During the Pirhana furor anyone who wrote any kind of negative story was told "not a backdoor, this is not really news, read the manual, etc". Maybe the explanation is not "they hate Linux and are out to get us" or "they are obviously in the pocket of MS" but instead "now they understand that a default password, while bad, is not really newsworthy". The REAL test of that hyposthesis will be the NEXT Linux default password issue. If it gets reported, then we know MS problems are being ignored while Linux problems are not. --
If IBM wants to give Linux (and other Free/Open Software) a real kick in the pants they can do one thing: Get Mozilla out there Do whatever it takes--lend some programmers, delete all Bugzilla entries labelled "enhancement", hire some hit-men to kill the current managers, whatever. --
First Karma inexplicably disappears. Then it starts moving again--but only down. Then we have this same article posted in the morning but marked "(- duplicate)" and removed. Then it's posted again. WTF is going on in there? Why don't we get updates on Slashstatus anymore? Anyway, here's what I already posted on this topic:
I agree somewhat with their conclusion, in general terms. It IS hard to get a large anonymous group to share.
BUT, their experiment is highly flawed:
1. not everyone has bandwidth enough to allow a million d/ls
2. not everyone has the CD collection to share out
3. not everyone has the storage capacity to host all the files
4. 24 hours is too short a time to test--there are no "major events" in there. What if a new Eminem CD had been released that day, I bet we'd see a lot more people offering that one item.
5. All it tracks is sharing via those two channels. What about other software, including ftp, http and sneakernet?
6. (added just now) This is not a "tragedy of the commons" situation. A TotC happens when there is some finite resource that everyone exploits "ruining it for everyone". Gnutella and Napster need not ever reach that point since the resource can grow arbitrarily. --
"Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them.
Of course not - it might challenge your small-minded view of the world and force you to accept that everything is not surrounded by a confortable glow."
Actually, I was referring to high taxes in Germany, not any supposed "Revealing Truths About Socialism" which I've heard a million times.
"It is almost a definition of socialism that taxes are high."
And it IS a definition of capitalism that if some costs (which taxes are) rise but final price must stay constant then some other cost must fall--in this case OS platform.
"Second, companies switching to a better and cheaper OS is not proof that XYZ doesn't work."
"When did I say that Solaris didn't work? Please read and think before posting next time. It makes you look like less of an idiot."
When did I say you said Solaris didn't work? I'm talking about socialism. You said that companies moving to Linux proved that socialism didn't work. I'm saying that companies moving to Linux ("a better and cheaper OS") proves that "socialism" (actually capitalism as shown above) does work. --
Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them. Your reasoning is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh out loud:
First of all, high costs forcing a company to save money internally isn't an example of socialism, it's an example of capitalism.
Second, companies switching to a better and cheaper OS is not proof that XYZ doesn't work. It's proof that XYZ does work--something good happened. --
Here's your quote: "The chip [...] represents the first complete architectural overhaul of the company's processor line since 1995, when the original Pentium emerged."
(my emphasis)
Assuming "the company" referred to is Intel, then this statement is completely true. --
Man is it ever annoying when these open source projects spend tons of time on giving people titles, setting up cool websites and such before (or even instead of) doing any coding. For instance, from the website:
"TRG's MANOS logo was painted approximately 1500 years ago by an ancient artist who was one of the earliest inhabitants of Utah."
That's right, this project has been around for 1500 years and they are just now starting to code. Sheesh. --
Here's the basic reasons SMP hasn't taken off: The general public doesn't get it and there's no pressing reason to teach them.
When Joe Sixpack tunes in QVC and sees a "700 MHz computer" that's easy to compare to a "350 MHz computer"--it's twice as fast. But what do you make of a "dual 400 Mhz"? Is that 800?
Once Moore's Law starts pooping out on us we'll see many more multi-processor machines and then Joe will start to understand. --
OK, now this is a good idea. At least it solves one of the big problems: Migration from simpler UI to a more powerful UI. It still has some problems though: Like why should that jump be discontinuous? Why not make the UI gradually more powerful just like a video game gets gradually more difficult? (It should also sense how powerful you need it to be so you don't have to "re-earn" the power) --
"Instead of having to do find / -iname xyz*, you could just have a nice looking, pretty box that will have those options as a checkbox... I consider that a graphical overlay so that people who don't want to deal with the...obscure command line interface."
This is all right, but a little half-hearted. It also makes for some bad software engineering. Here's what I mean:
First, all you've done is translated the command line tool to a graphical one. The only advantage is that all your options are laid out in front of you. Yes, that helps the user who is unfamiliar with the tool. But take a longer view of the user's lifetime interaction with the computer--it's foolish to optimize the entire machine for the first few minutes/days/months when the user doesn't know what's going on.
Secondly, we both agree that the CLI version in your example is more powerful. But there's no way to transfer knowledge of the graphical version to the CLI version--so a regular user can't become a power user through advancement. They have to newbie-ize themselves again at the CLI and re-learn everything.
Third, every time your graphical example program gets a new feature at least 3 people have to be involved: 1) A UI designer has to add the feature to the UI. 2) The programmer has to reprogram the UI to incorporate the element. 3) The user has to re-train. With the CLI version only the programmer is needed for sure and the user only needs to retrain if they intend to use that feature.
To those just joining us: I'm not advocating that we all use a CLI. I'm saying that porting the CLI to a window does not a powerful UI make. We need a new paradigm. --
"That's where I see Linux in a few years: good front end for the end (l)users who were weaned on Windows, but with the same old shell that you can get to with ctrl-alt-f1 for when you need some real power at your fingertips."
I see the same thing...unfortunately. Why should the "real power" be limited to those who know how to use the old UI? You are implicitly assuming (and you aren't alone--even people creating UIs are doing this) that a UI needs to somehow shield people from the Power In The Box. No no no! Don't shield, harness.
I wish I could give examples of what I mean, but I just haven't spent the time necessary to firm up these concepts in my mind. All I know is this: The power is in there but most people can't get at it. That's not right and I blame the UI. --
Unless you are using the word "leading" in some sense unfamiliar to me, this is just laughable. Windows leads nothing. At my most charitable, I would characterize Windows this way: "Makes stripped down versions of existing technologies available to the average Joe".
"Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop."
This is only partially true. I think it would more accurate to say "Linux and the desktop are not ready for each other". What's the diff? Here: Most people just don't understand what a computer can do. It's more than just a way to edit a document or send an email. A computer is a universal machine simulator. Think of that! Any machine that can be built can be simulated on a computer. That's power! Once people understand that power they will really start taking advantage of their computers--and I don't think Windows (or Macs) are up to that yet.
OTOH, claims that Linux isn't friendly enough are valid. It is unreasonable to expect a person to remember that "grep -quiet" and "grep -silent" are two different things. But let's don't through the baby out with the bathwater and delete the options. A UI is about making the computer's power easy to exploit, not about making new users feel comfortable.
--
If someone says that "Information wants to be free", post your full personal details on Slashdot so we can all share it. After all, it wants to be free, right?
Before spouting off with a bunch of fallacies, unproved claims and ad hominem attacks, why not try understanding this basic phrase: "Information wants to be free"?
It does not mean: "You should be forced to give me information for zero cost." It does mean: "Information tends towards a state of maximum dispersion (regardless of cost)."
You can feel free to join those who want to try to legislate against plain mathematics if you want. Be sure to look up the politician who wanted to set pi equal to 3 while you're at it. --
Metallica. Remember when Metallica was dangerous? When parents screams "heavy metal is corrupting our youth!" and Metallica said "you do your thing, we do ours"? Ironically, Metallica has forgotten this.
That thought deserves more time put into it but I'm at work. Here's a better version: How is Metallica's current claim ("Our songs are our children so don't steal them") any different than the '80's parents claim ("Our children are our children, so don't corrupt them with heavy metal")? --
Finally someone who realizes that Napster-like technology is more about "pirating".
Based on comments I got from my `"Information wants to be free" == "2nd law of thermodynamics"` comment a couple weeks ago, I'm talking notes for a paper whose working title is "The Society Machine". I'll let y'all know when Beta 1 is ready. --
..the hardware may be cheaper. But that's not the only cost. With a networking device you also have to have a networking subsystem. With a modem you just write to a serial port. Then there's configuration (modem=phone#; network=IP, mask, gateway, dns, etc), support (modem=normal phone problems; network=normal network problems which are more numerous and less easy for Joe Blow).
"If people still wanted flight sims companies would be developing them."
This is false so many ways it's not even funny. To pick one off the top of my head: For low amounts of demand, there may be no supply. What if there were only 1000 people in the world that wanted a flight sim? A software company wouldn't survive on that for long. But a good portion of that 1000 people are probably here on Slashdot. So "who cares"? Slashdot readers. --
This is the perennial question from business and engineering newbies. Difficulty has nothing to do with it. Net payoff is the only factor.
Modems are:
-cheaper
-simpler
-more standard
Furthermore, even if Ethernet were tied on all the above it would still not have the wide adoption rate required to make a profit.
But if you are determined to not tie up a phone line you might have an option (depending on the device). Connect the device to your home server via a phone line. Just let it dial into your server and get to the Internet that way. (Clearly this doesn't work with devices that have proprietary protocols--which is another reason in favor of modems). --
"Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located."
This idiotic statement will come back to haunt the judge.
The information is already available to the defendants--through a normal DVD player. And not "without charge"--they purchased the disk with data included. To imply (no, to rule) that I can't view my own DVDs on the player of my choosing is so antithetical to the real purposes of copyright and fair use that....I can't even finish that sentence. --
I got my first Palm about a year ago. I wanted a spreadsheet for it: Nothing free. OK, I'll write my own. After a week or so of looking around and reading, I had some programming docs and managed to get a very simple Hello World working. Then I was busy moving cross country and stopped.
Then I got a new Palm and bought the "Palm Programming" book from OReilly. Worked for a couple of weeks, but couldn't get a spreadsheet put together. The only chapter that deals with tables has maybe 20 pages total and doesn't have any real examples. Book returned. Also note: Figuring out which Linux-based GNU dev tools are the right ones is....non-trivial.
I also found a single slide from a slideshow at Palm's Dev site that mentioned tables. To paraphrase: "Not recommended for a spreadsheet app". OK, but what is?
Meanwhile, on my desktop I hacked a (very) simple spreadsheet engine together in about 2 hours. Yes, two hours. But I can't put a UI on my Palm and I don't need a spreadsheet on my desktop.
Which brings me to my question: Will developing for the Agenda be any simpler than for the Palm because it is using Linux? If so, I'll switch in a New York minute ("compatibility" is not an issue for me). (My other question is, HowTF am I supposed to get a free spreadsheet on my Palm?) --
Other not-so-great lines:
At a meeting: Did everyone bring an Agenda?
After clear cases come out: Your Agenda is transparent
Man with pink handheld: Agenda Benda --
Slashdot Mirror
During the Pirhana furor anyone who wrote any kind of negative story was told "not a backdoor, this is not really news, read the manual, etc". Maybe the explanation is not "they hate Linux and are out to get us" or "they are obviously in the pocket of MS" but instead "now they understand that a default password, while bad, is not really newsworthy". The REAL test of that hyposthesis will be the NEXT Linux default password issue. If it gets reported, then we know MS problems are being ignored while Linux problems are not.
--
If IBM wants to give Linux (and other Free/Open Software) a real kick in the pants they can do one thing: Get Mozilla out there Do whatever it takes--lend some programmers, delete all Bugzilla entries labelled "enhancement", hire some hit-men to kill the current managers, whatever.
--
First Karma inexplicably disappears. Then it starts moving again--but only down. Then we have this same article posted in the morning but marked "(- duplicate)" and removed. Then it's posted again. WTF is going on in there? Why don't we get updates on Slashstatus anymore? Anyway, here's what I already posted on this topic:
I agree somewhat with their conclusion, in general terms. It IS hard to get a large anonymous group to share.
BUT, their experiment is highly flawed:
1. not everyone has bandwidth enough to allow a million d/ls
2. not everyone has the CD collection to share out
3. not everyone has the storage capacity to host all the files
4. 24 hours is too short a time to test--there are no "major events" in there. What if a new Eminem CD had been released that day, I bet we'd see a lot more people offering that one item.
5. All it tracks is sharing via those two channels. What about other software, including ftp, http and sneakernet?
6. (added just now) This is not a "tragedy of the commons" situation. A TotC happens when there is some finite resource that everyone exploits "ruining it for everyone". Gnutella and Napster need not ever reach that point since the resource can grow arbitrarily.
--
"Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them.
Of course not - it might challenge your small-minded view of the world and force you to accept that everything is not surrounded by a confortable glow."
Actually, I was referring to high taxes in Germany, not any supposed "Revealing Truths About Socialism" which I've heard a million times.
"It is almost a definition of socialism that taxes are high."
And it IS a definition of capitalism that if some costs (which taxes are) rise but final price must stay constant then some other cost must fall--in this case OS platform.
"Second, companies switching to a better and cheaper OS is not proof that XYZ doesn't work."
"When did I say that Solaris didn't work? Please read and think before posting next time. It makes you look like less of an idiot."
When did I say you said Solaris didn't work? I'm talking about socialism. You said that companies moving to Linux proved that socialism didn't work. I'm saying that companies moving to Linux ("a better and cheaper OS") proves that "socialism" (actually capitalism as shown above) does work.
--
Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them. Your reasoning is so ridiculous it actually made me laugh out loud:
First of all, high costs forcing a company to save money internally isn't an example of socialism, it's an example of capitalism.
Second, companies switching to a better and cheaper OS is not proof that XYZ doesn't work. It's proof that XYZ does work--something good happened.
--
Here's your quote: "The chip [...] represents the first complete architectural overhaul of the company's processor line since 1995, when the original Pentium emerged."
(my emphasis)
Assuming "the company" referred to is Intel, then this statement is completely true.
--
Man is it ever annoying when these open source projects spend tons of time on giving people titles, setting up cool websites and such before (or even instead of) doing any coding. For instance, from the website:
"TRG's MANOS logo was painted approximately 1500 years ago by an ancient artist who was one of the earliest inhabitants of Utah."
That's right, this project has been around for 1500 years and they are just now starting to code. Sheesh.
--
Here's the basic reasons SMP hasn't taken off: The general public doesn't get it and there's no pressing reason to teach them.
When Joe Sixpack tunes in QVC and sees a "700 MHz computer" that's easy to compare to a "350 MHz computer"--it's twice as fast. But what do you make of a "dual 400 Mhz"? Is that 800?
Once Moore's Law starts pooping out on us we'll see many more multi-processor machines and then Joe will start to understand.
--
OK, now this is a good idea. At least it solves one of the big problems: Migration from simpler UI to a more powerful UI. It still has some problems though: Like why should that jump be discontinuous? Why not make the UI gradually more powerful just like a video game gets gradually more difficult? (It should also sense how powerful you need it to be so you don't have to "re-earn" the power)
--
"Instead of having to do find / -iname xyz*, you could just have a nice looking, pretty box that will have those options as a checkbox... I consider that a graphical overlay so that people who don't want to deal with the...obscure command line interface."
This is all right, but a little half-hearted. It also makes for some bad software engineering. Here's what I mean:
First, all you've done is translated the command line tool to a graphical one. The only advantage is that all your options are laid out in front of you. Yes, that helps the user who is unfamiliar with the tool. But take a longer view of the user's lifetime interaction with the computer--it's foolish to optimize the entire machine for the first few minutes/days/months when the user doesn't know what's going on.
Secondly, we both agree that the CLI version in your example is more powerful. But there's no way to transfer knowledge of the graphical version to the CLI version--so a regular user can't become a power user through advancement. They have to newbie-ize themselves again at the CLI and re-learn everything.
Third, every time your graphical example program gets a new feature at least 3 people have to be involved: 1) A UI designer has to add the feature to the UI. 2) The programmer has to reprogram the UI to incorporate the element. 3) The user has to re-train. With the CLI version only the programmer is needed for sure and the user only needs to retrain if they intend to use that feature.
To those just joining us: I'm not advocating that we all use a CLI. I'm saying that porting the CLI to a window does not a powerful UI make. We need a new paradigm.
--
"That's where I see Linux in a few years: good front end for the end (l)users who were weaned on Windows, but with the same old shell that you can get to with ctrl-alt-f1 for when you need some real power at your fingertips."
I see the same thing...unfortunately. Why should the "real power" be limited to those who know how to use the old UI? You are implicitly assuming (and you aren't alone--even people creating UIs are doing this) that a UI needs to somehow shield people from the Power In The Box. No no no! Don't shield, harness.
I wish I could give examples of what I mean, but I just haven't spent the time necessary to firm up these concepts in my mind. All I know is this: The power is in there but most people can't get at it. That's not right and I blame the UI.
--
"Windows has its place..."
True.
"...its place is leading the software industry.
Unless you are using the word "leading" in some sense unfamiliar to me, this is just laughable. Windows leads nothing. At my most charitable, I would characterize Windows this way: "Makes stripped down versions of existing technologies available to the average Joe".
"Linux is absolutely not ready for the desktop."
This is only partially true. I think it would more accurate to say "Linux and the desktop are not ready for each other". What's the diff? Here: Most people just don't understand what a computer can do. It's more than just a way to edit a document or send an email. A computer is a universal machine simulator. Think of that! Any machine that can be built can be simulated on a computer. That's power! Once people understand that power they will really start taking advantage of their computers--and I don't think Windows (or Macs) are up to that yet.
OTOH, claims that Linux isn't friendly enough are valid. It is unreasonable to expect a person to remember that "grep -quiet" and "grep -silent" are two different things. But let's don't through the baby out with the bathwater and delete the options. A UI is about making the computer's power easy to exploit, not about making new users feel comfortable.
--
It's indoors. Last time I was at Seattle Center is was open-air.
--
"Musicians want to be paid. Labels want to be paid. You want to download music from the internet. Those are the arguments, aren't they?"
You missed one: I want to be able to share my CDs with my friends in exactly the same sense I share my cdplayer.
--
If someone says that "Information wants to be free", post your full personal details on Slashdot so we can all share it. After all, it wants to be free, right?
Before spouting off with a bunch of fallacies, unproved claims and ad hominem attacks, why not try understanding this basic phrase: "Information wants to be free"?
It does not mean: "You should be forced to give me information for zero cost." It does mean: "Information tends towards a state of maximum dispersion (regardless of cost)."
You can feel free to join those who want to try to legislate against plain mathematics if you want. Be sure to look up the politician who wanted to set pi equal to 3 while you're at it.
--
Metallica. Remember when Metallica was dangerous? When parents screams "heavy metal is corrupting our youth!" and Metallica said "you do your thing, we do ours"? Ironically, Metallica has forgotten this.
That thought deserves more time put into it but I'm at work. Here's a better version: How is Metallica's current claim ("Our songs are our children so don't steal them") any different than the '80's parents claim ("Our children are our children, so don't corrupt them with heavy metal")?
--
I mean "Finally someone who realizes that Napster-like technology is about more than "pirating"."
--
Finally someone who realizes that Napster-like technology is more about "pirating".
Based on comments I got from my `"Information wants to be free" == "2nd law of thermodynamics"` comment a couple weeks ago, I'm talking notes for a paper whose working title is "The Society Machine". I'll let y'all know when Beta 1 is ready.
--
..the hardware may be cheaper. But that's not the only cost. With a networking device you also have to have a networking subsystem. With a modem you just write to a serial port. Then there's configuration (modem=phone#; network=IP, mask, gateway, dns, etc), support (modem=normal phone problems; network=normal network problems which are more numerous and less easy for Joe Blow).
Well, that's totally unreadable. Oh well.
--
"If people still wanted flight sims companies would be developing them."
This is false so many ways it's not even funny. To pick one off the top of my head: For low amounts of demand, there may be no supply. What if there were only 1000 people in the world that wanted a flight sim? A software company wouldn't survive on that for long. But a good portion of that 1000 people are probably here on Slashdot. So "who cares"? Slashdot readers.
--
"Is it really that hard to do?"
This is the perennial question from business and engineering newbies. Difficulty has nothing to do with it. Net payoff is the only factor.
Modems are:
-cheaper
-simpler
-more standard
Furthermore, even if Ethernet were tied on all the above it would still not have the wide adoption rate required to make a profit.
But if you are determined to not tie up a phone line you might have an option (depending on the device). Connect the device to your home server via a phone line. Just let it dial into your server and get to the Internet that way. (Clearly this doesn't work with devices that have proprietary protocols--which is another reason in favor of modems).
--
I hope they get $10,000 for this movie. Why? Because with $10,000, they'd be millionaires.
--
"Defendants, on the other hand, are adherents of a movement that believes that information should be available without charge to anyone clever enough to break into the computer systems or data storage media in which it is located."
This idiotic statement will come back to haunt the judge.
The information is already available to the defendants--through a normal DVD player. And not "without charge"--they purchased the disk with data included. To imply (no, to rule) that I can't view my own DVDs on the player of my choosing is so antithetical to the real purposes of copyright and fair use that....I can't even finish that sentence.
--
I got my first Palm about a year ago. I wanted a spreadsheet for it: Nothing free. OK, I'll write my own. After a week or so of looking around and reading, I had some programming docs and managed to get a very simple Hello World working. Then I was busy moving cross country and stopped.
Then I got a new Palm and bought the "Palm Programming" book from OReilly. Worked for a couple of weeks, but couldn't get a spreadsheet put together. The only chapter that deals with tables has maybe 20 pages total and doesn't have any real examples. Book returned. Also note: Figuring out which Linux-based GNU dev tools are the right ones is....non-trivial.
I also found a single slide from a slideshow at Palm's Dev site that mentioned tables. To paraphrase: "Not recommended for a spreadsheet app". OK, but what is?
Meanwhile, on my desktop I hacked a (very) simple spreadsheet engine together in about 2 hours. Yes, two hours. But I can't put a UI on my Palm and I don't need a spreadsheet on my desktop.
Which brings me to my question: Will developing for the Agenda be any simpler than for the Palm because it is using Linux? If so, I'll switch in a New York minute ("compatibility" is not an issue for me). (My other question is, HowTF am I supposed to get a free spreadsheet on my Palm?)
--
Now Slashdot is pushing an Agenda...
Other not-so-great lines:
At a meeting: Did everyone bring an Agenda?
After clear cases come out: Your Agenda is transparent
Man with pink handheld: Agenda Benda
--