...nobody would need to keep secrets, and probably nobody would *want* to keep secrets unless they were in violation of the law.
How about victims of rape, assult, child abuse, or other such crimes? They have done nothing wrong but the fact of the matter is that they are judged differently (damaged goods, emotionally "broken," were asking for it, whatever) by other people. Being a victim is not their fault but removing the protective mask of privacy threatens to take away their good name, and for what? To make the general public feel a little safer because balance of freedom-to-tyrrany has moved a little farther away from freedom?
Funny you say that. In some jurisdictions it's actually illegal to be anonymous anymore. Sure, you can pay cash, but there's a camera watching the checkout line so if *they* want to know who is buying 2600 just look it up on the tape. That's why I "contract" to a random kid at the bookstore to buy it for me for $10 bucks. More expensive, but at least *they* don't know I'm buying 2600.
Seriously though, there was a recent case in West Virginia where a guy was arrested for wearing a Grinch mask. There's a law there prohibiting a person from disguising themselves in public. What aggravates me more than the mere existence and enforcement of such a law is that when I was talking about it with my coworkers they pretty much all said "Good -- I have nothing to fear/hide..."
The point is that this is supposed to be a FREE country. How is freedom supposed to continue when nobody has the balls to stand up and point out that we have laws on the books, namely the Patriot Act, that suppress portions of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments? If *they* can get away with this now then there's probably nothing *they* won't get away with!
So because Microsoft was late to the digital download market, they figured that releasing a bunch of digital music stores based on WMA and meant to be used by WindowsMediaPlayer they were going to somehow make a dent in iTMS revenue and market share?
And on the heels of that "success" they are now pushing the next gen Xbox as a competitor to the iPod? I bet they're all standing around in Redmond wondering "I just don't understand why this isn't working..."
Here's to hoping they still don't get it for a long time to come!
No kidding! It's pretty funny that after years of making less than impressive operating systems, what is now hurting MS is that they made a good one and now people aren't upgrading. If something works, why change it?
I don't think this is unique to Windows, though. How many shops are still on older versions of Solaris, Red Hat, or Suse? Heck, even Steve Jobs can't understand why people on OS X 10.2 and previous have not upgraded yet. Unless you *have* to have the latest and greatest -- or are running some sort of R&D operation -- most businesses are simply going to stick with what works.
Uh... why do Linux zealots like to load linux on everything from an iPod to a toaster? Because you can, sure. But also because it's a natural talent. Maybe I like analyzing your fixations. Get over it.
What's funny to me is that I meant that post as a tongue in cheek joke (the SNL and Rodney King references should have given that away). What I didn't expect was for anyone to take it seriously or for it to be modded as "insightful."
Just ask Microsoft -- if not for so many pirated copies of Windows all over the world they would have lost market share to Linux or something else. They just settled a piracy dispute with the government of Thailand. THOUSANDS of government computers had pirated copies of Windows and Thailand settled with Microsoft for $1 per computer. The last time I checked on NewEgg.com, an OEM copy of WindowsXP Pro costs $140. Therefore, it's worth $139 / machine to Microsoft to make sure Linux is *not* installed...
"Why let them determine something's retail viability?"
Because thier retail sales account for 9% of GDP alone. Hell, if they want to set foreign policy they could get away with it (which they kind of do, in a way, since they also represent 12% of US imports from China).
Wives are not free. Just the expense of dating, presents, a wedding ring, etc puts a hooker WAY ahead in the cost/benefit equation if all that matters is sex. But your wife represents so much more to you than just sex... so why make the demeaning assertion to the contrary?
But beyond that, put in proper perspective, you get what you pay for, so in comparing your wife to a hooker you have to concede that there are things beyond just sex that make it worth marrying her. Likewise, there's more to a computer than just a mere operating system that make it worth the expense, as any Mac user will remind you.
The Linux community gauges everything in terms of fear and threat. "Microsoft is a threat." "Mac OS is not a threat." "Don't fear the Penguins."
This fixation on fear could be explained though. Do you really think Linux Zealots were jocks in high school? It's more likely they were geeky moma's boys for whom interaction with the outside world was all about fear. Fear of getting physicallly beaten. Fear of having their lunch money stolen. Fear of still being a virgin when they turn 30. Fear of someone undermining what they thought was a brilliant post on/.
Some have come to grips with this fear but other have not. Instead, these latter types act out against their fear through aggression in the form of first-person-shooter video games and flame wars. They engage in anti-social activites like reading books about fantasy and magic, dreaming of worlds and cosmologies where they can be wizards, powerful warriors, magicians, and other important people. Occassionally they commune with other Linux zealots for a game of D&D but this form of real human interaction is rare.
Linux zealots need to realize that there is no reason for their fragile psyche. They are people with many wonderful qualities. They are good enough, smart enough, and darnit, (some) people like them. Why can't we all just get along without worrying about what threatens us? Hmmm?
At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream.
There's no *reason* to introduce Linux into the mainstream either, for that matter. But a quick and dirty programming environment allowing marginal programmers to make adequate apps today is good. And for an elite programmer like you, it's even better because when these marginal apps need to be upgraded to something "real" then you have a client who pays real cash money for your elite experience.
So which is more important to you: a "superior" but not-accepted-in-the-mainstream desktop platform like Linux, or the introduction of a tool that puts the creation of simple desktop apps easily within reach of novices? What is your ideal solution?
According to the RealBasic website, the standard version for Linux is going to be free "because the linux community expects free stuff." Don't expect the source to be open, however.
While a slick desktop would help the quick adoption of Linux, being able to EASILY and quickly write ad hoc business applications from within linux will help more. The fact that you can write your apps using the Windows, Mac, or Linux IDE and then target all of the same will allow a company to make a gradual shift as well instead of balking at an all-or-nothing choice. Put this product right alongside Firefox and OpenOffice as tools that could seriously undermine the future hegemony of Microsoft on the business desktop.
Doesn't Intel have all kinds of chip fabrication capacity that could -- in theory -- be converted over to stamping out PPC chips instead of x86 chips? IBM would need to license such a move or sell the IP, but is that such a reach considering that IBM has been spinning off their hardware businesses (Hitachi hard drives, Lenovo Desktops) of late?
And if Intel were going to produce a CPU for Apple, why is the assumption x86? Mac OS X Server on Itanium, anyone?
Mostly likely, though, is that Intel's wireless chips are on the menu. WiMax is around the corner and we all know how Apple oh-so-loves to be on the bleeding edge of technology...
SAMBA couldn't use the name SMB
on
OpenBSD 3.7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Back when SAMBA was in 2.0 or thereabouts I looked at the samba.org site for the first time and found a bit on how the name "samba" came to be. The original intention was to simply call it SMB but there was concern about using a registered name so the name SAMBA was arrived upon by grepping a dictionary file based on the letters SMB in that order.
It was certainly not the result of an attempt to come up with some cute name for the software.
Saying that a browser should not support full standards because people generally don't write standards compliant code is absurd. Make the browser support the standards and then expose the faulty css/html writers for the hacks they are. Just because someone is too stupid or too lazy to follow the standard is no reason to effectively abandon the standard!
I am developing a theory about hardcore linux users. For a long time I could never understand their fetish with essentially breaking otherwise acceptable consumer devices in order to get linux to run on them "just because I can."
I am now convinced that if given a wheel, a hardcore linux user will seek to reinvent that wheel in some archane manner while the thought of *using* that wheel to actually get something done -- like say, transportation? -- would be met with the questions like "why would you want to do *that*?" or "I could build a new wheel from duck tape and bailing wire instead of rubber!" etc, etc, etc...
Maybe there is something about drinking the Linux koolaid that I don't understand, but why the hell would you take a 100% functional iPod and load linux on it just to yield a device with "playback capabilities [that] are far from perfect"???
According to the link, CBR MP3 plays the best on the linux iPod, but there is still skipping; VBR MP3 plays at the wrong speeds; AAC support is horrid. So you take a music player, add linux, and are thrilled that you have defeatured the device by 80%... and this is supposed to make sense???
Why don't you linux freaks do something *really* creative like hacking your car's computer and loading linux on it? Sure, "driving capabilities will be far from perfect" but stalling every two miles is worth being the first linux communist on your block to have a linux powered Chevy, right?
Some of the known limitations of Cassini: 1) Only one ASP.NET application per port. 2) No support HTTPS 3) No support of authentication (NTLM, digest) 4) Only localhost requests
It's #4 that is the show-stopper since the original post implies (or at least I inferred from it) that content is to be served to more than just localhost requests.
If you are leaning toward a Mono implemetation, there is the aforementioned mod_mono as well as XSP -- more info here.
Is there really that much of a chance that Zend will offend enough PHP'ers that this could be a big boost for Ruby on Rails or any other open source alternative to PHP?
Also, would it be accurate to presume that ASP.NET on MONO is not something of interest to PHP developers, but more of an alternative to J2EE folks?
Slashdot Mirror
...nobody would need to keep secrets, and probably nobody would *want* to keep secrets unless they were in violation of the law.
How about victims of rape, assult, child abuse, or other such crimes? They have done nothing wrong but the fact of the matter is that they are judged differently (damaged goods, emotionally "broken," were asking for it, whatever) by other people. Being a victim is not their fault but removing the protective mask of privacy threatens to take away their good name, and for what? To make the general public feel a little safer because balance of freedom-to-tyrrany has moved a little farther away from freedom?
Funny you say that. In some jurisdictions it's actually illegal to be anonymous anymore. Sure, you can pay cash, but there's a camera watching the checkout line so if *they* want to know who is buying 2600 just look it up on the tape. That's why I "contract" to a random kid at the bookstore to buy it for me for $10 bucks. More expensive, but at least *they* don't know I'm buying 2600.
Seriously though, there was a recent case in West Virginia where a guy was arrested for wearing a Grinch mask. There's a law there prohibiting a person from disguising themselves in public. What aggravates me more than the mere existence and enforcement of such a law is that when I was talking about it with my coworkers they pretty much all said "Good -- I have nothing to fear/hide..."
The point is that this is supposed to be a FREE country. How is freedom supposed to continue when nobody has the balls to stand up and point out that we have laws on the books, namely the Patriot Act, that suppress portions of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments? If *they* can get away with this now then there's probably nothing *they* won't get away with!
So because Microsoft was late to the digital download market, they figured that releasing a bunch of digital music stores based on WMA and meant to be used by WindowsMediaPlayer they were going to somehow make a dent in iTMS revenue and market share?
And on the heels of that "success" they are now pushing the next gen Xbox as a competitor to the iPod? I bet they're all standing around in Redmond wondering "I just don't understand why this isn't working..."
Here's to hoping they still don't get it for a long time to come!
And they have so much in common too -- unleashing anxiety and terror on the computer using people of the world...
No kidding! It's pretty funny that after years of making less than impressive operating systems, what is now hurting MS is that they made a good one and now people aren't upgrading. If something works, why change it?
I don't think this is unique to Windows, though. How many shops are still on older versions of Solaris, Red Hat, or Suse? Heck, even Steve Jobs can't understand why people on OS X 10.2 and previous have not upgraded yet. Unless you *have* to have the latest and greatest -- or are running some sort of R&D operation -- most businesses are simply going to stick with what works.
Why do you psychoanalyze other people?
Uh... why do Linux zealots like to load linux on everything from an iPod to a toaster? Because you can, sure. But also because it's a natural talent. Maybe I like analyzing your fixations. Get over it.
What's funny to me is that I meant that post as a tongue in cheek joke (the SNL and Rodney King references should have given that away). What I didn't expect was for anyone to take it seriously or for it to be modded as "insightful."
Oh well...
Just ask Microsoft -- if not for so many pirated copies of Windows all over the world they would have lost market share to Linux or something else. They just settled a piracy dispute with the government of Thailand. THOUSANDS of government computers had pirated copies of Windows and Thailand settled with Microsoft for $1 per computer. The last time I checked on NewEgg.com, an OEM copy of WindowsXP Pro costs $140. Therefore, it's worth $139 / machine to Microsoft to make sure Linux is *not* installed...
"Why let them determine something's retail viability?"
Because thier retail sales account for 9% of GDP alone. Hell, if they want to set foreign policy they could get away with it (which they kind of do, in a way, since they also represent 12% of US imports from China).
Technical superiority doesn't kill the competition. Just ask Mac OS X.
I'm partial to the classics from O'Reilly...
Uh... partition files in 10MB chunks with your favorite zip/rar/compression scheme?
that Intel will merge with Nokia.
You read it here first!
Wives are not free. Just the expense of dating, presents, a wedding ring, etc puts a hooker WAY ahead in the cost/benefit equation if all that matters is sex. But your wife represents so much more to you than just sex... so why make the demeaning assertion to the contrary?
But beyond that, put in proper perspective, you get what you pay for, so in comparing your wife to a hooker you have to concede that there are things beyond just sex that make it worth marrying her. Likewise, there's more to a computer than just a mere operating system that make it worth the expense, as any Mac user will remind you.
The Linux community gauges everything in terms of fear and threat. "Microsoft is a threat." "Mac OS is not a threat." "Don't fear the Penguins."
/.
This fixation on fear could be explained though. Do you really think Linux Zealots were jocks in high school? It's more likely they were geeky moma's boys for whom interaction with the outside world was all about fear. Fear of getting physicallly beaten. Fear of having their lunch money stolen. Fear of still being a virgin when they turn 30. Fear of someone undermining what they thought was a brilliant post on
Some have come to grips with this fear but other have not. Instead, these latter types act out against their fear through aggression in the form of first-person-shooter video games and flame wars. They engage in anti-social activites like reading books about fantasy and magic, dreaming of worlds and cosmologies where they can be wizards, powerful warriors, magicians, and other important people. Occassionally they commune with other Linux zealots for a game of D&D but this form of real human interaction is rare.
Linux zealots need to realize that there is no reason for their fragile psyche. They are people with many wonderful qualities. They are good enough, smart enough, and darnit, (some) people like them. Why can't we all just get along without worrying about what threatens us? Hmmm?
At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream.
There's no *reason* to introduce Linux into the mainstream either, for that matter. But a quick and dirty programming environment allowing marginal programmers to make adequate apps today is good. And for an elite programmer like you, it's even better because when these marginal apps need to be upgraded to something "real" then you have a client who pays real cash money for your elite experience.
So which is more important to you: a "superior" but not-accepted-in-the-mainstream desktop platform like Linux, or the introduction of a tool that puts the creation of simple desktop apps easily within reach of novices? What is your ideal solution?
According to the RealBasic website, the standard version for Linux is going to be free "because the linux community expects free stuff." Don't expect the source to be open, however.
While a slick desktop would help the quick adoption of Linux, being able to EASILY and quickly write ad hoc business applications from within linux will help more. The fact that you can write your apps using the Windows, Mac, or Linux IDE and then target all of the same will allow a company to make a gradual shift as well instead of balking at an all-or-nothing choice. Put this product right alongside Firefox and OpenOffice as tools that could seriously undermine the future hegemony of Microsoft on the business desktop.
Doesn't Intel have all kinds of chip fabrication capacity that could -- in theory -- be converted over to stamping out PPC chips instead of x86 chips? IBM would need to license such a move or sell the IP, but is that such a reach considering that IBM has been spinning off their hardware businesses (Hitachi hard drives, Lenovo Desktops) of late?
And if Intel were going to produce a CPU for Apple, why is the assumption x86? Mac OS X Server on Itanium, anyone?
Mostly likely, though, is that Intel's wireless chips are on the menu. WiMax is around the corner and we all know how Apple oh-so-loves to be on the bleeding edge of technology...
Back when SAMBA was in 2.0 or thereabouts I looked at the samba.org site for the first time and found a bit on how the name "samba" came to be. The original intention was to simply call it SMB but there was concern about using a registered name so the name SAMBA was arrived upon by grepping a dictionary file based on the letters SMB in that order.
It was certainly not the result of an attempt to come up with some cute name for the software.
Saying that a browser should not support full standards because people generally don't write standards compliant code is absurd. Make the browser support the standards and then expose the faulty css/html writers for the hacks they are. Just because someone is too stupid or too lazy to follow the standard is no reason to effectively abandon the standard!
*** dons amateur psychologist's hat ***
I am developing a theory about hardcore linux users. For a long time I could never understand their fetish with essentially breaking otherwise acceptable consumer devices in order to get linux to run on them "just because I can."
I am now convinced that if given a wheel, a hardcore linux user will seek to reinvent that wheel in some archane manner while the thought of *using* that wheel to actually get something done -- like say, transportation? -- would be met with the questions like "why would you want to do *that*?" or "I could build a new wheel from duck tape and bailing wire instead of rubber!" etc, etc, etc...
*** doffs amateur psychologist's hat ***
Maybe there is something about drinking the Linux koolaid that I don't understand, but why the hell would you take a 100% functional iPod and load linux on it just to yield a device with "playback capabilities [that] are far from perfect"???
According to the link, CBR MP3 plays the best on the linux iPod, but there is still skipping; VBR MP3 plays at the wrong speeds; AAC support is horrid. So you take a music player, add linux, and are thrilled that you have defeatured the device by 80%... and this is supposed to make sense???
Why don't you linux freaks do something *really* creative like hacking your car's computer and loading linux on it? Sure, "driving capabilities will be far from perfect" but stalling every two miles is worth being the first linux communist on your block to have a linux powered Chevy, right?
Some of the known limitations of Cassini:
1) Only one ASP.NET application per port.
2) No support HTTPS
3) No support of authentication (NTLM, digest)
4) Only localhost requests
It's #4 that is the show-stopper since the original post implies (or at least I inferred from it) that content is to be served to more than just localhost requests.
If you are leaning toward a Mono implemetation, there is the aforementioned mod_mono as well as XSP -- more info here.
Is there really that much of a chance that Zend will offend enough PHP'ers that this could be a big boost for Ruby on Rails or any other open source alternative to PHP?
Also, would it be accurate to presume that ASP.NET on MONO is not something of interest to PHP developers, but more of an alternative to J2EE folks?
Oddly enough, when I did a Google search for "French Riviera" I was offered ads for vacationing in Italy and Spain... touche!