Is it really any surprise that nothing new was stated in the article?
Here's a link to the DOJ's press release on the settlement. Everyone should try to read it, as well as the actual settlement (if you can find it... links, anyone???)
Personally, I think the settlement is satisfactory. It addresses the root of the problem and stays (mostly) out of other issues. Microsoft's sin is not in it's products... it's in it's sales and marketing practices. Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.
Gee... I guess DELL DIDN'T just supply my University with an entire lab of LINUX workstations. And I guess my dad DIDN'T buy an IBM PC with LOTUS PRE-INSTALLED and I guess I NEVER bought a COMPAQ Notebook with LINUX PRE-INSTALLED... and Slashdot must have NEVER run articles about the iPAQ running LINUX. I MUST BE PLAIN FUCKING DELUSIONAL.
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft has control of the industry primarily because people *buy* their products. Whether or not buying Microsoft is the smartest thing is an argument we all know the answer to. We also know it's the pointy-haired bosses that are buying quite a bit of it.
But there's also the home user... I don't think I would ever allow my parents to use Linux... not even Mandrake. They'd force me to move back in with them just to provide tech support. At least with Macintosh & Windows they can figure out how do do the things they want to do without needing a CS degree or years of hacking experience. And if all else fails, they can call trained, paid tech support. (Not that they're often very helpful)
About all the bug stuff... Of course Microsoft wants to keep their bugs under wraps... bugs hurt business... but we should have 100% freedom to flout every bug with enthusiasm! Only one thing will steal away the attention of the pointy-haired managers and that is our ability to prove again and again that Microsoft products are the *wrong* choice!
I know I'm risking some big-time flaming, but I don't believe Microsoft has a monopoly. Give me a quantifiable set of criterion for a company to hold a monopoly and let me see if they fit the requirement.
If you can prove to me that there is an existing product that large numbers of computer users really want to use but it is *unavailable* because Microsoft has squashed it, then I'll believe there is a monopoly.
Au contrair, your anarchist country (with it's vast natural resources and incredible infrastructure) has just become the prime target. Sure, ideas are infectious, try Communism... every dumbass undergrad I met in college *loved* the idea (except the Chinese AND the Russian engineering students, gee I wonder WHY.)
But you are talking about anarchism, so let me switch gears.
Yeah, wouldn't it be great to be able to do whatever you want/need to survive. And just think, if you kill the guy across the street for his schweet new gaming rig, there's no Big Bad Police to come after you. Oh, SURE, the neighbors might be pissed and show up at your doorstep with pitchforks, but don't worry, it's an anarchist country. They can kill you if they want to as well!!!
So of course people in general will want/need at least a little structure, right?? Just a smidge. Fine, we'll give our neighborhood a person to help with disputes/crime/emergencies. We'll call him the "Shaman."
Well, pretty soon, there's too many people for the Shaman to take care of. We'll need more structure... let's call our new leader the "Chief."
The chief, of course will have an inner circle to dispatch his orders... lets call them the "Tribal Council"
Now that we've elevated ourselves to Tribe, I don't think we need any more order. We can develop and live in peace. All among us and abroad can see our progression (and our source code, of course.) But what's this? The tribe over yonder is jealous?? They want a piece of OUR prosperity? So they invade... that's when we have (what may we call it?) a WAR!
So tribes fight and kill, some merge and form alliances, to the pont where in order for one alliance to protect themselves, they form regualar NATIONS!!! Time passes, nations evolve through progressions of leadership, growth, insurrection, merger, division... and eventually we have an EMPIRE.
So the far flung nation states start getting pissed... the frikken EMPIRE is too damn opressive, they whine... but didn't this START OUT as an ANARCHY?? Oh, NOW I REMEMBER... people simply didn't like getting KILLED by their next door neighbors. Boo-hoo, they thought it was a PAIN IN THE ASS.
So, we'll do it right this time... We'll attempt a REPUBLIC (yeah, the greeks tried true DEMOCRACIES, they got their asses kicked by nations that had smarter leaders and could make decisions faster)
So here we are, on top of the world... and other nations are STILL TRYING TO KILL US!
It makes you think (I hope)... without a government, they'd STILL be flying planes into our buildings... (Though I'm sure other countries would have beat them to it with better weapons than that.) Government or not, HUMAN BEINGS ARE VIOLENT MOTHERFUCKERS.
Oh, yeah. Getting back to the topic...
The author clearly does not believe that Open Source operates as an anarchy... rather it is specifically an unstructured medium from which profit-making organizations can arise. Of course, in order for the profit-makers to maintain a competitive edge they necessarily have to recreate some of the open-source environment. Overall, in order to succeed these companies need to do two things:
Maintain enough structure and intelectual protection so that profitable business can be safely and effectively conducted.
Maintain an open enough working environment so that the type of employees thay need, the hackers (as described in the article), will want to work there and stay as long as their talents are useful. (For example, the company has an open source project and it catches the eye of a talented programmer who otherwise would have never heard of that company. Now he works for them, and they both benefit.)
Another side benefit pointed out in the paper(well, not explicitly) is that if you use an open source management model to cater to your potiential developer/employee base your job training becomes minimal, thus saving you $$. And isn't that what it all comes down to for those filthy Americans? eh, comrade?
IMHO, I think every company has TWO customers. The END USER (The guy who buys the hamburger), and the EMPLOYEE (The guy who cooks the hamburger). Keep the employee happy, and the customer will get fewer burgers with boogers in the sauce, or less software with bugs in the code.
BTW, I understand you're not much of a rational thinker; your post reeks of it. But don't cry, just about everybody on slashdot is like that.
And if you wanna make some commentary on politics sometime POST SOMEWHERE THAT WANTS YOUR NAIVE HIPPIE ANARCHIST OPINION.
To change the world all at once is certainly a great dream for children and mental patients but give it a good long try with just ONE person at a time and you'll see why the world is like it is.
The hack *was* done from a recovery console... twit.
The ACL keys are backed up with the registry on the recovery disks. The restoration of the user settings and ACL keys were then done from the console. Do I have to explain everything to you people?
I noticed another poster mentioned partitioning schemes vs. file systems... It certainly is a good point to bring up and one that is relevant to the file system used.
I personally think the default partitioning schemes used by most Linux distros suck. BSD clearly has an advantage because of the strict standard. It's also better because it's more strict and (IM*NTBC*HO) logical in the standards for the placement of files.
Depending on the size of your HD, the space required by the hosted data, the required reliability/resilience/uptime, the partitioning and filesystem schems could vary drastically. For a newbie, it's best to begin with the default anyway, but I'd reccommend looking into alternatives anyhow.
BTW, no offense intended, but I'm assuming the poster is a newbie simply by the nature of the question asked. I was once a newbie too... ahhhh, the good old days of innocence and discovery, and getting flamed by the wannabe gurus with ego problems...:^)
It's been my experience, that, yes, under Linux NTFS is highly unstable.
However, it's also been my experience that under NTFS is damn unstable under WinNT as well.
Case in point... A production system I was running several years ago crashed. (NT4 SBS, PDC) The system HD was fried but the data drive was OK (backed up on RAID anyway.) When I attempted to reinstall the OS, for some strange reason NT told me the permissions on the data drive made it unusable! I ended up having to devise a particularly dangerous registry hack (involving NT's rescue boot-disk and reinstallation procedure) just to get access to a filesystem that should have just been readable right off the bat. Needless to say the system was down for several hours.
In another job, as a contract sysadmin for anout forty different clients, I was dealing with *constant* fs problems with NT.
Really, I only mentioned vfat and NTFS because I've met many linux newbies who are nervous that if they don't use a windows compatible FS they will be locked into Linux forever. (not that that's such a bad thing):^)
While ACL's are great, you can certainly use several different patches on ext2 and ext3 for those, or even use XFS. For a small web server, though, I don't think he needs anything more than ext2.
I've experimented with some of this myself during my free time. It was nothing incredibly complex, however I used the basic concepts of protein synthesis and enzyme function to operate on a 'DNA' code base that was dynamically mutated and generated.
While the 'enzymes' and 'proteins' were fixed during my experiments, they certainly could be mutated and evolved in more advanced versions of my programs.
An interesting side effect was that as a strain of 'DNA' evolved it became longer and longer. Upon tracing advanced mutations I found large sections of the genes to go completely unused.
Anyhow, what I menat to get to was that a model like this could certainly be distributed much like Bovine or SETI. A central server distributes 'DNA' to the client machines as well as a series of environmental test suites to measure their development. The client machines would iterate the DNA code through the test environment and mutate (or even breed) successors to the original DNA so as to discover a more efficient GA. The result set as well as the DNA fragments would then be transmitted back to the Server for analysis, processing and ultimately re-distribution.
An additional benefit of this approach would be that if a single genome is sucessful on a large number of systems it would be relatively easy to identify.
While my inital experiments were written in C, I eventually migrated to C++ (which actually made it much more complex.) However for a distributed client, the use of java would likely be the most efficient, espesially for the distribution of the testing environments.
OK, I like linux. It's not the best choice for everything, but I see this article as further proof that Linux has become an even more viable OS option for users. The way I see it, any successful piece of software needs four things: Desired functionality, Availability/Accessibility, Platform acceptance & availability, and last but not least, Usability.
Can you guess which one Linux is still lacking in???
We're almost there. Linux can do anything Windows can do (and mostly better). You can now buy Linux off any computer store shelf, at bookstores, online, or even download it for free. Now, as the article shows, Linux runs smoothly on dozens of different hardware platforms, and GNU software runs on dozens of OS's, including Apple's. Now, if only it were easier to configure a damn mouse!!!!
<RANT>I propose a petition to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for/. readers!</RANT>
Is it so bad that I actually agree with your parodized view of things???
The way I see it is that companies *should* only care about profits and competing in their markets. The press and media should have the right to make them out to be the monsters they are. The Supreme Court and Congress should butt out. If an actual constitutional crime is committed (like slave labor, destruction of personal property, murder, etc...) they should be arrested and given a trial like any other person/entity. People have the right to stop buying from them and working for them... And don't even bother giving me the environment complaint; Seeing as the ecology is where local activity can affect surrounding areas in a non-reversible manner, it certainly falls under the scope of a legislation, which, if people actually care, Congress certainly may meddle in. (provided that all laws and regulations pass thru the President and/or Supreme Court)
Seeing as I don't know much about the dynamics of an actual monopoly, I don't much care. Right now, I can buy my software, computers, and operating systems from anyone I want, and it doesen't have to be Microsoft. It doesen't sound like they have a monopoly to me.
Now if only the morons in Congress and the Supreme Court and the Executive branch would f*#&@^g stay out of our business (including copyright and patent laws that are blatantly vague and give way too much power to The-Guy-With-More-Money,) we'd probably not even be discussing this.
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
What I already said:
The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their cause, namely distribution of GNU source code.
Now, please tell me why you thought that statement said the GPL is about technology. True, later in my post I also mentioned technology... but I purposefully separated that point since I understand it is more an effect of the GPL and not it's purpose (And the effect idea is fairly debatable; Ever compare GCC's performance with commercial compilers?)
Well, I think it's important to also consider the other Open Source Licenses that there are out there.
Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.
I know that if I wrote some significant piece of Linux software I would very likely wish to release the source in the public domain, however I would like to also share in the profit if someone else is making money from my work.
However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. The goal of GNU-Licensed software is not to produce profit, but to produce further development of a free *NIX-like OS and applications for it. The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their couse, namely distribution GNU source code.
An example of why open source is good (even if it's not free!): I happen to like Outlook Express quite a bit. Being a Microsoft product, it is most certainly closed source. However it is also freely distributed, despite Microsoft's typical draconian EUA's and legal stuff like that.
Essentially it's freeware. Nontheless, I like it enough that I would pay for it... provided I could fix those GD-*#%! bugs in the IMAP code and perhaps add some features (and subtract others). As a developer, I am sure I would be perfectly capable of affecting those desired changes... and I would prefer to not have to wait for microsoft to do it for me... What I'm saying is that opening the source code adds something very valuable to the product. If it wasn't already available for free, I'd gladly pay for a copy of the source code if it allowed me to modify the program for my own personal use. Even better would be if I could even sell my enhanced version and simply pay microsoft a small royalty. Open source can certainly be profitable, but profit is not the intention of the GPL. That is left to other Open Source Licenses.
I intended to put in my $.02 but think I just overpaid!
It's too bad you posted anonymous. You are absolutely correct. A previous post pointed out two television documentaries in the last couple of years. Another pointed out that these mummies were known about since the turn of the century.
I'm no expert, but I have seen both of the documentaries... Yet again,/. is posting old news. Someone should mod your post up.
Now, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but if they're going down, and they're taking you down as well, you might as well sue them out of existence.
I had to take a similar course of action with a certain cynaptec.com
They had to change their name, but even that didn't save them (page is still up, but they had to move out of that cozy office, heheheheh)
BTW, their server is FULL of security holes! [I'm not advocating hacking them, just suggesting it:^>]
Oh, I might add that their little extortion note is in no way legally binding, at least here in Massachusetts. (Cynaptec sent me one of those as well, heheheheh)
Re:Marketing mindset a little strong.
on
Sun Launches JXTA
·
· Score: 1
OK, Maybe this is a wee bit offtopic, but it's the guinness speaking...
But I consider Bill Joy to be one of my personal gods! Like the internet? It's his doing! (he coded the tcp/ip stack for an early bsd unix)
Sure, java and jini are both projects he's at least been attributed to (if not whollt responsible for) but to say he's 100% manager is (as far as I'm concerned) blasphemous! (OK, his hair *is* a little pointy, but I digress. He's 100% genius and maybe he's good at managing...)
If you ask me, if he can explain high-tech, cutting edge complex concepts to the morons who really do the management, he's already OK in my book. That and the fact that he's *probably* doing some of the coding for this stuff puts him in near deification. That and the fact he's been doing it since I was born causes me to worship the keyboard he codes on.
OK, now that I've lost most of my karma I'll continue drinking... X^P (hiccup!)
I simply don't agree that increasing someone else's security implicitly decreases ours. Perhaps I'm missing something, but don't governments and corporations already communicate in private, behind the backs of the populace? I'm no great judge of human nature, but I wonder if greed and corruption truly increases, or does our view of it simply become clearer as time goes by?
One other thing: Here in the US we are probably the only country that has even the slimmest chance at stopping something like this... not that I think the people could, but think about something: If we do not develop it here, it WILL be developed elsewhere, and couldn't those other nations use it against US??
Well, as an engineer and computer scientist I have to say... It looks great on paper, but it requires fiber-optics. That means it will probably never make it to the internet where, AFIK (or am concerned), strong cryptography matters the most...
Also wouldn't this method be really susceptible to jamming? (No, I mean intentional interference, not reggae music!)
Still, communication between humans will never be 100% secure until we can eliminate the social engineering factor as well as simple human spywork (think the Misssion:Impossible movie a few years ago... I believe it could happen.)
Yeah, I think I've seen that episode of "Dr. Who?!" It's the one with the glowing cube that scrambles everyone's speech! Now we can all watch "Dr. Who?" without the nosy neighbors eavesdropping! hmmm... Maybe I missed the point...
Could this be dangerous??
on
Mood Home
·
· Score: 1
Could you imagine if Tom Green painted his parent's house plaid with this stuff?? I could induce seisures in epileptics whenever the weather changes!!!
I disagree that Linux would benefit so much from having a limited selection. Part of the reason I find Linux so useful is the diversity of distributions, as well as their flexibility. If I were to say that all we needed was RedHat for servers and routers, Mandrake for desktop use, and Debian for hackers, I would probably be laughed out of the room.
Just like in any system in evolution, the product will not improve if the current 'superior' product kills off all the alternatives.
Currently I am working on a distribution that is designed to be highly specialized. (Not like the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink distros like RH.) Basicly, if you want to install my distro and use it as a web server, it will install and set up your httpd of choice, and NOTHING else. Same goes for FTP and SMTP, etc... For example, I would hate to be forced to install python when I'm only going to use nothing else but apache with perl scripts. *coughRedHatcough* That would be like being having to install VBScript into your web-browser when you simply don't want it there!!! *coughMicro$oftcough*
OF course, I also agree that some distros will inevitably fail in the evolution on Linux... and it will be good as long as more can pop up to keep evolution going.
Well, I feel I should give a disclaimer: I'm not in a thinking-type mood today. It must be the weather here in Lowell. I'll be back to my evil little self sometime soon.:^>
Slashdot Mirror
Second Post!!!!
(I just HAD to do it! Besides, karma is cheap.)
Man, I'm surprised how long this took to hit /.
Well, I've been playing the demo for two weeks and IT ABSOFRIKKENLUTELY ROCKS.
Link to the most recent version of the settlement. (I think)
Is it really any surprise that nothing new was stated in the article?
Here's a link to the DOJ's press release on the settlement. Everyone should try to read it, as well as the actual settlement (if you can find it... links, anyone???)
Personally, I think the settlement is satisfactory. It addresses the root of the problem and stays (mostly) out of other issues. Microsoft's sin is not in it's products... it's in it's sales and marketing practices. Unless someone can prove that Windows has a secret "Disable third-party software" function, I just don't see the problem.
Gee... I guess DELL DIDN'T just supply my University with an entire lab of LINUX workstations. And I guess my dad DIDN'T buy an IBM PC with LOTUS PRE-INSTALLED and I guess I NEVER bought a COMPAQ Notebook with LINUX PRE-INSTALLED... and Slashdot must have NEVER run articles about the iPAQ running LINUX. I MUST BE PLAIN FUCKING DELUSIONAL.
You twit. Mark THIS as flamebait.
Fer cryin' out loud...
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft has control of the industry primarily because people *buy* their products. Whether or not buying Microsoft is the smartest thing is an argument we all know the answer to. We also know it's the pointy-haired bosses that are buying quite a bit of it.
But there's also the home user... I don't think I would ever allow my parents to use Linux... not even Mandrake. They'd force me to move back in with them just to provide tech support. At least with Macintosh & Windows they can figure out how do do the things they want to do without needing a CS degree or years of hacking experience. And if all else fails, they can call trained, paid tech support. (Not that they're often very helpful)
About all the bug stuff... Of course Microsoft wants to keep their bugs under wraps... bugs hurt business... but we should have 100% freedom to flout every bug with enthusiasm! Only one thing will steal away the attention of the pointy-haired managers and that is our ability to prove again and again that Microsoft products are the *wrong* choice!
I know I'm risking some big-time flaming, but I don't believe Microsoft has a monopoly. Give me a quantifiable set of criterion for a company to hold a monopoly and let me see if they fit the requirement.
If you can prove to me that there is an existing product that large numbers of computer users really want to use but it is *unavailable* because Microsoft has squashed it, then I'll believe there is a monopoly.
Just to give LazyDawg some credit... he's a Slakware fan so he's not all bad.
But you are talking about anarchism, so let me switch gears.
Yeah, wouldn't it be great to be able to do whatever you want/need to survive. And just think, if you kill the guy across the street for his schweet new gaming rig, there's no Big Bad Police to come after you. Oh, SURE, the neighbors might be pissed and show up at your doorstep with pitchforks, but don't worry, it's an anarchist country. They can kill you if they want to as well!!!
So of course people in general will want/need at least a little structure, right?? Just a smidge. Fine, we'll give our neighborhood a person to help with disputes/crime/emergencies. We'll call him the "Shaman."
Well, pretty soon, there's too many people for the Shaman to take care of. We'll need more structure... let's call our new leader the "Chief."
The chief, of course will have an inner circle to dispatch his orders... lets call them the "Tribal Council"
Now that we've elevated ourselves to Tribe, I don't think we need any more order. We can develop and live in peace. All among us and abroad can see our progression (and our source code, of course.) But what's this? The tribe over yonder is jealous?? They want a piece of OUR prosperity? So they invade... that's when we have (what may we call it?) a WAR!
So tribes fight and kill, some merge and form alliances, to the pont where in order for one alliance to protect themselves, they form regualar NATIONS!!! Time passes, nations evolve through progressions of leadership, growth, insurrection, merger, division... and eventually we have an EMPIRE.
So the far flung nation states start getting pissed... the frikken EMPIRE is too damn opressive, they whine... but didn't this START OUT as an ANARCHY?? Oh, NOW I REMEMBER... people simply didn't like getting KILLED by their next door neighbors. Boo-hoo, they thought it was a PAIN IN THE ASS.
So, we'll do it right this time... We'll attempt a REPUBLIC (yeah, the greeks tried true DEMOCRACIES, they got their asses kicked by nations that had smarter leaders and could make decisions faster)
So here we are, on top of the world... and other nations are STILL TRYING TO KILL US!
It makes you think (I hope)... without a government, they'd STILL be flying planes into our buildings... (Though I'm sure other countries would have beat them to it with better weapons than that.) Government or not, HUMAN BEINGS ARE VIOLENT MOTHERFUCKERS.
Oh, yeah. Getting back to the topic...
The author clearly does not believe that Open Source operates as an anarchy... rather it is specifically an unstructured medium from which profit-making organizations can arise. Of course, in order for the profit-makers to maintain a competitive edge they necessarily have to recreate some of the open-source environment. Overall, in order to succeed these companies need to do two things:
Another side benefit pointed out in the paper(well, not explicitly) is that if you use an open source management model to cater to your potiential developer/employee base your job training becomes minimal, thus saving you $$. And isn't that what it all comes down to for those filthy Americans? eh, comrade?
IMHO, I think every company has TWO customers. The END USER (The guy who buys the hamburger), and the EMPLOYEE (The guy who cooks the hamburger). Keep the employee happy, and the customer will get fewer burgers with boogers in the sauce, or less software with bugs in the code.
BTW, I understand you're not much of a rational thinker; your post reeks of it. But don't cry, just about everybody on slashdot is like that.
And if you wanna make some commentary on politics sometime POST SOMEWHERE THAT WANTS YOUR NAIVE HIPPIE ANARCHIST OPINION.
To change the world all at once is certainly a great dream for children and mental patients but give it a good long try with just ONE person at a time and you'll see why the world is like it is.
The hack *was* done from a recovery console... twit.
The ACL keys are backed up with the registry on the recovery disks. The restoration of the user settings and ACL keys were then done from the console. Do I have to explain everything to you people?
I noticed another poster mentioned partitioning schemes vs. file systems... It certainly is a good point to bring up and one that is relevant to the file system used.
:^)
I personally think the default partitioning schemes used by most Linux distros suck. BSD clearly has an advantage because of the strict standard. It's also better because it's more strict and (IM*NTBC*HO) logical in the standards for the placement of files.
Depending on the size of your HD, the space required by the hosted data, the required reliability/resilience/uptime, the partitioning and filesystem schems could vary drastically. For a newbie, it's best to begin with the default anyway, but I'd reccommend looking into alternatives anyhow.
BTW, no offense intended, but I'm assuming the poster is a newbie simply by the nature of the question asked. I was once a newbie too... ahhhh, the good old days of innocence and discovery, and getting flamed by the wannabe gurus with ego problems...
It's been my experience, that, yes, under Linux NTFS is highly unstable.
:^)
However, it's also been my experience that under NTFS is damn unstable under WinNT as well.
Case in point... A production system I was running several years ago crashed. (NT4 SBS, PDC) The system HD was fried but the data drive was OK (backed up on RAID anyway.) When I attempted to reinstall the OS, for some strange reason NT told me the permissions on the data drive made it unusable! I ended up having to devise a particularly dangerous registry hack (involving NT's rescue boot-disk and reinstallation procedure) just to get access to a filesystem that should have just been readable right off the bat. Needless to say the system was down for several hours.
In another job, as a contract sysadmin for anout forty different clients, I was dealing with *constant* fs problems with NT.
Really, I only mentioned vfat and NTFS because I've met many linux newbies who are nervous that if they don't use a windows compatible FS they will be locked into Linux forever. (not that that's such a bad thing)
While ACL's are great, you can certainly use several different patches on ext2 and ext3 for those, or even use XFS. For a small web server, though, I don't think he needs anything more than ext2.
Just my $.02.
It's never failed me! But if you want some sort of insurance, give ext3 a try. it's pretty schweet.
Just DON'T even think about vfat or NTFS!
I've experimented with some of this myself during my free time. It was nothing incredibly complex, however I used the basic concepts of protein synthesis and enzyme function to operate on a 'DNA' code base that was dynamically mutated and generated.
While the 'enzymes' and 'proteins' were fixed during my experiments, they certainly could be mutated and evolved in more advanced versions of my programs.
An interesting side effect was that as a strain of 'DNA' evolved it became longer and longer. Upon tracing advanced mutations I found large sections of the genes to go completely unused.
Anyhow, what I menat to get to was that a model like this could certainly be distributed much like Bovine or SETI. A central server distributes 'DNA' to the client machines as well as a series of environmental test suites to measure their development. The client machines would iterate the DNA code through the test environment and mutate (or even breed) successors to the original DNA so as to discover a more efficient GA. The result set as well as the DNA fragments would then be transmitted back to the Server for analysis, processing and ultimately re-distribution.
An additional benefit of this approach would be that if a single genome is sucessful on a large number of systems it would be relatively easy to identify.
While my inital experiments were written in C, I eventually migrated to C++ (which actually made it much more complex.) However for a distributed client, the use of java would likely be the most efficient, espesially for the distribution of the testing environments.
OK, I like linux. It's not the best choice for everything, but I see this article as further proof that Linux has become an even more viable OS option for users. The way I see it, any successful piece of software needs four things: Desired functionality, Availability/Accessibility, Platform acceptance & availability, and last but not least, Usability.
/. readers!</RANT>
Can you guess which one Linux is still lacking in???
We're almost there. Linux can do anything Windows can do (and mostly better). You can now buy Linux off any computer store shelf, at bookstores, online, or even download it for free. Now, as the article shows, Linux runs smoothly on dozens of different hardware platforms, and GNU software runs on dozens of OS's, including Apple's. Now, if only it were easier to configure a damn mouse!!!!
<RANT>I propose a petition to the IETF that the surrounding tags become official identification for
Is it so bad that I actually agree with your parodized view of things???
The way I see it is that companies *should* only care about profits and competing in their markets. The press and media should have the right to make them out to be the monsters they are. The Supreme Court and Congress should butt out. If an actual constitutional crime is committed (like slave labor, destruction of personal property, murder, etc...) they should be arrested and given a trial like any other person/entity. People have the right to stop buying from them and working for them... And don't even bother giving me the environment complaint; Seeing as the ecology is where local activity can affect surrounding areas in a non-reversible manner, it certainly falls under the scope of a legislation, which, if people actually care, Congress certainly may meddle in. (provided that all laws and regulations pass thru the President and/or Supreme Court)
Seeing as I don't know much about the dynamics of an actual monopoly, I don't much care. Right now, I can buy my software, computers, and operating systems from anyone I want, and it doesen't have to be Microsoft. It doesen't sound like they have a monopoly to me.
Now if only the morons in Congress and the Supreme Court and the Executive branch would f*#&@^g stay out of our business (including copyright and patent laws that are blatantly vague and give way too much power to The-Guy-With-More-Money,) we'd probably not even be discussing this.
What I already said:
Now, please tell me why you thought that statement said the GPL is about technology. True, later in my post I also mentioned technology... but I purposefully separated that point since I understand it is more an effect of the GPL and not it's purpose (And the effect idea is fairly debatable; Ever compare GCC's performance with commercial compilers?)
Well, I think it's important to also consider the other Open Source Licenses that there are out there.
Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.
I know that if I wrote some significant piece of Linux software I would very likely wish to release the source in the public domain, however I would like to also share in the profit if someone else is making money from my work.
However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. The goal of GNU-Licensed software is not to produce profit, but to produce further development of a free *NIX-like OS and applications for it. The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their couse, namely distribution GNU source code.
An example of why open source is good (even if it's not free!): I happen to like Outlook Express quite a bit. Being a Microsoft product, it is most certainly closed source. However it is also freely distributed, despite Microsoft's typical draconian EUA's and legal stuff like that.
Essentially it's freeware. Nontheless, I like it enough that I would pay for it... provided I could fix those GD-*#%! bugs in the IMAP code and perhaps add some features (and subtract others). As a developer, I am sure I would be perfectly capable of affecting those desired changes... and I would prefer to not have to wait for microsoft to do it for me... What I'm saying is that opening the source code adds something very valuable to the product. If it wasn't already available for free, I'd gladly pay for a copy of the source code if it allowed me to modify the program for my own personal use. Even better would be if I could even sell my enhanced version and simply pay microsoft a small royalty. Open source can certainly be profitable, but profit is not the intention of the GPL. That is left to other Open Source Licenses.
I intended to put in my $.02 but think I just overpaid!
It's too bad you posted anonymous. You are absolutely correct. A previous post pointed out two television documentaries in the last couple of years. Another pointed out that these mummies were known about since the turn of the century.
/. is posting old news. Someone should mod your post up.
I'm no expert, but I have seen both of the documentaries... Yet again,
Now, I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but if they're going down, and they're taking you down as well, you might as well sue them out of existence.
:^>]
I had to take a similar course of action with a certain cynaptec.com
They had to change their name, but even that didn't save them (page is still up, but they had to move out of that cozy office, heheheheh)
BTW, their server is FULL of security holes! [I'm not advocating hacking them, just suggesting it
Oh, I might add that their little extortion note is in no way legally binding, at least here in Massachusetts. (Cynaptec sent me one of those as well, heheheheh)
OK, Maybe this is a wee bit offtopic, but it's the guinness speaking...
But I consider Bill Joy to be one of my personal gods! Like the internet? It's his doing! (he coded the tcp/ip stack for an early bsd unix)
Sure, java and jini are both projects he's at least been attributed to (if not whollt responsible for) but to say he's 100% manager is (as far as I'm concerned) blasphemous! (OK, his hair *is* a little pointy, but I digress. He's 100% genius and maybe he's good at managing...)
If you ask me, if he can explain high-tech, cutting edge complex concepts to the morons who really do the management, he's already OK in my book. That and the fact that he's *probably* doing some of the coding for this stuff puts him in near deification. That and the fact he's been doing it since I was born causes me to worship the keyboard he codes on.
OK, now that I've lost most of my karma I'll continue drinking... X^P (hiccup!)
I simply don't agree that increasing someone else's security implicitly decreases ours. Perhaps I'm missing something, but don't governments and corporations already communicate in private, behind the backs of the populace? I'm no great judge of human nature, but I wonder if greed and corruption truly increases, or does our view of it simply become clearer as time goes by?
One other thing: Here in the US we are probably the only country that has even the slimmest chance at stopping something like this... not that I think the people could, but think about something: If we do not develop it here, it WILL be developed elsewhere, and couldn't those other nations use it against US??
***Advocating the devil since 1979!***
Well, as an engineer and computer scientist I have to say... It looks great on paper, but it requires fiber-optics. That means it will probably never make it to the internet where, AFIK (or am concerned), strong cryptography matters the most...
Also wouldn't this method be really susceptible to jamming? (No, I mean intentional interference, not reggae music!)
Still, communication between humans will never be 100% secure until we can eliminate the social engineering factor as well as simple human spywork (think the Misssion:Impossible movie a few years ago... I believe it could happen.)
OK. That's my $.03 What do you all think?
Yeah, I think I've seen that episode of "Dr. Who?!" It's the one with the glowing cube that scrambles everyone's speech! Now we can all watch "Dr. Who?" without the nosy neighbors eavesdropping! hmmm... Maybe I missed the point...
Could you imagine if Tom Green painted his parent's house plaid with this stuff?? I could induce seisures in epileptics whenever the weather changes!!!
I disagree that Linux would benefit so much from having a limited selection. Part of the reason I find Linux so useful is the diversity of distributions, as well as their flexibility. If I were to say that all we needed was RedHat for servers and routers, Mandrake for desktop use, and Debian for hackers, I would probably be laughed out of the room.
:^>
Just like in any system in evolution, the product will not improve if the current 'superior' product kills off all the alternatives.
Currently I am working on a distribution that is designed to be highly specialized. (Not like the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink distros like RH.) Basicly, if you want to install my distro and use it as a web server, it will install and set up your httpd of choice, and NOTHING else. Same goes for FTP and SMTP, etc... For example, I would hate to be forced to install python when I'm only going to use nothing else but apache with perl scripts. *coughRedHatcough* That would be like being having to install VBScript into your web-browser when you simply don't want it there!!! *coughMicro$oftcough*
OF course, I also agree that some distros will inevitably fail in the evolution on Linux... and it will be good as long as more can pop up to keep evolution going.
Well, I feel I should give a disclaimer: I'm not in a thinking-type mood today. It must be the weather here in Lowell. I'll be back to my evil little self sometime soon.