>> Despite polls that said people would pay more for a more durable hardcover, everyone bought the softcover to save the difference in price.)
Ah, see, you have to remember that you're selling to computer geeks. They want to be able to buy the softcover, then upgrade to the hardcover when the softcover wears out.
Internet voting seems to be gaining favor among Democrats, who seem to benefit from dragging every available warm body to the polls, and it's getting opposition from Republicans, who tend to think that anybody who doesn't care enough to make a minimal effort shouldn't.
I must say, "Voter turnout" is one of those areas where everybody assumes that more is better, but is it really? The fact is, countries that have high turnouts in elections tend to be countries with pretty lame democracies or a history of oppression.
Instead of assuming that a big voter turnout creates good democracy, maybe we need to realize that good, stable democracy creates an environment in which people can afford not to vote.
Well, that's it exactly. After posting, I remembered about when I got my first PPP connection with Netscape. Wheee... it was new, it was engrossing, it kept me up all night. And that's the syndrome that this researcher identified.
But a few years later, the 'net is just a way to get the info I need. I don't even think of it as a separate thing anymore, it's just another resource like the telephone.
Penguins probably understand approximately three things. Whether they're eating, whether they're able to mate, and whether there are any predators around.
I suspect they're doing quite well on two counts. As for the third, well, if I can live without it, so can they.
Microsoft has been working on it, I've read a short blurb here and there. And I wouldn't sell their efforts short.
But the real story is that Intel apparently intends for Linux to be ready from the start, whether Microsoft is ready or not. In the past, MS has had a window of time where they could develop and optimize at their own pace, without having to worry about a competitor beating them to the punch. With Merced, they'll be under pressure im a way they haven't been in the past.
Merced is shaping up to be the watershed platform for Linux. It wouldn't surprise me to see it drmatically outship Windows Whatever in the first year, especially since new Intel CPUs tend to go into servers first.
Every few years, an independant filmmaker comes up with a brilliant idea such as this, it acheives unforseen success, and tongues start to wag about the revolution in moviemaking. The filmmakers get a bigger budget the next time, expectations rise, and the success is hardly ever repeated. In a market that's always demanding the next film, it's extremely rare that an artist can duplicate the inspiration that made the first one work.
More power to the Blair Witch producers; it's great to see imaginative filmmaking receive recognition. But it's not going to turn the film business upside down.
Proper preamp outs should have a high output impedance, and they feed inputs that have very low impedance, and there shouldn't be any interference problem. Think about it; the output from Soundcard A sees high impedance from the Soundcard B and low impedance on the stereo input; thus (nearly) all the power goes to the input.
With a power amp, you have low output impedance (.1 ohm) and higher speaker impedance. In that case, yeah, if you connect multiple power amps to a single speaker each amp's output will hit the other amp, and it will smoke. But as long as the output isn't capable of driving an unpowered speaker, it's probably a high impedance preamp out, and safe to "Y". Safe to test, anyway.
If the signal you're dealing with is preamp-level (i.e. the line output to a set of powered speakers), then all you need to do is buy "Y" cords to connect all the outputs to the single input. With any luck, the levels will all be close enough that you can adjust them using the software volume controls on each system.
Personally, I just patched 'em all into my stereo receiver, and I switch inputs as needed (Basically, I have 2 PC patched into the two tape I/O loops, and use them as if they were cassette decks; then another PC just goes to a spare input). Of course, I only get to hear The Microsoft Sound from one PC at a time, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
I do it the same way you do. Sometimes I recycle old high-security words and use them at the mid-security level. If I forget one, it makes it a little easier to guess.
One thing you oughta point out to the Exchange advocates is that MS wants to sell you a client license for each computer connects to it, even in an Internet setting. In 20-packs, they're about $55 each, so that would be over $1 million for 25K users. Obviously, a volume license would help, but still.... The money saved by using something else could pay for a lot of custom development.
Pavlicek cites a quote from a market analyst abou the need for the community to transform itself.
What the "market analyst" was really saying was that in order for him to get hired as a Linux market analyst, there have to be companies doing Linux business.
Of course, most end users don't really care where the software comes from. They just want to use it. The purpose of software is to be used, it does not exist so that programmers and market analysists can get work. If it can be done without the existence of a "Linux industry," well, that's how it will be done. If major publishers can provide enhancements or applications that people will voluntarily pay for, well, that's good too.
As long as the number of users keeps growing at a healthy pace, it means the users are satisfied. It doesn't matter whether anybody's making money providing the software, what matters is that it's being provided.
You don't have to fix their code, but you can disable the feature in question and you'll probably never miss it. I'll agree that you shouldn't have to, that's one of my own pet peeves. But anybody who is really serious about security had probably disabled this feature before the exploit was discovered.
As somebody already mentioned, this tactic of security companies finding a hole in the default configuration and using it to get publicity is getting pretty tiresome. It does help get the word out, which is a good thing.
Follow the links and see what it really says. Yeah, there's a patch coming, maybe a day or two slower than Linux would have it out. Probably as fast as the crackers can pass it around; they'll mainly prey on the many people who ignore it. But in the meantime, all you need to do is to remove a couple of rarely-used ISAPI entries. I'm glad I don't have to do it on a thousand domains, but it's a pretty simple fix.
A huge number of these NT "Security holes" are simply weaknesses of the default configuration. If anything, it highlights Microsoft's tendency to throw in and start up too much junk that you don't know about, don't want, and will never use. The default settings are very permissive, apparently in search of a "positive end-user experience." Their words, not mine.
I've never run a server that was heavily loaded, so I can't speak to that, but otherwise, IIS is one of the parts of NT that they actually did pretty well, configuration issues notwithstanding. It can be secured from script kiddies without too much hassle, and most of the holes that do turn up are related to MS-specific things that you can disable, or to default permissions that need to be tweaked.
If 40% of software is pirated, then it's likely that a substantial majority of users have at least a small amount of it on each of their computers. And experience tells me this is probably correct.
So are the majority of people dishonest beacuse of this? No. Many people who use a little bit of copied software are otherwise as honest as the day is long. It's unnatural to suggest that the mojority of the population are thieves, so perhaps what's wrong is the definition of thievery.
There is just something fndamentally unsound about a publisher's relationship with their customers when they're all considered potential suspects. It can't continue this way forever, and I really think that the rise of free software is in large part a market reaction to the bad customer relations that prevail in the software business (not to name names, but use your imagination). For years, they're been selling software and trying to give (limited) free support. Free software and paid support makes a lot more sense, when you think about it.
Right. But you apparently want the distribution that is "technicallY the best" to prosper most. Many people apparently have other concerns, such as writing for a large user base, or choosing a distro that's easy to get help with. Sorry if it's not exactly what you want, but see item (2) above.
Then again, if you personally must have the version that's "technically the best," it will always be available. You can't "smash the competition" in Linux. Shoot, some other distros are already working with no money or off pocket change. What can Red Hat do to them? Red Hat grossed about $10 million last year, Microsoft grossed that much since I started writing this.
This is a different business. Forget everything you know about proprietary software, it doesn't apply to this stuff. That's what we like about it, remember?
The oversimplified reason for (2) is that if I were perfectly happy, then everybody else would be very unhappy. So we reach a compromise that none of us is thrilled with.
There will be more and more of these "Supporting Red Hat only" releases, but it's nothing to be alarmed about. Often they'll work perfectly well with other distributions, but the publishers will officially support only one or two or three of them in order to keep support profitable. Remember, most companies work on much thinner margins than Microsoft.
As long as I've been around computers, the users and developers have gravitated toward a central point in terms of OS's and GUIs. It's rarely the result of a sinister plot, usually it's just more practical that way. A developer needs to know what services are available on the client machine. A user needs to be able to know the requirements to run a certain piece of software. And if it doesn't work, one or the other has to figure it out. Having one or two distributions and GUIs dominant makes it easier for both parties.
But the neat thing about Linux is that a company like Red Hat can only stay on top as long as they stay good. Yes, they have a certain momentum, but other distributions are as good or better. If Red Hat suddenly turned ornery and ticked everybody off like You Know Who, the developers and publishers could switch distributions pretty quickly. And Red Hat doesn't make enough money selling their software to buy off publishers.
I recall getting into this argument with somebody once. I oppose government intervention, they argued that the market will take too long to correct Microsoft's undue dominance, and that we need the government to speed things up.
So, what are we, a year and a half into this? The judge is expected to issue his decision NEXT YEAR? And then appeals? Then maybe a delay for settlement talks?
If you want something to cost less or get done faster, how often do you turn to a lawyer? Linux wasn't even on the general public's radar when this started. It might be on everybody's desktop by the time it's done.
Slashdot Mirror
Can humans create life? No. It's already been created.
Can we copy it? Probably.
>> Despite polls that said people would pay more for a more durable hardcover, everyone bought the softcover to save the difference in price.)
Ah, see, you have to remember that you're selling to computer geeks. They want to be able to buy the softcover, then upgrade to the hardcover when the softcover wears out.
Internet voting seems to be gaining favor among Democrats, who seem to benefit from dragging every available warm body to the polls, and it's getting opposition from Republicans, who tend to think that anybody who doesn't care enough to make a minimal effort shouldn't.
I must say, "Voter turnout" is one of those areas where everybody assumes that more is better, but is it really? The fact is, countries that have high turnouts in elections tend to be countries with pretty lame democracies or a history of oppression.
Instead of assuming that a big voter turnout creates good democracy, maybe we need to realize that good, stable democracy creates an environment in which people can afford not to vote.
Fortunately, when you get your computer back after five years, it'll still be powerful enough to run Linux.
>> they generalise to much for my taste
Well, that's it exactly. After posting, I remembered about when I got my first PPP connection with Netscape. Wheee... it was new, it was engrossing, it kept me up all night. And that's the syndrome that this researcher identified.
But a few years later, the 'net is just a way to get the info I need. I don't even think of it as a separate thing anymore, it's just another resource like the telephone.
Is it "addictive beahviour" to read books and newspapers for four hours a day?
If not, then why is it "addictive" to read the same material on a computer screen?
This is silly.
Gotta love it.
>> you have to use dos to do everything
>> linix will go bankrupt
Beautiful. And you fooled the moderators, too. Y'oughta get bonus points for that.
But hotgrrl67532 is mine; stay away from her or else I'll send you the Good Times virus.
Penguins probably understand approximately three things. Whether they're eating, whether they're able to mate, and whether there are any predators around.
I suspect they're doing quite well on two counts. As for the third, well, if I can live without it, so can they.
Microsoft has been working on it, I've read a short blurb here and there. And I wouldn't sell their efforts short.
But the real story is that Intel apparently intends for Linux to be ready from the start, whether Microsoft is ready or not. In the past, MS has had a window of time where they could develop and optimize at their own pace, without having to worry about a competitor beating them to the punch. With Merced, they'll be under pressure im a way they haven't been in the past.
Merced is shaping up to be the watershed platform for Linux. It wouldn't surprise me to see it drmatically outship Windows Whatever in the first year, especially since new Intel CPUs tend to go into servers first.
Every few years, an independant filmmaker comes up with a brilliant idea such as this, it acheives unforseen success, and tongues start to wag about the revolution in moviemaking. The filmmakers get a bigger budget the next time, expectations rise, and the success is hardly ever repeated. In a market that's always demanding the next film, it's extremely rare that an artist can duplicate the inspiration that made the first one work.
More power to the Blair Witch producers; it's great to see imaginative filmmaking receive recognition. But it's not going to turn the film business upside down.
A lesson from Shocks For Jocks:
Proper preamp outs should have a high output impedance, and they feed inputs that have very low impedance, and there shouldn't be any interference problem. Think about it; the output from Soundcard A sees high impedance from the Soundcard B and low impedance on the stereo input; thus (nearly) all the power goes to the input.
With a power amp, you have low output impedance (.1 ohm) and higher speaker impedance. In that case, yeah, if you connect multiple power amps to a single speaker each amp's output will hit the other amp, and it will smoke. But as long as the output isn't capable of driving an unpowered speaker, it's probably a high impedance preamp out, and safe to "Y". Safe to test, anyway.
If the signal you're dealing with is preamp-level (i.e. the line output to a set of powered speakers), then all you need to do is buy "Y" cords to connect all the outputs to the single input. With any luck, the levels will all be close enough that you can adjust them using the software volume controls on each system.
Personally, I just patched 'em all into my stereo receiver, and I switch inputs as needed (Basically, I have 2 PC patched into the two tape I/O loops, and use them as if they were cassette decks; then another PC just goes to a spare input). Of course, I only get to hear The Microsoft Sound from one PC at a time, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Yes, I'm living proof of that.
Shucks, I don't have any moderator points. Maybe if we could upgrade his message, the girls would be impressed.
Not that it's ever worked for me, mind you.
I do it the same way you do. Sometimes I recycle old high-security words and use them at the mid-security level. If I forget one, it makes it a little easier to guess.
Maybe the site is designed so you can only crack it using Internet Explorer.
One thing you oughta point out to the Exchange advocates is that MS wants to sell you a client license for each computer connects to it, even in an Internet setting. In 20-packs, they're about $55 each, so that would be over $1 million for 25K users. Obviously, a volume license would help, but still.... The money saved by using something else could pay for a lot of custom development.
Nah... It's not a "show of trust." Major League Baseball is responsible for the integrity of the balloting, and they caught the guy.
Besides, in the context of the Red Sox and Yankess, this kind of stuff is fair game.
We just needed a better scripter, some MIT geek who wouldn't get caught.
Come to think of it, maybe we had one and just don't know about it.
Pavlicek cites a quote from a market analyst abou the need for the community to transform itself.
What the "market analyst" was really saying was that in order for him to get hired as a Linux market analyst, there have to be companies doing Linux business.
Of course, most end users don't really care where the software comes from. They just want to use it. The purpose of software is to be used, it does not exist so that programmers and market analysists can get work. If it can be done without the existence of a "Linux industry," well, that's how it will be done. If major publishers can provide enhancements or applications that people will voluntarily pay for, well, that's good too.
As long as the number of users keeps growing at a healthy pace, it means the users are satisfied. It doesn't matter whether anybody's making money providing the software, what matters is that it's being provided.
You don't have to fix their code, but you can disable the feature in question and you'll probably never miss it. I'll agree that you shouldn't have to, that's one of my own pet peeves. But anybody who is really serious about security had probably disabled this feature before the exploit was discovered.
As somebody already mentioned, this tactic of security companies finding a hole in the default configuration and using it to get publicity is getting pretty tiresome. It does help get the word out, which is a good thing.
Follow the links and see what it really says. Yeah, there's a patch coming, maybe a day or two slower than Linux would have it out. Probably as fast as the crackers can pass it around; they'll mainly prey on the many people who ignore it. But in the meantime, all you need to do is to remove a couple of rarely-used ISAPI entries. I'm glad I don't have to do it on a thousand domains, but it's a pretty simple fix.
A huge number of these NT "Security holes" are simply weaknesses of the default configuration. If anything, it highlights Microsoft's tendency to throw in and start up too much junk that you don't know about, don't want, and will never use. The default settings are very permissive, apparently in search of a "positive end-user experience." Their words, not mine.
I've never run a server that was heavily loaded, so I can't speak to that, but otherwise, IIS is one of the parts of NT that they actually did pretty well, configuration issues notwithstanding. It can be secured from script kiddies without too much hassle, and most of the holes that do turn up are related to MS-specific things that you can disable, or to default permissions that need to be tweaked.
If 40% of software is pirated, then it's likely that a substantial majority of users have at least a small amount of it on each of their computers. And experience tells me this is probably correct.
So are the majority of people dishonest beacuse of this? No. Many people who use a little bit of copied software are otherwise as honest as the day is long. It's unnatural to suggest that the mojority of the population are thieves, so perhaps what's wrong is the definition of thievery.
There is just something fndamentally unsound about a publisher's relationship with their customers when they're all considered potential suspects. It can't continue this way forever, and I really think that the rise of free software is in large part a market reaction to the bad customer relations that prevail in the software business (not to name names, but use your imagination). For years, they're been selling software and trying to give (limited) free support. Free software and paid support makes a lot more sense, when you think about it.
Right. But you apparently want the distribution that is "technicallY the best" to prosper most. Many people apparently have other concerns, such as writing for a large user base, or choosing a distro that's easy to get help with. Sorry if it's not exactly what you want, but see item (2) above.
Then again, if you personally must have the version that's "technically the best," it will always be available. You can't "smash the competition" in Linux. Shoot, some other distros are already working with no money or off pocket change. What can Red Hat do to them? Red Hat grossed about $10 million last year, Microsoft grossed that much since I started writing this.
This is a different business. Forget everything you know about proprietary software, it doesn't apply to this stuff. That's what we like about it, remember?
Two things I've learned about the marketplace.
1. It never evolves the way I want it to.
2. That's what's good about it.
The oversimplified reason for (2) is that if I were perfectly happy, then everybody else would be very unhappy. So we reach a compromise that none of us is thrilled with.
There will be more and more of these "Supporting Red Hat only" releases, but it's nothing to be alarmed about. Often they'll work perfectly well with other distributions, but the publishers will officially support only one or two or three of them in order to keep support profitable. Remember, most companies work on much thinner margins than Microsoft.
As long as I've been around computers, the users and developers have gravitated toward a central point in terms of OS's and GUIs. It's rarely the result of a sinister plot, usually it's just more practical that way. A developer needs to know what services are available on the client machine. A user needs to be able to know the requirements to run a certain piece of software. And if it doesn't work, one or the other has to figure it out. Having one or two distributions and GUIs dominant makes it easier for both parties.
But the neat thing about Linux is that a company like Red Hat can only stay on top as long as they stay good. Yes, they have a certain momentum, but other distributions are as good or better. If Red Hat suddenly turned ornery and ticked everybody off like You Know Who, the developers and publishers could switch distributions pretty quickly. And Red Hat doesn't make enough money selling their software to buy off publishers.
I recall getting into this argument with somebody once. I oppose government intervention, they argued that the market will take too long to correct Microsoft's undue dominance, and that we need the government to speed things up.
So, what are we, a year and a half into this? The judge is expected to issue his decision NEXT YEAR? And then appeals? Then maybe a delay for settlement talks?
If you want something to cost less or get done faster, how often do you turn to a lawyer? Linux wasn't even on the general public's radar when this started. It might be on everybody's desktop by the time it's done.