It's also important to be able to aim someone at Slashdot so they can pick up on what is current without having to search the archives. Old story rolls off the front page. New story rolls onto the front page. While there's a storm in progress the storm tracking stays up. If there's nothing new to be said, then simply reiterate the old.
So you think, that Nomads are not free people, as they don't have running water and electricity? I'd say that Nomads are free people precisely because they have access to running water and electricity. (Although I'm not sure how you plug in your camel;) If the Nomads' water supply is cut off, they are not free. Running water means "Run to the water fountain and run back", a slight modernization of running to the creek and back.
I would rather call you "slave" to those services. That point is extremely valid. Happiness is having more than you want/need. Misery is never having quite enough. The controlling variable is what you want/need.
It's always been typical open-source style to get the mission-critical parts hardened against nuclear attack, but leaving the other bits a tad soft.
IMNSHO, that ought to be standard for any mission-critical software. Bugs and the places that bugs live in are not created equal. The beauty of Apache (at least 1.13) is that the overall system can be very robust and reliable with rather buggy modules. I suspect the problem with IIS is that everything assumes everything else is perfect, which overall doesn't quite work so well.
The "right" involved is unencumbered access to basic infrastructure. Exactly what is included in that basic infrastructure, who pays for what, how and when are messy details that the political system more or less tries to sort out. I agree that the biggies are life, liberty, and the persuit of.... But, it is impossible to have those biggies without a large mess of smallies.
People see what they expect to see. I guess this means that they hear what they expect to hear. O.T. "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow" is an oversimplification, but there's lots of bugs that are invisible unless you look at them just right and under exactly the right circumstances. No matter how good a coder, (s)he can't fix what (s)he can't see. I've had too many cases where I couldn't see the problem until it was narrowed down to a single character. Then all at once, the whole mess becomes "obvious".
If something is not alive, it must be dead, no? Or something else.
And how can we prove it is alive? If it dies, it was alive. If we cannot, then death must be a possbility. Backwards. Death implies life existed. Absence of life proves nothing.
simply donating what they bought to their competitors, a strikingly stupid thing to do. Maybe, maybe not. To oversimplify, there are two competitions going on. One among the individuals of a species. Another as a species against other species. It doesn't help to do better than your competitors if you are driving your competitors and yourself out of the market.
"Q: Competitively, do you think this controlled chaos works against a company like Microsoft?
A: I think it ultimately the only way to do software. I have arguments why. The main one is the complexity issue. It's very hard for someone who doesn't work like this to keep control of an increasingly complex source base and increasingly complex user base. If you try to control the process too much, you can go straight to the end point where you want to go. That works well if you know where the end point is. If you don't know where it is and you can't control where people want to use your software, it's a very bad thing to have one branch that is very concentrated on one line of development. The best analogy is biological diversity."
I don't know, but I suspect that IBM is on to something.
the only users who tolerated the poor translations were the ones with SO LITTLE to say that chat rooms using it were quickly dominated by only the most inane of conversations. Hmmmm, sounds right up Microsoft's alley.
Different people have different strengths and different weaknesses. They also tend to be very good at what they like doing and to like doing what they are very good at. I seem to recall reading somewhere that a 30 to 1 disparity in several (very) specific skills is not unusual in people of esentially the same overall ability. A choir can sound very good even when none of the individual voices is particularly good.
I contend that the reason that spam is universally disliked is that it impairs the functioning of the mail system. I'm waiting for an email from my boss. I get an email. Another spam. Another email. This time it was what I was waiting for. It's the barrage that matters. Try this. Tell someone "Good Morning". Repeat. After enough repetitions the victim will become very unamused.
Emphasis added. "After reviewing the decisions analyzing unauthorized electronic contact with computer systems as potential trespasses to chattels, we conclude that under California law the tort does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning. Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property," the high court says.
"The consequential economic damage Intel claims to have suffered, i.e., loss of productivity caused by employees reading and reacting to Hamidi's messages and company efforts to block the messages, is not an injury to the company's interest in its computers -- which worked as intended and were unharmed by the communications -- any more than the personal distress caused by reading an unpleasant letter would be an injury to the recipient's mailbox, or the loss of privacy caused by an intrusive telephone call would be an injury to the recipient's telephone equipment," the ruling says.
And quite frankly it doesn't make the Linux crown[sic] look very nice. The "Linux crowd" is not some sort of unified front. There's a lot of very different folks here, and some of us don't even like each other very much.
Blackmail would be something like "Give us the codes" or "Give us some money". Essential to blackmail is the transfer of valuable assets from the blackmailee to the blackmailer. "Give me money or I'll tell" is blackmail. "You tell or I'll tell" is not.
Microsoft would love to have a unified Linux front to attack. "The already massive resentment MS suits feel towards the open source movement" will only increase, partly due to open source managing to be in a place other than where Microsoft successfully attacks.
This may be a bluff. It might not be. It might be a bluff, but somebody else holds the winning hand. It will be interesting to see how Microsoft plays it. And the next and the next...
Perhaps I'm the kind of person who doesn't really have something like that to hide... it seems the only people concerned about privacy are trying to hide something.
Would it bother you if everybody was always watching everything you do, all the time with no sign of relenting in sight? Does a stranger reading a newspaper over your shoulder bother you?
The problem with privacy is that if you wait until you need it, it's too late. To have privacy when you want or need it, you have to take steps to ensure it beforehand. Otherwise, just wanting a bit of privacy incites the "Enquiring minds want to know".
A better analogy to use is that what H*neywell did is tantamount to someone leaving their front door unlocked, and then putting a neon sign above their front door advertising this fact. [Emphasis added]
Seems to me that the "neon sign" is more your doing. Publicizing it. If my neighbor likes to keep his fron door unlocked, that's his business. It is not my business to even discuss the matter with anyone else.
When you grow up and learn what the word "enterprise" means, maybe we can talk again
Enterprise is not: "altered KDE 3.x onto the Linux kernel 1.0". Wrong on both counts. "understand several million lines of source code with a glance". It's the ability to understand the few that matter in the context that matters. "hack on new features within minutes". "New features" are not a feature of Enterprise computing.
"Those products didn't just stop working. You were never forced to upgrade." At least as true of Open Source. Would you be able to retrofit an XP driver to WfW?
You won't find published material on any version of Redhat Linux prior to 7.1 on their website. We were talking about Enterprise computing, right? If I have problems with RH 6.2, I'll then upgrade, probably to RH 10 or 11.
I would argue that a viable standard is already set, has been for a long itme, and is adhered to by companies with alot more clout in the server space than MS.
I agree totally, but I am not at all convinced that "everything's safe now". It's still much to easy for Java to be sabatoged.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also important to be able to aim someone at Slashdot so they can pick up on what is current without having to search the archives.
Old story rolls off the front page.
New story rolls onto the front page.
While there's a storm in progress the storm tracking stays up. If there's nothing new to be said, then simply reiterate the old.
To an outsider, you risk the chance to look like a shallow individual who seems to take delight in arguing petty details.
L inux/BSD rivalry.
Just don't take it all too seriously.
Army/Navy football games.
Cowboys/Redskins.
Ford/Chevy/Chrysler.
Vi/Emacs.
Gnome/KDE.
There's a lot of things that shouldn't be staid and respectable.
So you think, that Nomads are not free people, as they don't have running water and electricity?
I'd say that Nomads are free people precisely because they have access to running water and electricity. (Although I'm not sure how you plug in your camel;)
If the Nomads' water supply is cut off, they are not free. Running water means "Run to the water fountain and run back", a slight modernization of running to the creek and back.
I would rather call you "slave" to those services.
That point is extremely valid.
Happiness is having more than you want/need.
Misery is never having quite enough.
The controlling variable is what you want/need.
It's always been typical open-source style to get the mission-critical parts hardened against nuclear attack, but leaving the other bits a tad soft.
IMNSHO, that ought to be standard for any mission-critical software. Bugs and the places that bugs live in are not created equal. The beauty of Apache (at least 1.13) is that the overall system can be very robust and reliable with rather buggy modules. I suspect the problem with IIS is that everything assumes everything else is perfect, which overall doesn't quite work so well.
The "right" involved is unencumbered access to basic infrastructure. Exactly what is included in that basic infrastructure, who pays for what, how and when are messy details that the political system more or less tries to sort out. .... But, it is impossible to have those biggies without a large mess of smallies.
I agree that the biggies are life, liberty, and the persuit of
People see what they expect to see. I guess this means that they hear what they expect to hear.
O.T. "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow" is an oversimplification, but there's lots of bugs that are invisible unless you look at them just right and under exactly the right circumstances. No matter how good a coder, (s)he can't fix what (s)he can't see. I've had too many cases where I couldn't see the problem until it was narrowed down to a single character. Then all at once, the whole mess becomes "obvious".
SCO for Scurrilous Canopy Operation.
If something is not alive, it must be dead, no?
Or something else.
And how can we prove it is alive?
If it dies, it was alive.
If we cannot, then death must be a possbility.
Backwards. Death implies life existed. Absence of life proves nothing.
simply donating what they bought to their competitors, a strikingly stupid thing to do.
Maybe, maybe not.
To oversimplify, there are two competitions going on. One among the individuals of a species. Another as a species against other species. It doesn't help to do better than your competitors if you are driving your competitors and yourself out of the market.
"Q: Competitively, do you think this controlled chaos works against a company like Microsoft?
A: I think it ultimately the only way to do software. I have arguments why. The main one is the complexity issue. It's very hard for someone who doesn't work like this to keep control of an increasingly complex source base and increasingly complex user base. If you try to control the process too much, you can go straight to the end point where you want to go. That works well if you know where the end point is. If you don't know where it is and you can't control where people want to use your software, it's a very bad thing to have one branch that is very concentrated on one line of development. The best analogy is biological diversity."
I don't know, but I suspect that IBM is on to something.
IIRC it was the availability of the spreadsheet that caused the proliferation of PCs.
DOS and a PC was just a way of running Lotus 123.
To understand the significance, take a fairly simple spreadsheet and program the input, output and computations in Pascal or C.
Well, what did we expect?
How to get 100% ethanol.
Mix with concentrated sulphuric acid and distill off the ethanol.
the only users who tolerated the poor translations were the ones with SO LITTLE to say that chat rooms using it were quickly dominated by only the most inane of conversations.
Hmmmm, sounds right up Microsoft's alley.
...aren't trademarks very field-specific?
I don't think I'd get very far selling "Microsoft Fertilizer", particularly if I duplicated that other company's color scheme.
Hormel is suing to protect my right to call my product "Spam Arrest". (Well if I actually had such a product;)
Different people have different strengths and different weaknesses. They also tend to be very good at what they like doing and to like doing what they are very good at. I seem to recall reading somewhere that a 30 to 1 disparity in several (very) specific skills is not unusual in people of esentially the same overall ability. A choir can sound very good even when none of the individual voices is particularly good.
The computer displays Spam without a problem
Irrelevant.
The computer no longer displays the non-Spam without a problem.
The computer is too busy displaying the "Spam without a problem".
Agreed, but for different reasons.
I contend that the reason that spam is universally disliked is that it impairs the functioning of the mail system. I'm waiting for an email from my boss. I get an email. Another spam. Another email. This time it was what I was waiting for. It's the barrage that matters. Try this. Tell someone "Good Morning". Repeat. After enough repetitions the victim will become very unamused.
Emphasis added.
"After reviewing the decisions analyzing unauthorized electronic contact with computer systems as potential trespasses to chattels, we conclude that under California law the tort does not encompass, and should not be extended to encompass, an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning. Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to personal property," the high court says.
"The consequential economic damage Intel claims to have suffered, i.e., loss of productivity caused by employees reading and reacting to Hamidi's messages and company efforts to block the messages, is not an injury to the company's interest in its computers -- which worked as intended and were unharmed by the communications -- any more than the personal distress caused by reading an unpleasant letter would be an injury to the recipient's mailbox, or the loss of privacy caused by an intrusive telephone call would be an injury to the recipient's telephone equipment," the ruling says.
So what's your point?
"But since Windows doesn't come with a compiler,"
Looks kinda crippled there, wouldn't you say?
And quite frankly it doesn't make the Linux crown[sic] look very nice.
...
The "Linux crowd" is not some sort of unified front. There's a lot of very different folks here, and some of us don't even like each other very much.
Blackmail would be something like "Give us the codes" or "Give us some money". Essential to blackmail is the transfer of valuable assets from the blackmailee to the blackmailer. "Give me money or I'll tell" is blackmail. "You tell or I'll tell" is not.
Microsoft would love to have a unified Linux front to attack. "The already massive resentment MS suits feel towards the open source movement" will only increase, partly due to open source managing to be in a place other than where Microsoft successfully attacks.
This may be a bluff. It might not be. It might be a bluff, but somebody else holds the winning hand. It will be interesting to see how Microsoft plays it. And the next and the next
Perhaps I'm the kind of person who doesn't really have something like that to hide... it seems the only people concerned about privacy are trying to hide something.
Would it bother you if everybody was always watching everything you do, all the time with no sign of relenting in sight? Does a stranger reading a newspaper over your shoulder bother you?
The problem with privacy is that if you wait until you need it, it's too late. To have privacy when you want or need it, you have to take steps to ensure it beforehand. Otherwise, just wanting a bit of privacy incites the "Enquiring minds want to know".
A better analogy to use is that what H*neywell did is tantamount to someone leaving their front door unlocked, and then putting a neon sign above their front door advertising this fact. [Emphasis added]
Seems to me that the "neon sign" is more your doing. Publicizing it.
If my neighbor likes to keep his fron door unlocked, that's his business. It is not my business to even discuss the matter with anyone else.
When you grow up and learn what the word "enterprise" means, maybe we can talk again
Enterprise is not:
"altered KDE 3.x onto the Linux kernel 1.0". Wrong on both counts.
"understand several million lines of source code with a glance". It's the ability to understand the few that matter in the context that matters.
"hack on new features within minutes". "New features" are not a feature of Enterprise computing.
"Those products didn't just stop working. You were never forced to upgrade." At least as true of Open Source. Would you be able to retrofit an XP driver to WfW?
You won't find published material on any version of Redhat Linux prior to 7.1 on their website.
We were talking about Enterprise computing, right? If I have problems with RH 6.2, I'll then upgrade, probably to RH 10 or 11.
I would argue that a viable standard is already set, has been for a long itme, and is adhered to by companies with alot more clout in the server space than MS.
I agree totally, but I am not at all convinced that "everything's safe now". It's still much to easy for Java to be sabatoged.
What is .NET exactly? .NET isn't exactly.