If you want a pseudo-hypertext manual, what's wrong with html?
Actually, plenty. I know we all enjoy clicking in our favorite browser, but the Texinfo system supports some things that every web browser I know of lacks. Such as indexing. I find indexes in technical manuals incredibly useful. They are especially useful when they are accessible online with single key. If you ever have the temptation to open the info browser for some manual, hit i and then some keyword (with tab-completion) to go directly to that entry.
In addition, as much as a like using the mouse, I've found that my hands spend a lot of time on the keyboard. With the info browser, hitting n goes to the next page, hitting p goes to the previous page, etc. This is the kind of stuff HTML fans have been wanting for a while now.
info is a humunguous pile of shite which is a pain to navigate and a pointless excercise in confusion. There's a perfectly functional existing standard which is the man page.
Well, at one level, man pages and texinfo are at different levels. Man pages only have quick reference pages. While this is indispensible 90% of the time, Texinfo goes quite a bit farther. You can make entire books online in texinfo.
But you still like the quick reference style of most man pages. Try this command: info --usage su -- and what you get is a lot like your typical man page. But, that manual has to be written in a specific way to use that feature. So it may not work universally. I would like a future where man is simply an alias in my.bashrc.
Another issue is printing. Texinfo isn't just based on TeX, it is TeX. That is, the language is just a macro package on top of TeX -- in the same league as LaTeX. So if you like LaTeX, then you probably like Texinfo. But man pages can also be printed--not just through lpr but as formatted by Nroff. I've never tried this, but I've heard TeX has better quality than Nroff.
So I look at the Texinfo system as a gift. There is good reason why the GNU Project built this system and requires it for its own documentation. And I think this is a great example of innovation in free software. I have to wonder why the leading desktop projects choose to work instead with DocBook -- rather than build a graphical info client. AFAIK, neither documentation systems have these features the info browser has. But I think the participants were busy being infatuated by XML.
The assumption is that our technology will continue to advance the farther we travel into the future.
But, consider _The Time Machine_ by H.G. Wells. When the main character traveled far enough into the future, eventually we reversed this trend, evolved into two separate species, and ran around in happiness about all the fruit we've found (okay...so its been a while since I read the book).
And I think Wells has this point right on. Look around us, people. If you haven't noticed, the renaissance is over. We've already passed our Great Enlightenment. And we've already passed our technological maturity.
Scientists already think that we pretty much know most of what there is to know (I read this somewhere, not sure where). Even if you're a programmer, what else is new or interesting to program? (I am seriously curious about this, but probably off-topic)
At what point does going to school mean learning that any new idea you have has already been discoved and written about in depth?
And at what point are we running around naked, glad at being so happy eating our yummy fruit, completely oblivious about the messages contained in a dark satellite, silently circling around the earth?
I think you are, perhaps intentionally, misunderstanding the spirit of the statement. If you are seriously uncertain, you can email me at klh@wildapache.net .
While I'll usually agree with using the more generic markup, its always okay to cut corners. Such as using the italic and bold tags. In truth, there is absolutely *no* benefit to using strong and emphasis tags instead other than in your mind. In truth, it seems impossible to use completely generic markup. Presentation and content are never truly separable, but going a ways towards this ideal makes our lives easier.
"It's handy to be able to double-click a command I've just typed, select a menu option and have it show me that command in the Perl documentation."
Heh...thats C-h TAB in emacs. I don't think it does perl docs, but it does scheme, glibc, elisp, and some other lanuages with texinfo documentation.
"On Mac OS X it can tell me whether the code compiles cleanly or if there are any errors, and show me where the errors are. Cut and paste some code into a function and need to indent it farther in? No problem, just a couple of keystrokes to shift it over. Too many features to begin to describe, really."
"Netscape 4 users can go fuck themselves, though. Seriously."
I'll agree with this -- but only figuratively.:)
Not because I am lazy but when you try to develop web sites that are cross platform, going with the standards (old standards, at that) is the best (or only) option. Browsers that break the standards can screw themselves.
I suggest you think again for the following reasons.
First, this Palladium stuff was leaked -- we weren't suppose to know about until well into the future when Microsoft could put a good spin on all of this. So who's to say that Apple isn't already cooking up their own DRM technology? And they own the hardware *and* the software, they don't need to rely upon other companies to provide the hardware.
Second, DRM is getting mandated by the government. You really think MS is going to develop this stuff while watching all their customers move to other platforms? MS is doing this because they have to and Apple will also do this because they have to. Even if you have absolute trust in Apple and Steve Jobs, they're not going rebel against the government or anything.
Third, you really think you'd be allowed to run Microsoft Office on an untrusted platform?
Historically, Apple has been more secretive and lawyer-biting than Microsoft has. Moving to Apple computers would be like jumping from the skillet into the fire.
Soon, its going to be a decision between trusted computing and untrusted computing. I'll be running free software (where the "free" has always stood for freedom) and I'll do without them applications or find substitutes. Perhaps I can help in developing one...
But then, perhaps they'll have to make free software illegal.
Newspapers and books? How long will those be allowed to exist in their current forms? Paper?!?! How insecure! There will be e-books and e-paper, as in Minority Report. And you won't have control over those either.
"There is very little 'pro-Microsoft zealotry'. Almost everyone who uses MS software does so for down-to-earth pragmatic reasons (as, in this case, because their software is just plain better)."
I have to first agree that the Ask Slashdot requiring absolutely no Microsoft software, isn't really asking a sane question. In answering such a question, ignoring the anti-Microsoft aspect of it would be the first thign I do. It would be like asking for a turtle that absolutely doesn't come from Tennesee. Give him a turtle, any turtle -- and tell him it wasn't from Tennesee.
"On the other hand, there are people like you who capitalize 'free' when discussing bloody software, for Christ's sake, and use the term 'GNU/Linux' without even flinching."
I sincerely hope that you think that the technology you use may, and often does, infringe upon your liberty. If you did, then maybe you would be more likely to use that three-letter acronym that you seem to be flinching to.
When he put all that C code into his sample, I was thinking of all the times I have to reach for the parenthesis and the hyphen when writing Lisp code. Now Emacs makes Lisp quite a bit easier but it would be cool to have the parens where the T and Y keys are on the QUERTY keyboard and perhaps the hyphen where the U is. I think that would be sweet.
"Open source coders are more interested in having fun than in producing usable software?? Stallman must be rolling in his gra..er...chair..."
Actually, this article is a pretty good critism on Stallman's position. He believes that people don't necessarily need to be paid to write good software. That a cause is good enough. Afterall, that is the exact reason this whole movement was started -- with Stallman quitting MIT and beginning to write GNU. For those of you unfamiliar with it, let me post and excert from the GNU Manifesto:
Why I Must Write GNU
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.
So it should be clear that money wasn't a factor in Stallman's decision to write GNU. I think this is echoed repeatedly since -- people don't typically write free software to make money.
But perhaps the real problem with the KDE project is that people write code for the same reason Linus says he writes code, for the joy of it. With this motivation, there is no room to code for other people. Writing still becomes a selfish activity -- only released freely for other people to use.
Most people here know the history of the KDE and GNOME projects and how GNOME was a response to KDE. Perhaps this was a more of a division on principle than we had thought. That GNOME developers are slightly more inclined to develop to bring people freedom than KDE, which is more of hobbyist group. And when your motivation is freedom, users *do* factor into the equation.
However, its probably more likely that GNOME simply has more paid developers than KDE. But I think the speculation above is valid at some level.
I'm not sure if its me or typical Apple-loving by their fans but I've heard some people call this marketing campaign as brilliant. I don't see it.
Now I'm not any kind of professional ad critic but what I've seen from the commercials is "Hello, I'm a looser but I bought a Mac so things are looking up."
First, who's going to believe an Apple ad that Apple computers are easier/better to use? I mean, personally, I'd much rather believe that cow.
Second, why do these ad characters seem so stressed to me? The guy in glasses has that strange look in his face that says something like "dude, I have to vomit."
I've heard people describe marketing campaigns as brilliant before -- but maybe some people just love being advertised to?
Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 2
"This is 2002. We've had computers with GUI desktops for, what, 15+ years? Why, in order for a set of well-engineered, long-accepted graphical metaphors to work consistently, do we now require (for Linux to be the desktop o/s) that users learn and know arcane command language from a 30 year-old mainframe-oriented (originally), text-based timesharing operating system? That's regressive, man."
The first problem with your reasoning is when you say "designed for mainframe computers". It was designed with time-sharing in mind. And the basic command set was more designed for tree structured file systems, which we still use today.
Also, rather than arcane the basic GNU commands are actually straight forward. Again, these commands are designed for manipulating a tree-structured file system.
Unless you want to remove the user's ability to manipulate the file system, what is your complaint?
I am almost in agreement with you about system management. My only problem is in understand what sort of management you are speaking of. RPM does a really nice job on managing software. Its only problem is with dependencies. Of course, the very existance of dependencies is a good sign and shows that the system is reusing a lot of software.
Also, the online documentation is often quite good.
We already know that the al-Qaeda people are rather smart.
Wouldn't you think they already use cryptography?
Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 2
"No, but the consequences of running that command can be. Kernel version, dependencies, editing configuration files. All that requires command-line knowledge for which there's no GUI substitute."
Okay, this is the way I see it. GNU/Linux requires computer literacy. Anyone who is computer literate should not be surprised of the fact that certain software requires other software to run. And anyone who is computer literate should not be afraid to either refer to the manual packaged with their software or look up the often superb online documentation.
In other words, GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop.
But, the lack of computer literacy is a different problem that needs to be tackled differently.
Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 2
This is not hard:
rpm -ivh package-name.rpm
and its even easier on a debian system. Just write the command down on a piece of paper and tape it to the wall like they used to do in the old DOS days. And gnorpm, in my opinion, is more difficult to use!
And of course the possibilies of remote administration is strangely compelling...
Microsoft in the War Against Terrorism
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Anyone want to guess how long until the word "terrorism" gets in somewhere?
Another terrorist attack or two, and Americans will be begging for this stuff. Hopefull that won't happen.
I was at first reluctant into saying this technology is all bad. Its easy to get into an anti-Microsoft jihad.
But this technology is all bad.
I can't believe that MSN article, I really can't. Its a silly spin on this technology that isn't going to last. Here's some stuff from the MSN article on what this stuff is going to do:
"Tells you who you're dealing with--and what they're doing. Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it."
We already have this, its called Public Key Encryption or alternatively Symmetric Encryption. Free Software users already have GNU Privacy Guard at our disposal.
Of course, the downside of this technology is that it isn't too useful over the internet without creating a rather large web of trust -- a very difficult task. I'd like to know how Palladium would rectify this?
"Protects information. The system uses high-level encryption to 'seal' data so that snoops and thieves are thwarted. It also can protect the integrity of documents so that they can't be altered without your knowledge."
First, we already have high-level encryption. And most anti-virus programs 'innoculate' your files anyway. This only sounds like Microsoft is targeting the anti-virus next -- by integrating them into the operating system.
"Stops viruses and worms. Palladium won't run unauthorized programs, so viruses can't trash protected parts of your system."
I haven't used Windows since Windows 95, but I know Unix-like systems have had multi-user security since practically forever. Its heavily suggested to new users to set up their own accounts on their system to use. "protected parts" os a Unix-like system is whatever root owns, which is quite a lot.
"Cans spam. Eventually, commercial pitches for recycled printer cartridges and barnyard porn can be stopped before they hit your inbox--while unsolicited mail that you might want to see can arrive if it has credentials that meet your standards."
So basically digital signatures for real this time...
"Safeguards privacy. With Palladium, it's possible not only to seal data on your own computer, but also to send it out to 'agents' who can distribute just the discreet pieces you want released to the proper people. Microsofties have nicknamed these services 'My Man.' If you apply for a loan, you'd say to the lender, 'Get my details from My Man,' which, upon your authorization, would then provide your bank information, etc. Best part: Da Man can't read the information himself, and neither can a hacker who breaks into his system."
This may sound interesting, depending on how its implemented. But what can this Palladium technology offer that a sane encryption policy can't? And whats going to prevent users from screwing up the security?
(side note: "My Man" sounds really funny)
"Controls your information after you send it. Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with 'digital rights management' (DRM). This could allow users to exercise 'fair use' (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. 'It's a funny thing,' says Bill Gates. 'We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains.' For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies."
And we're back to digital rights management. Does anyone know how to implement what they say with the Word document with the technology we have now? It almost sounds like an Actually Useful Feature. "This email will self-destruct," kind of thing.
But really, this thing is about enforcing what some people consider an unconstitutionally unlimited copyright system. Not to mention what kind of havoc would be caused if trademarks were decided to be under the umbrella of digital rights.
One thing the Coursey article confirmed is that Microsoft does have a patent on this technology -- it seems logical they would license this under the CIFS (no GPL or copyleft) pretty much excluding free software from implementing this.
Because this stuff was leaked so early, there is still time (they are saying like four or five years) for someone to build up a response to this. Or it will simply flop because the market won't like it. Or what I think is likely is that DVDs will only be allowed to play on Palladium-approved machines. Then we'll have a mix of Palladium and non-Palladium machines, one with a superset of the features of the other.
Which one will Mr. and Mrs. Ignorant want to buy for their son?
True, not all bugs are shallow. And many projects are almost desperately looking for more developers -- which is a scary sign.
But the way I figure it, new developers have their software scrutinized more closely so you'd figure that someone joining just to mess things up wouldn't ever be really trusted.
Not that this rules out an entire project whose purpose is simply to release a trojan. Which is why it is a good idea to check the mailing list archives and IRC channels first.
I know Debian uses package signing. Many other distributions do the same thing.
So safeguards are in place -- its just there's nothing full-proof about them.
I am getting real tired of being insulted by you. And I never said anything about respecting you personally. I have this nasty tendency of giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Really, when I talk to people in online forums, respect is something I usually take for granted both ways. Without that, there really isn't any point in posting, is there?
Anyway, the most enlightening part of your posts is your sig, so good night.
"I bow to your expertise in the area of stupidity, and I'm sure the rest of slashdot feels the same way."
Sure, so you feel messing up the voting system is a constructive action?
"12-year-old Kenny can. Though I'm sure I could come up with reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to, any more than you should be allowed in an adult discussion of public policy."
Kind of a hypocritical suggestion, wouldn't you say? Oh, sarcasm I'm sure...
"Censorware in the workplace is a band-aid fix for bad management. As for its use in schools or libraries, I suggest getting the facts about the databases this class of crapware uses before whining about how nasty we are all about it in public."
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is all yours. If you have some articles that you'd like to link to, I would be interested enough to read them. Not that your tone would cause me to respect your position, anyway (I am aware that most of that is my fault).
"Censorware interferes with the educational process."
Without, children do not get access to the internet. While it is possible that the schools would use this tool as a means to a political agenda, I think even this is better than the few textbooks they will be taught with anyway.
The post I responded to was a silly suggestion and I responded thusly.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because its better.
Actually, plenty. I know we all enjoy clicking in our favorite browser, but the Texinfo system supports some things that every web browser I know of lacks. Such as indexing. I find indexes in technical manuals incredibly useful. They are especially useful when they are accessible online with single key. If you ever have the temptation to open the info browser for some manual, hit i and then some keyword (with tab-completion) to go directly to that entry.
In addition, as much as a like using the mouse, I've found that my hands spend a lot of time on the keyboard. With the info browser, hitting n goes to the next page, hitting p goes to the previous page, etc. This is the kind of stuff HTML fans have been wanting for a while now.
Well, at one level, man pages and texinfo are at different levels. Man pages only have quick reference pages. While this is indispensible 90% of the time, Texinfo goes quite a bit farther. You can make entire books online in texinfo.
But you still like the quick reference style of most man pages. Try this command: info --usage su -- and what you get is a lot like your typical man page. But, that manual has to be written in a specific way to use that feature. So it may not work universally. I would like a future where man is simply an alias in my .bashrc.
Another issue is printing. Texinfo isn't just based on TeX, it is TeX. That is, the language is just a macro package on top of TeX -- in the same league as LaTeX. So if you like LaTeX, then you probably like Texinfo. But man pages can also be printed--not just through lpr but as formatted by Nroff. I've never tried this, but I've heard TeX has better quality than Nroff.
So I look at the Texinfo system as a gift. There is good reason why the GNU Project built this system and requires it for its own documentation. And I think this is a great example of innovation in free software. I have to wonder why the leading desktop projects choose to work instead with DocBook -- rather than build a graphical info client. AFAIK, neither documentation systems have these features the info browser has. But I think the participants were busy being infatuated by XML.
I'm allowed, once in a while, aren't I?
But 50,000 years seems a bit too long.
Why?
The assumption is that our technology will continue to advance the farther we travel into the future.
But, consider _The Time Machine_ by H.G. Wells. When the main character traveled far enough into the future, eventually we reversed this trend, evolved into two separate species, and ran around in happiness about all the fruit we've found (okay...so its been a while since I read the book).
And I think Wells has this point right on. Look around us, people. If you haven't noticed, the renaissance is over. We've already passed our Great Enlightenment. And we've already passed our technological maturity.
Scientists already think that we pretty much know most of what there is to know (I read this somewhere, not sure where). Even if you're a programmer, what else is new or interesting to program? (I am seriously curious about this, but probably off-topic)
At what point does going to school mean learning that any new idea you have has already been discoved and written about in depth?
And at what point are we running around naked, glad at being so happy eating our yummy fruit, completely oblivious about the messages contained in a dark satellite, silently circling around the earth?
I think you are, perhaps intentionally, misunderstanding the spirit of the statement. If you are seriously uncertain, you can email me at klh@wildapache.net .
I think he means like this.
What's wrong with this logo?
Sorry...I know. Trolling. But what else is karma for?
While I'll usually agree with using the more generic markup, its always okay to cut corners. Such as using the italic and bold tags. In truth, there is absolutely *no* benefit to using strong and emphasis tags instead other than in your mind. In truth, it seems impossible to use completely generic markup. Presentation and content are never truly separable, but going a ways towards this ideal makes our lives easier.
"It's handy to be able to double-click a command I've just typed, select a menu option and have it show me that command in the Perl documentation."
:)
Heh...thats C-h TAB in emacs. I don't think it does perl docs, but it does scheme, glibc, elisp, and some other lanuages with texinfo documentation.
"On Mac OS X it can tell me whether the code compiles cleanly or if there are any errors, and show me where the errors are. Cut and paste some code into a function and need to indent it farther in? No problem, just a couple of keystrokes to shift it over. Too many features to begin to describe, really."
Check. Check. Check. Emacs rulez.
"Netscape 4 users can go fuck themselves, though. Seriously."
:)
I'll agree with this -- but only figuratively.
Not because I am lazy but when you try to develop web sites that are cross platform, going with the standards (old standards, at that) is the best (or only) option. Browsers that break the standards can screw themselves.
You think Apple will save you?
I suggest you think again for the following reasons.
First, this Palladium stuff was leaked -- we weren't suppose to know about until well into the future when Microsoft could put a good spin on all of this. So who's to say that Apple isn't already cooking up their own DRM technology? And they own the hardware *and* the software, they don't need to rely upon other companies to provide the hardware.
Second, DRM is getting mandated by the government. You really think MS is going to develop this stuff while watching all their customers move to other platforms? MS is doing this because they have to and Apple will also do this because they have to. Even if you have absolute trust in Apple and Steve Jobs, they're not going rebel against the government or anything.
Third, you really think you'd be allowed to run Microsoft Office on an untrusted platform?
Historically, Apple has been more secretive and lawyer-biting than Microsoft has. Moving to Apple computers would be like jumping from the skillet into the fire.
Soon, its going to be a decision between trusted computing and untrusted computing. I'll be running free software (where the "free" has always stood for freedom) and I'll do without them applications or find substitutes. Perhaps I can help in developing one...
But then, perhaps they'll have to make free software illegal.
Stallman's "Right to Read"
I guess, what doesn't kill us makes us stupid.
"There is very little 'pro-Microsoft zealotry'. Almost everyone who uses MS software does so for down-to-earth pragmatic reasons (as, in this case, because their software is just plain better)."
I have to first agree that the Ask Slashdot requiring absolutely no Microsoft software, isn't really asking a sane question. In answering such a question, ignoring the anti-Microsoft aspect of it would be the first thign I do. It would be like asking for a turtle that absolutely doesn't come from Tennesee. Give him a turtle, any turtle -- and tell him it wasn't from Tennesee.
"On the other hand, there are people like you who capitalize 'free' when discussing bloody software, for Christ's sake, and use the term 'GNU/Linux' without even flinching."
I sincerely hope that you think that the technology you use may, and often does, infringe upon your liberty. If you did, then maybe you would be more likely to use that three-letter acronym that you seem to be flinching to.
When he put all that C code into his sample, I was thinking of all the times I have to reach for the parenthesis and the hyphen when writing Lisp code. Now Emacs makes Lisp quite a bit easier but it would be cool to have the parens where the T and Y keys are on the QUERTY keyboard and perhaps the hyphen where the U is. I think that would be sweet.
Actually, this article is a pretty good critism on Stallman's position. He believes that people don't necessarily need to be paid to write good software. That a cause is good enough. Afterall, that is the exact reason this whole movement was started -- with Stallman quitting MIT and beginning to write GNU. For those of you unfamiliar with it, let me post and excert from the GNU Manifesto:
So it should be clear that money wasn't a factor in Stallman's decision to write GNU. I think this is echoed repeatedly since -- people don't typically write free software to make money.
But perhaps the real problem with the KDE project is that people write code for the same reason Linus says he writes code, for the joy of it. With this motivation, there is no room to code for other people. Writing still becomes a selfish activity -- only released freely for other people to use.
Most people here know the history of the KDE and GNOME projects and how GNOME was a response to KDE. Perhaps this was a more of a division on principle than we had thought. That GNOME developers are slightly more inclined to develop to bring people freedom than KDE, which is more of hobbyist group. And when your motivation is freedom, users *do* factor into the equation.
However, its probably more likely that GNOME simply has more paid developers than KDE. But I think the speculation above is valid at some level.
I'm not sure if its me or typical Apple-loving by their fans but I've heard some people call this marketing campaign as brilliant. I don't see it.
Now I'm not any kind of professional ad critic but what I've seen from the commercials is "Hello, I'm a looser but I bought a Mac so things are looking up."
First, who's going to believe an Apple ad that Apple computers are easier/better to use? I mean, personally, I'd much rather believe that cow.
Second, why do these ad characters seem so stressed to me? The guy in glasses has that strange look in his face that says something like "dude, I have to vomit."
I've heard people describe marketing campaigns as brilliant before -- but maybe some people just love being advertised to?
Did someone invite RMS too?
What are they planning, a nuclear explosion?
"This is 2002. We've had computers with GUI desktops for, what, 15+ years? Why, in order for a set of well-engineered, long-accepted graphical metaphors to work consistently, do we now require (for Linux to be the desktop o/s) that users learn and know arcane command language from a 30 year-old mainframe-oriented (originally), text-based timesharing operating system? That's regressive, man."
The first problem with your reasoning is when you say "designed for mainframe computers". It was designed with time-sharing in mind. And the basic command set was more designed for tree structured file systems, which we still use today.
Also, rather than arcane the basic GNU commands are actually straight forward. Again, these commands are designed for manipulating a tree-structured file system.
Unless you want to remove the user's ability to manipulate the file system, what is your complaint?
I am almost in agreement with you about system management. My only problem is in understand what sort of management you are speaking of. RPM does a really nice job on managing software. Its only problem is with dependencies. Of course, the very existance of dependencies is a good sign and shows that the system is reusing a lot of software.
Also, the online documentation is often quite good.
We already know that the al-Qaeda people are rather smart.
Wouldn't you think they already use cryptography?
"No, but the consequences of running that command can be. Kernel version, dependencies, editing configuration files. All that requires command-line knowledge for which there's no GUI substitute."
Okay, this is the way I see it. GNU/Linux requires computer literacy. Anyone who is computer literate should not be surprised of the fact that certain software requires other software to run. And anyone who is computer literate should not be afraid to either refer to the manual packaged with their software or look up the often superb online documentation.
In other words, GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop.
But, the lack of computer literacy is a different problem that needs to be tackled differently.
This is not hard:
and its even easier on a debian system. Just write the command down on a piece of paper and tape it to the wall like they used to do in the old DOS days. And gnorpm, in my opinion, is more difficult to use!
And of course the possibilies of remote administration is strangely compelling...
GNU/Linux on the desktop is here.
No message.
Anyone want to guess how long until the word "terrorism" gets in somewhere?
Another terrorist attack or two, and Americans will be begging for this stuff. Hopefull that won't happen.
I was at first reluctant into saying this technology is all bad. Its easy to get into an anti-Microsoft jihad.
But this technology is all bad.
I can't believe that MSN article, I really can't. Its a silly spin on this technology that isn't going to last. Here's some stuff from the MSN article on what this stuff is going to do:
"Tells you who you're dealing with--and what they're doing. Palladium is all about deciding what's trustworthy. It not only lets your computer know that you're you , but also can limit what arrives (and runs on) your computer, verifying where it comes from and who created it."
We already have this, its called Public Key Encryption or alternatively Symmetric Encryption. Free Software users already have GNU Privacy Guard at our disposal.
Of course, the downside of this technology is that it isn't too useful over the internet without creating a rather large web of trust -- a very difficult task. I'd like to know how Palladium would rectify this?
"Protects information. The system uses high-level encryption to 'seal' data so that snoops and thieves are thwarted. It also can protect the integrity of documents so that they can't be altered without your knowledge."
First, we already have high-level encryption. And most anti-virus programs 'innoculate' your files anyway. This only sounds like Microsoft is targeting the anti-virus next -- by integrating them into the operating system.
"Stops viruses and worms. Palladium won't run unauthorized programs, so viruses can't trash protected parts of your system."
I haven't used Windows since Windows 95, but I know Unix-like systems have had multi-user security since practically forever. Its heavily suggested to new users to set up their own accounts on their system to use. "protected parts" os a Unix-like system is whatever root owns, which is quite a lot.
"Cans spam. Eventually, commercial pitches for recycled printer cartridges and barnyard porn can be stopped before they hit your inbox--while unsolicited mail that you might want to see can arrive if it has credentials that meet your standards."
So basically digital signatures for real this time...
"Safeguards privacy. With Palladium, it's possible not only to seal data on your own computer, but also to send it out to 'agents' who can distribute just the discreet pieces you want released to the proper people. Microsofties have nicknamed these services 'My Man.' If you apply for a loan, you'd say to the lender, 'Get my details from My Man,' which, upon your authorization, would then provide your bank information, etc. Best part: Da Man can't read the information himself, and neither can a hacker who breaks into his system."
This may sound interesting, depending on how its implemented. But what can this Palladium technology offer that a sane encryption policy can't? And whats going to prevent users from screwing up the security?
(side note: "My Man" sounds really funny)
"Controls your information after you send it. Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with 'digital rights management' (DRM). This could allow users to exercise 'fair use' (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. 'It's a funny thing,' says Bill Gates. 'We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains.' For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies."
And we're back to digital rights management. Does anyone know how to implement what they say with the Word document with the technology we have now? It almost sounds like an Actually Useful Feature. "This email will self-destruct," kind of thing.
But really, this thing is about enforcing what some people consider an unconstitutionally unlimited copyright system. Not to mention what kind of havoc would be caused if trademarks were decided to be under the umbrella of digital rights.
One thing the Coursey article confirmed is that Microsoft does have a patent on this technology -- it seems logical they would license this under the CIFS (no GPL or copyleft) pretty much excluding free software from implementing this.
Because this stuff was leaked so early, there is still time (they are saying like four or five years) for someone to build up a response to this. Or it will simply flop because the market won't like it. Or what I think is likely is that DVDs will only be allowed to play on Palladium-approved machines. Then we'll have a mix of Palladium and non-Palladium machines, one with a superset of the features of the other.
Which one will Mr. and Mrs. Ignorant want to buy for their son?
Damn...wish I could impersonate carl malone right now....
True, not all bugs are shallow. And many projects are almost desperately looking for more developers -- which is a scary sign.
But the way I figure it, new developers have their software scrutinized more closely so you'd figure that someone joining just to mess things up wouldn't ever be really trusted.
Not that this rules out an entire project whose purpose is simply to release a trojan. Which is why it is a good idea to check the mailing list archives and IRC channels first.
I know Debian uses package signing. Many other distributions do the same thing.
So safeguards are in place -- its just there's nothing full-proof about them.
I am getting real tired of being insulted by you. And I never said anything about respecting you personally. I have this nasty tendency of giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Really, when I talk to people in online forums, respect is something I usually take for granted both ways. Without that, there really isn't any point in posting, is there?
Anyway, the most enlightening part of your posts is your sig, so good night.
Maybe you'll wake up not so cranky next time.
"I bow to your expertise in the area of stupidity, and I'm sure the rest of slashdot feels the same way."
Sure, so you feel messing up the voting system is a constructive action?
"12-year-old Kenny can. Though I'm sure I could come up with reasons why you shouldn't be allowed to, any more than you should be allowed in an adult discussion of public policy."
Kind of a hypocritical suggestion, wouldn't you say? Oh, sarcasm I'm sure...
"Censorware in the workplace is a band-aid fix for bad management. As for its use in schools or libraries, I suggest getting the facts about the databases this class of crapware uses before whining about how nasty we are all about it in public."
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is all yours. If you have some articles that you'd like to link to, I would be interested enough to read them. Not that your tone would cause me to respect your position, anyway (I am aware that most of that is my fault).
"Censorware interferes with the educational process."
Without, children do not get access to the internet. While it is possible that the schools would use this tool as a means to a political agenda, I think even this is better than the few textbooks they will be taught with anyway.
The post I responded to was a silly suggestion and I responded thusly.