If you read the original comment, it stated that Apple was "better" because it made more than Dell/Gateway etc. Having control over the marketspace of your product makes that rather easier, don't you think?
I didn't mean a monopoly on computing. You seem to be forgetting the clone fiasco of a few years ago.
Okay, bad choice of words, accepted. But you knew what I was getting at. Someone made a comment that Apple was "better" because it made more than Dell/Gateway etc. Having control over the marketspace of your product makes that rather easier, don't you think?
Unless the control of registration in the.gnu domain is turned over to the FSF, I see no advantage to this. If control is turned over to the FSF, many people will cry fowl.
And rightly so if you ask me. Why should an organisation cry freedom but yet have a monopoly/control over something like this? Freedom means that anyone can register anything. If I want to set up my website, http://www.anti.gnu and my registration was blocked, I would be Not Impressed(TM). The words censorship and hypocrisy would be springing very quickly to mind.
I doubt he'd be happy to hear that. He has reluctantly 'approved' other licences as being "Free", but would much rather everyone used The One True Licence(TM). *sigh*
This is a far, far better idea, if you ask me. I can't help but wonder if this is a publicity thing. FSF/GNU may have a (very) strong role in Open Source/Free software, but it is not the only entity. *.mpl, *.al (artistic licence)?
No, I'm "down on this" because I don't think that many organisations, if at all, could justify this. And if there were, they'd certainly be bigger than the FSF.
And I don't think "because free software people can't get the.net/.com/.org that they want" is a justification. I can't either, but I'm not petitioning for a TLD. Something to do with supply and demand. Someone beat me to the domain(s) I wanted.
Hey, spanky, anyone can run distributed.net in the background. Because it's a LOW PRIORITY application. When someone else wants CPU time, it idles. I can do that with a 386sx33 too and still get full usefulness out of it.
... to rip the shit out of one-eyed Linux zealots, usually identifiable by phrases like "wind0ze", "m$", etc, BUT Windows 2000 is NOT a mature product.
Authorisation. What's needed is more importantly the default set up of said servers/printers to require authenticated, authorised users, and not be world-writeable. Kinda like passwd'ing your root account.:)
Every OS is going to have to have it's own routines to convert data from Word, Star Office, Netscape, etc... into this IPP format.
If I read you right, no. For the same reason I can happily spew stuff from Word to my Linux printserver via Samba, and also via "Print To File..." and then "lpr filename". The data being printed should be transparent or inconsequential to the protocol, so all that remains is a 'middleware' level between your print driver and printer.
Describing how to send a document across a network (a printing protocol - IPP) in no way replaces or overlaps with a definition of the makeup of that page (a page definition language - PostScript).
The standard has been around since 1996, fully documented and open. What this is is the IETF giving their stamp of approval (after concerns about security etc). Microsoft implemented the standard minus one feature, which allowed you to pass a URL to a printer, and have it download and print the document itself.
all those vendors, and the other distributions... certifying a product that works on all of them.... think the attached software, more than the hardware... with all the different standards.../opt,/usr/local, etc etc, not to mention rc.d stuff... this is going to be a nightmare. Why do you think a lot of commercial software aims at RedHat? Because they have a reasonable semblance of guessing where to put things....
Is it right? No. But it's all that can realistically be expected.
How do you determine which distributions get 'power' in the venture? Does RobertGormleyLinux 1.1 earn me a spot?
Ping times reminds me of something I heard, about a large company (Yahoo? definitely not sure tho), one of whose managers complained that the ping times between the US and UK were too high.
"What do you want me to do? Bend the laws of relativity?"
The only high bandwidth option available to me here is ISDN, which is laugably expensive (line charges are at the rate of a few dollars per hour)
Gotta correct you here... ISDN is laughably expensive (coming from someone who has 128kbps to BigPong Direct)... but the line charges are capped: AU$275/month for 64kbps and AU$435/month for 128kbps - for a "permanent connection" (i.e. your line is dialled up to the one number, and when it disconnects it redials that)...
Pathetic though. But the satellite lag is non existant... I can get 15ms ping times Melbourne to Canberra out of ISDN, unlike POTS:)
56k modem connecting to a 56k modem will only connect at 33.6k *maximum*. This is because when you dial an ISP, you're not connecting to their USR or whatever, you're connecting to a digital condenser which (probably oversimplifying here) fools the phone line into thinking it's ISDN.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean a monopoly on computing. You seem to be forgetting the clone fiasco of a few years ago.
Okay, bad choice of words, accepted. But you knew what I was getting at. Someone made a comment that Apple was "better" because it made more than Dell/Gateway etc. Having control over the marketspace of your product makes that rather easier, don't you think?
And rightly so if you ask me. Why should an organisation cry freedom but yet have a monopoly/control over something like this? Freedom means that anyone can register anything. If I want to set up my website, http://www.anti.gnu and my registration was blocked, I would be Not Impressed(TM). The words censorship and hypocrisy would be springing very quickly to mind.
I doubt he'd be happy to hear that. He has reluctantly 'approved' other licences as being "Free", but would much rather everyone used The One True Licence(TM). *sigh*
So what? Countries can do whatever they like with their TLDs. That doesn't explain why we should "open up a few more"....
This is a far, far better idea, if you ask me. I can't help but wonder if this is a publicity thing. FSF/GNU may have a (very) strong role in Open Source/Free software, but it is not the only entity. *.mpl, *.al (artistic licence)?
And I don't think "because free software people can't get the .net/.com/.org that they want" is a justification. I can't either, but I'm not petitioning for a TLD. Something to do with supply and demand. Someone beat me to the domain(s) I wanted.
The phrase 'monopoly' comes to mind, here.
Hey, spanky, anyone can run distributed.net in the background. Because it's a LOW PRIORITY application. When someone else wants CPU time, it idles. I can do that with a 386sx33 too and still get full usefulness out of it.
No. He's a fucking moron. However, I'll let you off on the assumption you're insulting the moderators, not making a serious claim :)
... to rip the shit out of one-eyed Linux zealots, usually identifiable by phrases like "wind0ze", "m$", etc, BUT Windows 2000 is NOT a mature product.
Authorisation. What's needed is more importantly the default set up of said servers/printers to require authenticated, authorised users, and not be world-writeable. Kinda like passwd'ing your root account. :)
If I read you right, no. For the same reason I can happily spew stuff from Word to my Linux printserver via Samba, and also via "Print To File..." and then "lpr filename". The data being printed should be transparent or inconsequential to the protocol, so all that remains is a 'middleware' level between your print driver and printer.
Describing how to send a document across a network (a printing protocol - IPP) in no way replaces or overlaps with a definition of the makeup of that page (a page definition language - PostScript).
The standard has been around since 1996, fully documented and open. What this is is the IETF giving their stamp of approval (after concerns about security etc). Microsoft implemented the standard minus one feature, which allowed you to pass a URL to a printer, and have it download and print the document itself.
i actually heard (probably wrongly) that nt is developed under ...
... but " Tested with Linux" does not mean "We provide Technical Support for Linux"...
all those vendors, and the other distributions... certifying a product that works on all of them.... think the attached software, more than the hardware... with all the different standards... /opt, /usr/local, etc etc, not to mention rc.d stuff... this is going to be a nightmare. Why do you think a lot of commercial software aims at RedHat? Because they have a reasonable semblance of guessing where to put things....
Is it right? No. But it's all that can realistically be expected.
How do you determine which distributions get 'power' in the venture? Does RobertGormleyLinux 1.1 earn me a spot?
Ping times reminds me of something I heard, about a large company (Yahoo? definitely not sure tho), one of whose managers complained that the ping times between the US and UK were too high.
"What do you want me to do? Bend the laws of relativity?"
This I can understand.... Courier I-modems are not available in .au *he says in his defence* :)
Gotta correct you here... ISDN is laughably expensive (coming from someone who has 128kbps to BigPong Direct)... but the line charges are capped: AU$275/month for 64kbps and AU$435/month for 128kbps - for a "permanent connection" (i.e. your line is dialled up to the one number, and when it disconnects it redials that)...
Pathetic though. But the satellite lag is non existant... I can get 15ms ping times Melbourne to Canberra out of ISDN, unlike POTS :)
56k modem connecting to a 56k modem will only connect at 33.6k *maximum*. This is because when you dial an ISP, you're not connecting to their USR or whatever, you're connecting to a digital condenser which (probably oversimplifying here) fools the phone line into thinking it's ISDN.
These cost rather a bit more than a modem.
If it is a problem with the chip, then let the company fix it, and let them be...
Does no one recall the floating-point bug in Intel chips a couple of years ago? This is hardly different.
And recall the hell Intel caught over it. And still does. So why let AMD be?
Unless of course you're biased...
If I want something tepid and limp, maybe not.
The Cisco PIX firewall has a P-II processor on it's own operating system, and can filter 170mbps.