I don't imagine there'd be much to see. Both probes are well out of the plane of the ecliptic and nowhere near any known large bodies (Voyager 1 was shot out of the plane of the ecliptic after its rendezvous with Titan) and are well on their way out of the Solar System at a rate of some 16km/sec.
More information on the current status of the probes can be found at
Actually, British Nuclear Fuels has done a fairly good job of advertising one of their power stations as a great place for a day out with the kids. This is Sellafield, formerly, erm - Windscale. Yep, that's right, the one that leaked ever so slightly.
This is not a joke. See
http://www.bnfl.co.uk/
I guess they should know whether it's dangerous or not. They're the ones who have to work there.
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
Re: budget savaged to the tune of $1 billion
on
Cassini visits Earth
·
· Score: 1
We should invite all these corporates to Europe. I don't think ESA is prohibited from commercial sponsorship. Since they could only envisage a budget the size of NASA's in their most sordid wet dreams, they ought to put the money to good use.:)
> DOJ is like shit outside there, no one could care less.
Not entirely true. Something similar could follow in the EU if the DoJ wins its case against Microsoft. I imagine a lot of companies are watching the case pretty closely.
> What is important, tho, is the fact that, in order to sell to public institutions (like a university), the manufacturer (DELL) has to provide a WORKING system. [snip] This means that DELL cannot sell a PC without OS. They could be sued from here to hell if somebody wants to do that.
I think you are mistaken. If they attempted to sell such a PC as a fully operational computer system, _then_ they would be in trouble. But there is nothing in European or any national law to prevent them selling PCs without OSes. Plenty of computer manufacturers can and do sell such machines every day in Europe.
*sigh* Politix. Puh-leeze. (I'd respond but it's _way_ offtopic here.)
Before people start jumping all over the EU, there is a certain thing called "due process" which I believe applies as much to Europe as to the USA. There would have to be some kind of investigation preceding any legal action; if the courts are satisfied there is enough _legal_ evidence (some/. reader seeing a website with a few emails on it and posting the link there doesn't qualify) then action could be taken against Microsoft. But even if an investigation were undertaken, I wouldn't expect any result in a hurry - we only have to look across the pond to see how long these corporate legal difficulties can take to unravel, and our legal system isn't _all_ that different from that of the USA.
Additionally, for the EU to do anything about it, they would have to be aware of it. I doubt very much all that many MEPs know all that much about computers at all, though they might be dimly aware of the Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps writing to your (corrupt, of course) MEP might increase awareness just a little bit?
Or more likely because a fair few Americans wouldn't happen to know the national flag of the country from which their own primary language originates, so the American flag was added to avoid confusion.;)
Bigotry aside, however, this being a European web site it's natural for them to use the British flag to represent the English translation - but as American English is fast becoming a global language, it makes sense to display the American flag as well - particularly for those English-speakers from neither country who might recognise the US flag but not the flag of some offshore European island.;)
Coding in PHB: explaining to your project manager why the several hundred lines of code you've written won't actually _do_ anything yet, and why you have nothing to show for it except a few pages of unit test results, and making him understand you.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
The reason they did this should be painfully obvious. They did it specifically so the APSL (and several other licenses) would violate the rules.
Possibly.... though I must admit I rather suspected that it was an attempt to reassimilate the Open Source mob by killing the obfuscation between "free as in free will" and "free as in free beer". My original understanding of the FSF's ideals were that they were more strongly geared towards the latter, rather than the former. It _appears_ that the FSF is disassociating itself from the "free beer" stance (held, if not by the FSF itself, then by a number of its advocates) in favour of "free will". If so, this is a welcome development.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I don't really understand the mentality of hardware manufacturers who seem to think that publishing details on how to program their hardware directly somehow threatens their market share. After all, a "black-box" developers' guide doesn't really give anyone that much of an insight into how the hardware actually _works_, so I honestly can't see how their competitors can use it against them (the latest bogus argument I've heard for withholding specs).
Time was, in the days before hardware became complicated, when it was dead easy to write to, say, Motorola and get them to send you the specs for the 68B54 chip which was the key device in every Acorn Econet system. As a result, there were lots of different fileservers available for the Econet, and it was possible to plug in most computers you'd care to name (down to and including the ZX Spectrum, so I'm told!) to an Econet system. Did this harm Motorola in any way? Of course not - they sold many more 68B54 chips than they would have done otherwise.
If this recent announcement amounts to anything, this is a welcome change of tune - it's about time the hardware manufacturers took this line again. Producers of soundcards, 3D cards, tuner cards and PCI modems - listen up!
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I'll try to explain more clearly the way I see it - or perhaps, the way I think Compaq is seeing it.
Compaq is a hardware supplier. This much is true. But to a lot of customers out there, one Alpha system is much the same as another, whatever the badge - therefore hardware suppliers must also offer value-added services.
Their compiler is one such value-added service. This compiler, because it is a kickass compiler, gives Compaq an advantage over rivals who don't have a kickass compiler for their DEC systems.
This is not to say you can't install an alternative compiler on a Compaq Alpha (or any other Alpha box for that matter). You just won't have the kickass compiler unless you get the Compaq Alpha.
So, in short, the sales-speak goes thus: "If you want an Alpha machine where you get the most real work done for your money, get a Compaq Alpha with our snazzy new compiler."
If _everyone_ had a good optimised compiler, Compaq doesn't have quite as strong a sales pitch.
Is that any clearer?
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
[I've based this post on the PDF document someone, I've forgotten who, kindly posted on this board - not on the whole report. I don't have $995 to spare, funnily enough.]
Considering the amount of hype Linux has received in the past few months, it is only to be expected that a report such as this would be forthcoming. I think it is important to bear in mind that while the report does not truly compare like for like, it is probably necessary that a report such as this _is_ produced before the general populace start expecting too much of the Linux community, and when they are disappointed, turn away from you never to return.
The report does bring to light a number of reasons why I and other other sysadmins I know have generally steered clear of Linux in favour of *BSD and commercial UNIX systems - and, when the occasion has demanded it, Windows NT. I know this may seem like blasphemy to many readers, but corporate necessity wins over any prejudices or principles.
Pricing: I don't think anyone will argue about this. Linux is, in fact, cheaper than all the others.;)
Scalability: Linux is not as scalable as operating systems such as Solaris and HP/UX because it was never designed to be so. It was originally designed for an x86 platform, and has only relatively recently emerged as a contender in the mid-range server market. Thus it is to be expected that it is perhaps not quite as scalable as its commercially-available counterparts. I doubt that anyone would seriously care to dispute this.
Reliability, availability, serviceability: I believe the same holds to be true. Linux was originally designed as a home hacker's system, not as a mission-critical server platform. While great strides have been made in this area as Intel and other x86 systems have become bigger and better - and thus thrust the PC into the low-end server arena - there is still a long way to go. Beowulf (not investigated in the report) is to my knowledge the only Linux clustering solution currently available. SMP resource management is still rather limited.
Here the report admits to a lack of hard evidence about system stability, at least in terms of mean time between system failures. To quote the report verbatim, "anecdotal evidence abounds." (I've heard of Linux systems whose uptime has exceeded a year, though in my rather limited experience with Linux I have yet to witness this. I've seen uptimes of about six months with FreeBSD, and a maximum of about three weeks under Windows NT. The HP9000 I'm logged into only has a current uptime of four days, but since it's a development machine that doesn't mean a lot.)
Internet functions: the only gripe here is about availability of good commercial e-commerce applications for Linux - something of which the readership here is only too aware, I hope!
Distributed Enterprise Services: likewise.
System Management: The report has quite a few good things to say about linuxconf, and does list a number of shortcomings in the system management tools of alternative OSes, so I don't see a problem here.
PC Client Support: Samba gets a mention (which is good), but again the gripe here is lack of good commercial software for Linux.
So, in short, the report doesn't really slag off Linux all that badly. The general tone of the report, if you ask me, seems to be that Linux is getting there but for any serious large-scale server applications, it is an idea whose time has not yet come. And I for one am inclined to agree. It doesn't yet have the scalability and resilience of those operating systems designed for high-end servers (notwithstanding the operating system itself may be more stable -- but what good is a stable OS if your data is lost on the day when it _does_ crash?) and it doesn't yet have the commercial software to make a good system a great system.
So, in short, I don't believe the report is saying that Linux is a bad system. It's also not telling us anything new. It _is_ a viable system, for the low-end server market; and it's a damn sight cheaper than anything else out there. The WSJ editorialized it to death. The report itself is quite reasonable.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I started writing this post an hour and a half ago, then was called away to a meeting so if I'm reiterating sentiments that have already been voiced, I apologise.
As far as Compaq are concerned, it's probably not in their interests to open-source their compiler. It is a value added service, not an essential. If you want an open-source compiler you can always use gcc. If you want their compiler, you'll have to accept it on the terms that it _is_ a value added service (and by all accounts, an absolutely stunning compiler), is closed-source, and is probably going to cost you.
Sure, it would be _nice_ if it was open-source, but I believe it would be counter-productive.
Open-sourcing their compiler might effectively _prevent_ the development of existing freeware compilers for Alpha systems, since the compiler and source are already there, who but the most dedicated hacker will bother to develop an alternative? (NIH notwithstanding, I guess.)
And I believe the reason why development of existing free software continues is because the software was originally _designed_ to be open source - that is, it is generally more legible, modular, well documented and so forth. Software developed by corporates is hardly ever so easy to follow, and most hackers will probably die of boredom before they ever get to understanding the code, let alone modifying it. (Remember Mozilla, anyone?)
So effectively, neither Compaq nor the open-source/free software community gain any of the benefits of open-sourcing their software, while Compaq's competitors pore over their software, say "ah! so that's how they did it" and write their own versions, because corporates don't need dedication - just a lot of paid programmers.
This will lose Compaq the main edge it currently has over its rivals in the Alpha supplier market. This does Compaq no good whatsoever - they get no effective return on their investment.
So, in a way, it could be argued that non-release of the source _benefits_ the open-source community because it actually gives the dedicated compiler hackers something to aim at. For Compaq, by releasing a closed, non-free compiler, is effectively allowing the continuance of unrestricted development of the existing freeware compilers.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
You'd be surprised but even some new media agencies can't get it right. It took me a year to educate the PHB to the fact that you registered _domain names_ and not _websites_. I never succeeded in educating him to the fact that domain names do _not_ all begin with "www."
In short, the corporates have taken over the net, so the Internet service companies have to be dumbed down by at least seventy IQ points. A hundred and ten if the site in question is being read by account managers and marketing staff.
--/\/\.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
If the company's name was "Theos", then they might have a case (c.f. the One-in-a-Million and McDonald's cases). However, the company's registered name is "Theos Software", not "Theos". Which effectively means they have no divine right to the domain theos.com whatsoever (let alone theos.net and theos.org, which are not really commercial TLDs). _If_ someone had registered theos-software.com before they had, they _might_ be able to argue that this was a potential source of confusion at best, a blatant case of "passing off" at worst. There could be any number of companies out there called "Theo's something-or-other" with as much right to the domain as these jokers.
Looks suspiciously to me like someone in the company finally read a superannuated article about the mcdonalds.com case and decided to try going opportunist, on the principle that the current owner on theos.com is an individual and therefore probably wouldn't know better or at the very least couldn't afford legal representation.
Jerks, the lot of 'em.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't imagine there'd be much to see. Both probes are well out of the plane of the ecliptic and nowhere near any known large bodies (Voyager 1 was shot out of the plane of the ecliptic after its rendezvous with Titan) and are well on their way out of the Solar System at a rate of some 16km/sec.
More information on the current status of the probes can be found at
http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
Actually, British Nuclear Fuels has done a fairly good job of advertising one of their power stations as a great place for a day out with the kids. This is Sellafield, formerly, erm - Windscale. Yep, that's right, the one that leaked ever so slightly.
This is not a joke. See
http://www.bnfl.co.uk/
I guess they should know whether it's dangerous or not. They're the ones who have to work there.
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
We should invite all these corporates to Europe. I don't think ESA is prohibited from commercial sponsorship. Since they could only envisage a budget the size of NASA's in their most sordid wet dreams, they ought to put the money to good use. :)
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
> DOJ is like shit outside there, no one could care less.
Not entirely true. Something similar could follow in the EU if the DoJ wins its case against Microsoft. I imagine a lot of companies are watching the case pretty closely.
> What is important, tho, is the fact that, in order to sell to public institutions (like a university), the manufacturer (DELL) has to provide a WORKING system. [snip] This means that DELL cannot sell a PC without OS. They could be sued from here to hell if somebody wants to do that.
I think you are mistaken. If they attempted to sell such a PC as a fully operational computer system, _then_ they would be in trouble. But there is nothing in European or any national law to prevent them selling PCs without OSes. Plenty of computer manufacturers can and do sell such machines every day in Europe.
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
*sigh* Politix. Puh-leeze. (I'd respond but it's _way_ offtopic here.)
/. reader seeing a website with a few emails on it and posting the link there doesn't qualify) then action could be taken against Microsoft. But even if an investigation were undertaken, I wouldn't expect any result in a hurry - we only have to look across the pond to see how long these corporate legal difficulties can take to unravel, and our legal system isn't _all_ that different from that of the USA.
Before people start jumping all over the EU, there is a certain thing called "due process" which I believe applies as much to Europe as to the USA. There would have to be some kind of investigation preceding any legal action; if the courts are satisfied there is enough _legal_ evidence (some
Additionally, for the EU to do anything about it, they would have to be aware of it. I doubt very much all that many MEPs know all that much about computers at all, though they might be dimly aware of the Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps writing to your (corrupt, of course) MEP might increase awareness just a little bit?
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
Or more likely because a fair few Americans wouldn't happen to know the national flag of the country from which their own primary language originates, so the American flag was added to avoid confusion. ;)
;)
Bigotry aside, however, this being a European web site it's natural for them to use the British flag to represent the English translation - but as American English is fast becoming a global language, it makes sense to display the American flag as well - particularly for those English-speakers from neither country who might recognise the US flag but not the flag of some offshore European island.
There you go.
"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
Possibly.... though I must admit I rather suspected that it was an attempt to reassimilate the Open Source mob by killing the obfuscation between "free as in free will" and "free as in free beer". My original understanding of the FSF's ideals were that they were more strongly geared towards the latter, rather than the former. It _appears_ that the FSF is disassociating itself from the "free beer" stance (held, if not by the FSF itself, then by a number of its advocates) in favour of "free will". If so, this is a welcome development.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I don't really understand the mentality of hardware manufacturers who seem to think that publishing details on how to program their hardware directly somehow threatens their market share. After all, a "black-box" developers' guide doesn't really give anyone that much of an insight into how the hardware actually _works_, so I honestly can't see how their competitors can use it against them (the latest bogus argument I've heard for withholding specs).
Time was, in the days before hardware became complicated, when it was dead easy to write to, say, Motorola and get them to send you the specs for the 68B54 chip which was the key device in every Acorn Econet system. As a result, there were lots of different fileservers available for the Econet, and it was possible to plug in most computers you'd care to name (down to and including the ZX Spectrum, so I'm told!) to an Econet system. Did this harm Motorola in any way? Of course not - they sold many more 68B54 chips than they would have done otherwise.
If this recent announcement amounts to anything, this is a welcome change of tune - it's about time the hardware manufacturers took this line again. Producers of soundcards, 3D cards, tuner cards and PCI modems - listen up!
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I'll try to explain more clearly the way I see it - or perhaps, the way I think Compaq is seeing it.
Compaq is a hardware supplier. This much is true. But to a lot of customers out there, one Alpha system is much the same as another, whatever the badge - therefore hardware suppliers must also offer value-added services.
Their compiler is one such value-added service. This compiler, because it is a kickass compiler, gives Compaq an advantage over rivals who don't have a kickass compiler for their DEC systems.
This is not to say you can't install an alternative compiler on a Compaq Alpha (or any other Alpha box for that matter). You just won't have the kickass compiler unless you get the Compaq Alpha.
So, in short, the sales-speak goes thus: "If you want an Alpha machine where you get the most real work done for your money, get a Compaq Alpha with our snazzy new compiler."
If _everyone_ had a good optimised compiler, Compaq doesn't have quite as strong a sales pitch.
Is that any clearer?
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
[I've based this post on the PDF document someone, I've forgotten who, kindly posted on this board - not on the whole report. I don't have $995 to spare, funnily enough.]
;)
Considering the amount of hype Linux has received in the past few months, it is only to be expected that a report such as this would be forthcoming. I think it is important to bear in mind that while the report does not truly compare like for like, it is probably necessary that a report such as this _is_ produced before the general populace start expecting too much of the Linux community, and when they are disappointed, turn away from you never to return.
The report does bring to light a number of reasons why I and other other sysadmins I know have generally steered clear of Linux in favour of *BSD and commercial UNIX systems - and, when the occasion has demanded it, Windows NT. I know this may seem like blasphemy to many readers, but corporate necessity wins over any prejudices or principles.
Pricing: I don't think anyone will argue about this. Linux is, in fact, cheaper than all the others.
Scalability: Linux is not as scalable as operating systems such as Solaris and HP/UX because it was never designed to be so. It was originally designed for an x86 platform, and has only relatively recently emerged as a contender in the mid-range server market. Thus it is to be expected that it is perhaps not quite as scalable as its commercially-available counterparts. I doubt that anyone would seriously care to dispute this.
Reliability, availability, serviceability: I believe the same holds to be true. Linux was originally designed as a home hacker's system, not as a mission-critical server platform. While great strides have been made in this area as Intel and other x86 systems have become bigger and better - and thus thrust the PC into the low-end server arena - there is still a long way to go. Beowulf (not investigated in the report) is to my knowledge the only Linux clustering solution currently available. SMP resource management is still rather limited.
Here the report admits to a lack of hard evidence about system stability, at least in terms of mean time between system failures. To quote the report verbatim, "anecdotal evidence abounds." (I've heard of Linux systems whose uptime has exceeded a year, though in my rather limited experience with Linux I have yet to witness this. I've seen uptimes of about six months with FreeBSD, and a maximum of about three weeks under Windows NT. The HP9000 I'm logged into only has a current uptime of four days, but since it's a development machine that doesn't mean a lot.)
Internet functions: the only gripe here is about availability of good commercial e-commerce applications for Linux - something of which the readership here is only too aware, I hope!
Distributed Enterprise Services: likewise.
System Management: The report has quite a few good things to say about linuxconf, and does list a number of shortcomings in the system management tools of alternative OSes, so I don't see a problem here.
PC Client Support: Samba gets a mention (which is good), but again the gripe here is lack of good commercial software for Linux.
So, in short, the report doesn't really slag off Linux all that badly. The general tone of the report, if you ask me, seems to be that Linux is getting there but for any serious large-scale server applications, it is an idea whose time has not yet come. And I for one am inclined to agree. It doesn't yet have the scalability and resilience of those operating systems designed for high-end servers (notwithstanding the operating system itself may be more stable -- but what good is a stable OS if your data is lost on the day when it _does_ crash?) and it doesn't yet have the commercial software to make a good system a great system.
So, in short, I don't believe the report is saying that Linux is a bad system. It's also not telling us anything new. It _is_ a viable system, for the low-end server market; and it's a damn sight cheaper than anything else out there. The WSJ editorialized it to death. The report itself is quite reasonable.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
I started writing this post an hour and a half ago, then was called away to a meeting so if I'm reiterating sentiments that have already been voiced, I apologise.
As far as Compaq are concerned, it's probably not in their interests to open-source their compiler. It is a value added service, not an essential. If you want an open-source compiler you can always use gcc. If you want their compiler, you'll have to accept it on the terms that it _is_ a value added service (and by all accounts, an absolutely stunning compiler), is closed-source, and is probably going to cost you.
Sure, it would be _nice_ if it was open-source, but I believe it would be counter-productive.
Open-sourcing their compiler might effectively _prevent_ the development of existing freeware compilers for Alpha systems, since the compiler and source are already there, who but the most dedicated hacker will bother to develop an alternative? (NIH notwithstanding, I guess.)
And I believe the reason why development of existing free software continues is because the software was originally _designed_ to be open source - that is, it is generally more legible, modular, well documented and so forth. Software developed by corporates is hardly ever so easy to follow, and most hackers will probably die of boredom before they ever get to understanding the code, let alone modifying it. (Remember Mozilla, anyone?)
So effectively, neither Compaq nor the open-source/free software community gain any of the benefits of open-sourcing their software, while Compaq's competitors pore over their software, say "ah! so that's how they did it" and write their own versions, because corporates don't need dedication - just a lot of paid programmers.
This will lose Compaq the main edge it currently has over its rivals in the Alpha supplier market. This does Compaq no good whatsoever - they get no effective return on their investment.
So, in a way, it could be argued that non-release of the source _benefits_ the open-source community because it actually gives the dedicated compiler hackers something to aim at. For Compaq, by releasing a closed, non-free compiler, is effectively allowing the continuance of unrestricted development of the existing freeware compilers.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
..... that claimed Microsoft was releasing MS-Linux. Shame I lost the reference to it. *sigh*
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
9pm PST.... that would be midnight EST (or midnight CDT if that's started yet) on April 1, wouldn't it? ;)
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
You'd be surprised but even some new media agencies can't get it right. It took me a year to educate the PHB to the fact that you registered _domain names_ and not _websites_. I never succeeded in educating him to the fact that domain names do _not_ all begin with "www."
/\/\ .
In short, the corporates have taken over the net, so the Internet service companies have to be dumbed down by at least seventy IQ points. A hundred and ten if the site in question is being read by account managers and marketing staff.
--
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
Whoa. Not quite.
If the company's name was "Theos", then they might have a case (c.f. the One-in-a-Million and McDonald's cases). However, the company's registered name is "Theos Software", not "Theos". Which effectively means they have no divine right to the domain theos.com whatsoever (let alone theos.net and theos.org, which are not really commercial TLDs). _If_ someone had registered theos-software.com before they had, they _might_ be able to argue that this was a potential source of confusion at best, a blatant case of "passing off" at worst. There could be any number of companies out there called "Theo's something-or-other" with as much right to the domain as these jokers.
Looks suspiciously to me like someone in the company finally read a superannuated article about the mcdonalds.com case and decided to try going opportunist, on the principle that the current owner on theos.com is an individual and therefore probably wouldn't know better or at the very least couldn't afford legal representation.
Jerks, the lot of 'em.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."