are investigating different ways of charging the sender - only 1 is by cash, the only one written about on the site is to use CPU cycles, with the algorithm they'd use.
Frankly, I don't care if MS made my mail program go slower - if they embedded it in OE and switched it on by default, then it'd be a very good thing.
Then why didn't people buy the Sun boxes for a lower price, etc etc. I never said it was down to price - PCs used to be very expensive after all.
I was there, I used Unix at uni, and an Amiga at home. Loved the technology. I still think it was better than some current stuff.
However, that still doesn't explain why PCs became dominant. If it wasn't price, and it wasnt technology, and I seriously doubt it was marketing, MS didn't have the finance to market it, and IBM didn't care about the PC so didn't want to.
They say it was because of commodity hardware that it took off - you weren't tied into a single vendor so lots of people bought this commodity item. (which is why the Amiga didn't take off, though it was seriously better)(oh, and there was no compaq or similar in the times I'm referring to).
Apple only really lived through the graphic design community, but that was a 'closed shop' to other technologies, just as universities were unix-shops.
In other words, the technology didn't count for squat. If you were a closed shop, you used what you were told to. For the rest of the world, we chose a commodity technology.
So this is my point for the thread - the unix developers should have grabbed the opportunity to develop a unix for the PC, but they chose to tie their customers into their hardware, which only those customers with large wallets could afford.
15 years on, they've lost out, and we've lost out.
I think though, that the unix vendors couldn't have done it - putting a multi-user OS on a PC (in those days) was a tremendous overhead. DOS was better as it was more suitable for the tasks you'd want the PC to do... and so, we end up with computing as it is today. I do think there was anything that could have been done without the benefit of hindsight.
Imagine how much more the non-Microsoft vendors would have been able to do if they could have gotten their volumes up.
The big point to bear in mind there is *if*. They didn't, or they couldn't. Either way, it took the PC with DOS to kick-start the mainstream computing revolution we enjoy today.
"MS has held back the industry by at least a decade"... you can't say that reasonably. Unix had 20 years to make an inpression, perhaps another 20 would have allowed it to produce the commodity hardware we enjoy today.. but there again, how many years do we need to give them before they started to deliver? Its not desktop app software - Linux comes with all the software you'd expect a home user to want to run. That stuff was available years ago.
The unix vendors have held back the industry, not MS. The technology may be worse, but I don't see you using even a 5 year Sun workstation. why not if it is so much better?!?!
You're one of those people who bought a Betamax video recorder didn't you..
Frankly, technological excellence aside, if it wasn't for DOS and those IBM PCs that IBM didn't care about, we wouldn't be using these computers we sit at today - the wintel alliance has brought us a revolution in computing power, that those 20 years of unix failed to deliver even slightly.
300 years. big deal. We have wattle and daub houses that were built in the tudor era that are still standign - not many admittedly, and the ones that are left are a bit bent in places, but then what would you expect..
Stone will last for ever until civil war comes along and knocks them down. Don't forget we have stonehenge that is stll mostly standing from prehistory!
Concrete is the modern version fo stone - breeze blocks covered in bricks is just as good as stone blocks. Steel reinforced concrete should be far better that that. In fact, unless they were built with shoddy foundations, most modern buildings should last forever.
I doubt that it'll take 5 years to get a new protocol out - all it takes is MS Outlook Express v7 to appear with 'great new anti-spam features', AOL to do the same, free software chaps to upgrade their mail programs (which, of course, they'll do instantly) and the world will be running the all-new SMTPv2 protocol in a matter of weeks.
Who wouldn't upgrade their software for free if it stopped spam.. mind you, if MS offered OEv7 almost everybody would upgrade it immediately anyway.
Well, I think you've got it right - although not for the point you were making ;-)
;-)
All those Samurai you were on about - the analogy is that none of them had day jobs, all of them were involved in Free Software projects.
Nobody *works* for the love of the craft - except junior programmers who havn't yet realised what a 9-5 every day for ten years does to you - but those who work on free software, they do it for love of that project, respect from their peers, etc etc. They are the samurai in this story.
BTW, they all died in the end. So much for Linux saving the world
almost certainly there will be hosts solely connected to the private network, and never to the public. No doubt this can work for the government who will not allow just anyone to plug a new host in. (perhaps they have a single hosts file ;-)
I think they cannot implement a truly secure solution over the public net as the protocols were never designed with security in mind - ie. anything that happens is a hack or a bodge on top of those insecure protocols. Whilst these may be good enough for you or me in practical terms, the government would want a quantifiably secure system, and the only way you get that is to disconnect yourself from the rest of the world.
There are plenty of systems that do this BTW - I used to work for a company that did credit card processing. They had a single PC connected to the internet and not the lan, all the others were on the internal lan only. I've seen banks not connect to the internet at all.
Thank god I work for a less paranoid company now!