Re:Running a GUI on a system that wouldnt run win
on
Minimal X Installation
·
· Score: 1
GEM/3? Ack. I still have nightmares. Even the Ataris have moved on (one proprietary, GUI-based bloatware OS, one free open-source UN!X-like... see how art imitates life ) since then.:)
For what it's worth, there's a (truly lousy) monochrome port of X11r5 on my machine. It's a testament to some people's neat MiNT kernel coding that it actually runs at a recognisable speed:)... It doesn't take much, and can be slimmed down a hell of a way. You might want to prune those fonts, they're the biggest space-waster on my system.;) (One day, I shall run Enlightenment on liquidrage, just to see what'll happen, and I shall know the true meaning of load averages which look like Bill Gates' bank balance, and swap partitions which cause my poor hard disk to walk away in disgust. But it'll run, dammit. Even if it will take an hour to render the window, I can still take impressive-looking screenshots. )
And, the converse: steganography in the least significant sample bits of an audio CD track. Listen to your crypto. Now what did I put on Track 51 again?:)
I have, perhaps, a slightly unusual perspective upon this issue. I've seen "software pirates" present their views, and as users of "pirate" software (the term is misleading, but will suffice), they've done a pretty good job justifying this to themselves, I suppose. I am what you could call a cracker - no, not a script kiddie (mass media calls these "hackers", but I'm preaching to the converted here) or a WaReZ d00d (one who collects copied software, perhaps in lieu of stamps or whatever), but a software deprotection specialist. To clarify things a little more, that is; I, or we, get sent original, keyed, copies of software from real users, as well as previews, beta versions, pre-installed versions, you name it. From time to time I'll take a look at this (large) pile, and pick something out that looks interesting, and sit in front of VexMon for a while, and come out with a key, or serial number, or patch, or whatever. I upload it to an FTP site, whereupon (probably) a couple of hundred leeches (including, but not exclusively, the aforementioned WaReZ d00ds) download it. I *also* have a look at this stuff, leeching off myself as it were (as well, of course, as the authors). I crack because I enjoy it, because I find it an intellectual challenge (although not usually as much of a challenge as I'd like). I use my cracks, because (I feel strongly about this) NO-ONE tells me what to do with my machine. It's on *my* hard-disk; I own it. After that, it's just ones and noughts, baby, ones and noughts. Ultimately, it's just a number, or whatever. When you see source and object up close, all mystery is stripped away. Oh, it may have taken years to figure out those ones and noughts - hell, it might take a month, on and off, for me to figure out the ones and noughts I ought to be feeding it instead. Seeing a month of late nights condensed into 16 characters makes you realise how valuable information can be. Am I contradicting myself? Probably. But I can understand how being ripped off feels. Why do I still do it? Why, in fact, do I release this stuff? Out of some moral crusade? Out of some ethical belief? No. Who am I to preach on morals and ethics, when I have none? I just... do it. Because I can, maybe. I know it isn't any kind of argument, but why argue with myself? Anyway. A few points of mine were undoubtedly better made elsewhere. I think I have three tiers of software quality: 1. Waste of space. (WaReZ d00ds, of course, do not have this category.) 2. Used (often or from time to time), maybe worth having, certainly not worth any actual money. 3. Worth the price. I cannot speak for the ethics, or lack thereof, of others. But I buy software in category 3. I buy software I think it worth the price, to reward the authors. Authors might like to ignore the fact that category 2 exists. They certainly don't want their software in it, because that's the stuff that gets pirated by people. (Corporate piracy is a very different thing, which I cannot lay any claim to understand.)... OK, I'm just mindlessly rambling now. This is what happens to your brain right after 96-bit insanity, people. Don't follow in my footsteps, they're going straight to hell.:)...
The trouble is, this is an extreme action that may well actively harm the net access of a lot of people. I can appreciate the problem, but I don't think this is an acceptable solution.
There are a lot of worthy and intelligent people using AOL. There are also a lot of idiots. Without doubt it's bad to have AOL's anonymous trial-type accounts unlimited. And AOL's own attitude towards this is often vaguely comical.
But, IMHO, the legitimate users of AOL already have enough problems of their own, without having those problems added to by being UDP'ed simply because of the network provider they choose to use. That's insanity. It's overkill. It's fly-swatting with a flamethrower. And it's not, IMHO, the solution.
I suspect that legal action would (surely?) only go ahead if the legal-type people involved have no idea what a search engine is, or how it works; and who would then start applying obscure legal clauses which are wholly inappropriate.
Unfortunately, this may well be the case... and surely I'm not the only person who think this whole anti-MP3 thing is getting out of hand...?
Slashdot Mirror
GEM/3? Ack. I still have nightmares. Even the Ataris have moved on (one proprietary, GUI-based bloatware OS, one free open-source UN!X-like... see how art imitates life ) since then. :)
:)... It doesn't take much, and can be slimmed down a hell of a way. You might want to prune those fonts, they're the biggest space-waster on my system. ;) (One day, I shall run Enlightenment on liquidrage, just to see what'll happen, and I shall know the true meaning of load averages which look like Bill Gates' bank balance, and swap partitions which cause my poor hard disk to walk away in disgust. But it'll run, dammit. Even if it will take an hour to render the window, I can still take impressive-looking screenshots. )
For what it's worth, there's a (truly lousy) monochrome port of X11r5 on my machine. It's a testament to some people's neat MiNT kernel coding that it actually runs at a recognisable speed
And, the converse: steganography in the least significant sample bits of an audio CD track. Listen to your crypto. Now what did I put on Track 51 again? :)
I have, perhaps, a slightly unusual perspective upon this issue. I've seen "software pirates" present their views, and as users of "pirate" software (the term is misleading, but will suffice), they've done a pretty good job justifying this to themselves, I suppose. :)...
I am what you could call a cracker - no, not a script kiddie (mass media calls these "hackers", but I'm preaching to the converted here) or a WaReZ d00d (one who collects copied software, perhaps in lieu of stamps or whatever), but a software deprotection specialist.
To clarify things a little more, that is; I, or we, get sent original, keyed, copies of software from real users, as well as previews, beta versions, pre-installed versions, you name it. From time to time I'll take a look at this (large) pile, and pick something out that looks interesting, and sit in front of VexMon for a while, and come out with a key, or serial number, or patch, or whatever. I upload it to an FTP site, whereupon (probably) a couple of hundred leeches (including, but not exclusively, the aforementioned WaReZ d00ds) download it.
I *also* have a look at this stuff, leeching off myself as it were (as well, of course, as the authors).
I crack because I enjoy it, because I find it an intellectual challenge (although not usually as much of a challenge as I'd like). I use my cracks, because (I feel strongly about this) NO-ONE tells me what to do with my machine. It's on *my* hard-disk; I own it. After that, it's just ones and noughts, baby, ones and noughts.
Ultimately, it's just a number, or whatever. When you see source and object up close, all mystery is stripped away. Oh, it may have taken years to figure out those ones and noughts - hell, it might take a month, on and off, for me to figure out the ones and noughts I ought to be feeding it instead. Seeing a month of late nights condensed into 16 characters makes you realise how valuable information can be. Am I contradicting myself? Probably. But I can understand how being ripped off feels.
Why do I still do it? Why, in fact, do I release this stuff? Out of some moral crusade? Out of some ethical belief? No. Who am I to preach on morals and ethics, when I have none? I just... do it. Because I can, maybe. I know it isn't any kind of argument, but why argue with myself?
Anyway. A few points of mine were undoubtedly better made elsewhere. I think I have three tiers of software quality: 1. Waste of space. (WaReZ d00ds, of course, do not have this category.) 2. Used (often or from time to time), maybe worth having, certainly not worth any actual money. 3. Worth the price. I cannot speak for the ethics, or lack thereof, of others. But I buy software in category 3. I buy software I think it worth the price, to reward the authors.
Authors might like to ignore the fact that category 2 exists. They certainly don't want their software in it, because that's the stuff that gets pirated by people. (Corporate piracy is a very different thing, which I cannot lay any claim to understand.)...
OK, I'm just mindlessly rambling now. This is what happens to your brain right after 96-bit insanity, people. Don't follow in my footsteps, they're going straight to hell.
The trouble is, this is an extreme action that may well actively harm the net access of a lot of people. I can appreciate the problem, but I don't think this is an acceptable solution.
There are a lot of worthy and intelligent people using AOL. There are also a lot of idiots. Without doubt it's bad to have AOL's anonymous trial-type accounts unlimited. And AOL's own attitude towards this is often vaguely comical.
But, IMHO, the legitimate users of AOL already have enough problems of their own, without having those problems added to by being UDP'ed simply because of the network provider they choose to use. That's insanity. It's overkill. It's fly-swatting with a flamethrower. And it's not, IMHO, the solution.
Damn.It would have to be the right eye they chose, wouldn't it?... as opposed to the eye on the left-hand side, I mean.
So, how on earth are people who have one eye (or less) supposed to get their cash out? What about the accessability factors?
I suspect that legal action would (surely?) only go ahead if the legal-type people involved have no idea what a search engine is, or how it works; and who would then start applying obscure legal clauses which are wholly inappropriate.
Unfortunately, this may well be the case... and surely I'm not the only person who think this whole anti-MP3 thing is getting out of hand...?
The mass employee/manager exodus.