"Can Linux Crash Windows? That's the goal of the upstart operating system."
Man, I have a HUGE problem with statements like that. The goal of Linux, IIRC, is to provide a Free Unix-like operating system. If Microsoft looses marketshare to such a system, so be it. If Free Software developers seek to make Linux more usable for Windows users, so be it. To say that THE goal is to crash Windows does nothing but give ammo to people who characterize Linux as a taillight-following reaction to Microsoft. If you care, it also gives credibility to Microsoft's DOJ defense.
Also, am I the only person who cringes when a journalist writes that Linux rhymes with "cynics"? I first saw that in Newsweek and attributed it to their "cutesy" style of mock journalism. I don't like the subtle implication that Linux users are cynical. I'm sure the writers in question will claim that it's innocent and unintentional, but how hard is it to just include ("LEH-nucks") instead of saying "rhymes with cynics"?
I plan to write followups to both "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "The Magic Cauldron". I have a few ideas in mind for titles. Hopefully, these will be in the same spirit as the originals:
1. Knights of the Boardroom Table 2. Open Sorcery 3. A Code Jester in King Richard's Court 4. Slaying the Proprietary Dragon 5. Use the GPL or I'll Get Medieval on Your Arse
(All due respect to ESR, of course. I'm just having fun here.)
Is cybersquatting really that evil? I've always thought of the domain name business as something similar to real estate. If I know a company wants to put a mall in the vacant lot across the street, it's a good idea for me to buy that lot before they do.
I could see exceptions in cases where the name infringes on a trademark. In the real world, though, most of us who want to register a domain spend a long time trying to find names that aren't already taken. So AOL's "first" choice was taken -- boo hoo. Do what the rest of us who can't afford legal departments do -- pay up or pick a different name.
I don't think that cybersquatting is a real _classy_ thing to do, but I'm uncomfortable with legislation against it. IMHO, lawyers and politicians have a history of Bad Ideas when it comes to technology. How clear will those laws be? Who wants to be dragged into court to defend their site because an advertising agency decided they should have your domain name?
Finally, I don't think a cybersquatting law would matter in this case. The domain was actually in use. There does not appear to be any intent to infringe on the aol trademark. Does just using the letters 'a', 'o', and 'l' make you a trademark violator?
Doesn't the "geek" stereotype includes religious devotion to one's favorite editor, language, and OS?
I hate to imply that this immaturity is OK, but what did Mindcraft expect? If you go into the business of "proving" that one operating system is better than another, you'd better budget for a really good mailserver. A Windows vs. Mac comparison would have generated similar responses.
What good does posting these emails on their website do? It strikes me as a PR move to say, "See how immature Linux advocates are?" As another poster said, where are the emails which systematically point out where the study was flawed? If anything, this makes me think Mindcraft is choosing sides. A real testing and benchmarking company should be above saying, "See what jerks their users are?"
What if slashdot set up a page that includes nothing but the "Linux sucks. NT rulez" comments that show up here? Would the immaturity and foul language of those posts make certain NT advocates look like brats?
Having said all that, those responses were pretty childish. I'm afraid that their real harm lies in the fact that Linux is not a single company, therefore Linux advocates ARE its marketing department. I don't think those responses were very good marketing.
Technically, I'm curious how they will pull off a working signup icon in the BIOS. A splash screen is one thing, but something that actually interacts with the OS?
I wonder if the "icon" would kick in before the operating system. In order to work like this, the code for initializing the modem, dialing, connecting, etc. would have to be in the BIOS as well. I don't see that happening.
Alternatively, forcibly putting an icon on the desktop in Windows requires specific Win32 calls. Putting that in the BIOS sounds like quite a task. Not to mention you run the risk of shipping computers that won't boot unless Windows is installed.
I could be wrong, but I think the article may have taken some liberty with the notion of a working AOL Signup icon in the BIOS. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, but that idea just sounds like a tremendous pain.
Perhaps articles should be moderated like comments.;)
If this article had been posted as a comment, it would have received a -1 for flamebait. I read a lot of flammable opinions without much data to back them up.
There was one scene in the movie which came right after the IBM PC was released with DOS (early 1980's). "Gates" and "Ballmer" were talking about Apple while Gates is hunched over an IBM PC keyboard (before the invention of ergonomics, apparently).
In typical TV fashion, you can see a reverse-image of the green-screen monitor on Gates' face (Geez, man, turn down the brightness!).
I can't fit bagels in the slots. Half of the time, my toast comes out charred and burnt. There's no easy way to clean out the crumbs without making a mess....
Thanks for correcting my misuse of "federalism". It's been a while since my Constitutional Law class.:)
"Centralization" or "central government" would have been a more accurate choice of words. "Federalism" in the context of the Constitution has a different meaning than what I intended.
What is "New Federalism"? Also (just to get more off-topic) wasn't Madison the original author of the Federalist Papers?
Please disregard these questions if they will result in my being billed.:)
What bothers me is the legislators thinking that they can/should mandate this at a federal level. This is an issue which is best dealt with by the communities. I at least have a chance of being heard by my local library and school district.
Unfortunately, many Americans don't seem to understand that there are, by design, several "governments" in the U.S. Some laws should be federal in scope, some should only be state or local laws. Problems arise when the federal government starts meddling in affairs best handled at a local level. Community standards are not a "one-size-fits-all" matter.
I am also concerned about the TYPES of "solutions" legislators are pursuing in the wake of Littleton. Why is it that all of these solutions seem to involve restrictions of personal freedoms and/or legislation of dubious Consitutionality? Don't they have anything constructive to add?
Shame on you, Congress -- especially those of you who claim to be for less federal government. I guess growing federalism is OK when it furthers your own agenda.
It was pure silliness -- inspired by the "version-number-as-marketing-tool" conditions you just described.
I think the original "somebody already has" comment was actually directed at the AC who called the idea "absurd".
I added the comment because people sometimes assume that slashdot posters are trying to contribute serious, well-thought-out insights and ideas to the forum. That would be OTHER posters, not me.:)
Is Linus nuts? It's 1999 and he's still only releasing version 2.x? Look around, man! The Red Hat distro is up to version 6.0. SuSE is up to 6.1 (clearly, it's more up-to-date).
And Microsoft? Their development environments will all be 7.0 soon (clearly more up-to-date than any of those Linux products). Why, that's why MS renamed NT 5.0 to Windows 2000! Why buy NT 5.0 when I can have Red Hat 6.0 -- it's a bigger number, man!
For the sake of marketing, I propose a MASSIVE jump in kernel major numbers. Then all the distros can fall in line.
This fall, Linux 2.4 should be released as Linux 2001.0.0. Red Hat, SuSE, and everyone else can release with the same version and clear up all this confusion. Dev kernels can use the same system as now (2001.1.0, etc.)
/* Someone will take me seriously. Watch. It happens every time. Bunch of literalist geeks.... */
Retail bookseller Barnes And Noble has confirmed reports that they have a "task force" designed to counter the competition of local libraries.
Of course I made that up (please don't sue me). But it provides an analogy for "Microsoft vs. Linux". Although for-profit players like Red Hat, Penguin, VA, etc. are certainly involved now, the software collectively called "Linux" is still free. Most of the contributions have come from people who give away their work for the good of the community.
That phrase -- "the good of the community" -- is important. I liken Free Software to a charity project. To treat it like "competition" is like a cafeteria trying to crush the local Salvation Army soup kitchen. It exists because people want it, need it, and are willing to contribute to it. It's a community, not a company.
I know that this comparison is not pure. Many Free Software advocates openly express hatred of Microsoft. Many openly state that they would love to see their software bury Microsoft. Some of this may be due to "hate-the-rich-guy" syndrome. Some of it may be due to very real philosophical and technical objections. I wouldn't expect any business to take this lying down. I would expect a defense -- but I don't think "defense" is something Mircosoft plays well. Instead, they counter by going on offense against Free Software.
Still, to me at least, it's like watching Sears tell people not to get clothes from the local Goodwill. If some people like the Goodwill clothes better, whose fault is that?
Slashdot Mirror
Whywouldyouthinktoomuchcaffeineisbad? It'sfine. Noproblems. Iwrotethisin3seconds!
Oh, you wanted one that was actually connected to something? :)
"Can Linux Crash Windows? That's the goal of the upstart operating system."
Man, I have a HUGE problem with statements like that. The goal of Linux, IIRC, is to provide a Free Unix-like operating system. If Microsoft looses marketshare to such a system, so be it. If Free Software developers seek to make Linux more usable for Windows users, so be it. To say that THE goal is to crash Windows does nothing but give ammo to people who characterize Linux as a taillight-following reaction to Microsoft. If you care, it also gives credibility to Microsoft's DOJ defense.
Also, am I the only person who cringes when a journalist writes that Linux rhymes with "cynics"? I first saw that in Newsweek and attributed it to their "cutesy" style of mock journalism. I don't like the subtle implication that Linux users are cynical. I'm sure the writers in question will claim that it's innocent and unintentional, but how hard is it to just include ("LEH-nucks") instead of saying "rhymes with cynics"?
You fool! How can you give out the formula like that!? Now we'll have nothing but posters with high default scores! :)
And some of us untalented ones are doing ok, too. :)
If someone had come to you 20 years ago and said you would be rooting for IBM someday, you would have laughed.
No... YOU ask them. I'm afraid to.
:)
(Maybe we could call it the GNU Public Laser)
I keep my threshold at -1 anyway. :)
FWIW, I think this whole thread should be a 5.
I plan to write followups to both "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and "The Magic Cauldron". I have a few ideas in mind for titles. Hopefully, these will be in the same spirit as the originals:
1. Knights of the Boardroom Table
2. Open Sorcery
3. A Code Jester in King Richard's Court
4. Slaying the Proprietary Dragon
5. Use the GPL or I'll Get Medieval on Your Arse
(All due respect to ESR, of course. I'm just having fun here.)
Is cybersquatting really that evil? I've always thought of the domain name business as something similar to real estate. If I know a company wants to put a mall in the vacant lot across the street, it's a good idea for me to buy that lot before they do.
I could see exceptions in cases where the name infringes on a trademark. In the real world, though, most of us who want to register a domain spend a long time trying to find names that aren't already taken. So AOL's "first" choice was taken -- boo hoo. Do what the rest of us who can't afford legal departments do -- pay up or pick a different name.
I don't think that cybersquatting is a real _classy_ thing to do, but I'm uncomfortable with legislation against it. IMHO, lawyers and politicians have a history of Bad Ideas when it comes to technology. How clear will those laws be? Who wants to be dragged into court to defend their site because an advertising agency decided they should have your domain name?
Finally, I don't think a cybersquatting law would matter in this case. The domain was actually in use. There does not appear to be any intent to infringe on the aol trademark. Does just using the letters 'a', 'o', and 'l' make you a trademark violator?
It was funny and I laughed.
It was posted by an AC and it wasn't a half-page long-winded essay, so it was moderated to -1.
Slashdot is great. It's best when people don't take it too seriously, though.
"...beowulf..."
/* run away */
...film at 11. :)
Doesn't the "geek" stereotype includes religious devotion to one's favorite editor, language, and OS?
I hate to imply that this immaturity is OK, but what did Mindcraft expect? If you go into the business of "proving" that one operating system is better than another, you'd better budget for a really good mailserver. A Windows vs. Mac comparison would have generated similar responses.
What good does posting these emails on their website do? It strikes me as a PR move to say, "See how immature Linux advocates are?" As another poster said, where are the emails which systematically point out where the study was flawed? If anything, this makes me think Mindcraft is choosing sides. A real testing and benchmarking company should be above saying, "See what jerks their users are?"
What if slashdot set up a page that includes nothing but the "Linux sucks. NT rulez" comments that show up here? Would the immaturity and foul language of those posts make certain NT advocates look like brats?
Having said all that, those responses were pretty childish. I'm afraid that their real harm lies in the fact that Linux is not a single company, therefore Linux advocates ARE its marketing department. I don't think those responses were very good marketing.
Technically, I'm curious how they will pull off a working signup icon in the BIOS. A splash screen is one thing, but something that actually interacts with the OS?
I wonder if the "icon" would kick in before the operating system. In order to work like this, the code for initializing the modem, dialing, connecting, etc. would have to be in the BIOS as well. I don't see that happening.
Alternatively, forcibly putting an icon on the desktop in Windows requires specific Win32 calls. Putting that in the BIOS sounds like quite a task. Not to mention you run the risk of shipping computers that won't boot unless Windows is installed.
I could be wrong, but I think the article may have taken some liberty with the notion of a working AOL Signup icon in the BIOS. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, but that idea just sounds like a tremendous pain.
That was funny. You got me thinking about other Fox computer-related specials:
America's Funniest Core Dumps
When Spammers Attack
I Married A SysAdmin
Real Life Reboots
Totally Shocking Backups -- Caught On Tape
/* Alright -- quit yer groanin' */
Perhaps articles should be moderated like comments. ;)
If this article had been posted as a comment, it would have received a -1 for flamebait. I read a lot of flammable opinions without much data to back them up.
There was one scene in the movie which came right after the IBM PC was released with DOS (early 1980's). "Gates" and "Ballmer" were talking about Apple while Gates is hunched over an IBM PC keyboard (before the invention of ergonomics, apparently).
In typical TV fashion, you can see a reverse-image of the green-screen monitor on Gates' face (Geez, man, turn down the brightness!).
I could SWEAR the prompt was C:\WINDOWS>
Am I nuts or did anyone else see this?
I can't fit bagels in the slots. Half of the time, my toast comes out charred and burnt. There's no easy way to clean out the crumbs without making a mess....
Thanks for correcting my misuse of "federalism". It's been a while since my Constitutional Law class. :)
:)
"Centralization" or "central government" would have been a more accurate choice of words. "Federalism" in the context of the Constitution has a different meaning than what I intended.
What is "New Federalism"? Also (just to get more off-topic) wasn't Madison the original author of the Federalist Papers?
Please disregard these questions if they will result in my being billed.
What bothers me is the legislators thinking that they can/should mandate this at a federal level. This is an issue which is best dealt with by the communities. I at least have a chance of being heard by my local library and school district.
Unfortunately, many Americans don't seem to understand that there are, by design, several "governments" in the U.S. Some laws should be federal in scope, some should only be state or local laws. Problems arise when the federal government starts meddling in affairs best handled at a local level. Community standards are not a "one-size-fits-all" matter.
I am also concerned about the TYPES of "solutions" legislators are pursuing in the wake of Littleton. Why is it that all of these solutions seem to involve restrictions of personal freedoms and/or legislation of dubious Consitutionality? Don't they have anything constructive to add?
Shame on you, Congress -- especially those of you who claim to be for less federal government. I guess growing federalism is OK when it furthers your own agenda.
1. What kernel is Mom using?
2. Where is Mom's FTP site (ftp.momslinux.com?)
3. Is Mom completely under the GPL?
4. Can I get support from Mom?
5. Can I use Mom in a Beowulf cluster? (sorry -- if I didn't say it, someone else would)
...it'll never work. :)
It was pure silliness -- inspired by the "version-number-as-marketing-tool" conditions you just described.
:)
I think the original "somebody already has" comment was actually directed at the AC who called the idea "absurd".
I added the comment because people sometimes assume that slashdot posters are trying to contribute serious, well-thought-out insights and ideas to the forum. That would be OTHER posters, not me.
Is Linus nuts? It's 1999 and he's still only releasing version 2.x? Look around, man! The Red Hat distro is up to version 6.0. SuSE is up to 6.1 (clearly, it's more up-to-date).
And Microsoft? Their development environments will all be 7.0 soon (clearly more up-to-date than any of those Linux products). Why, that's why MS renamed NT 5.0 to Windows 2000! Why buy NT 5.0 when I can have Red Hat 6.0 -- it's a bigger number, man!
For the sake of marketing, I propose a MASSIVE jump in kernel major numbers. Then all the distros can fall in line.
This fall, Linux 2.4 should be released as Linux 2001.0.0. Red Hat, SuSE, and everyone else can release with the same version and clear up all this confusion. Dev kernels can use the same system as now (2001.1.0, etc.)
/* Someone will take me seriously. Watch. It happens every time. Bunch of literalist geeks.... */
Retail bookseller Barnes And Noble has confirmed reports that they have a "task force" designed to counter the competition of local libraries.
Of course I made that up (please don't sue me). But it provides an analogy for "Microsoft vs. Linux". Although for-profit players like Red Hat, Penguin, VA, etc. are certainly involved now, the software collectively called "Linux" is still free. Most of the contributions have come from people who give away their work for the good of the community.
That phrase -- "the good of the community" -- is important. I liken Free Software to a charity project. To treat it like "competition" is like a cafeteria trying to crush the local Salvation Army soup kitchen. It exists because people want it, need it, and are willing to contribute to it. It's a community, not a company.
I know that this comparison is not pure. Many Free Software advocates openly express hatred of Microsoft. Many openly state that they would love to see their software bury Microsoft. Some of this may be due to "hate-the-rich-guy" syndrome. Some of it may be due to very real philosophical and technical objections. I wouldn't expect any business to take this lying down. I would expect a defense -- but I don't think "defense" is something Mircosoft plays well. Instead, they counter by going on offense against Free Software.
Still, to me at least, it's like watching Sears tell people not to get clothes from the local Goodwill. If some people like the Goodwill clothes better, whose fault is that?