Well, any telnettable BBS running under OS/2 using VCOM (virtual comm port -- any internet connection can be redirected to a virtual comm port) can have whatever door game running, provided it uses BNU/X00 one for access. There is also a utility for Windows that is basically the same thing, virtual comm ports that work via telnet, but it isn't free and keys are/were closely watched (I think the keys were transmitted to the guy who wrote it.) I know there WAS a list of telnettable boards around; I do not know its current status. You might want to go to Renegade's home page -- there could be a list of telnettable boards there...
... about the whole subscription model is the presence of.NET (which is said similar to JAVA and crossplatform -- in any event, interpreted on the fly rather then compiled into native executable code, though declared "compiled" regardless) being used as backend for this "new technology." I do not know much about.NET, but I know it is not the same as a natively executable file. Therefore, it takes a performance hit. We already have many many interpreted languages with cross platformness their strength and Microsoft hasn't stated they will be providing.NET for any of the UNIX environments. Which brings me to the point of this message...
... with all this in mind,.NET clearly seems like more of a buzzword in the presence of the new subscription based Office then any real innovation. Why? ANY executable program can control its expiration, licensing, and most importantly, automatic updating. It doesn't seem very appropriate to run such a large program in an interpreted language -- past efforts by different companies have failed in that regard, atleast with Java..NET will/does have purpose, perhaps, but I question it in the largest and most commonly used software package (Office.) In fact, I will be somewhat suprised if Microsoft even makes enough sales to justify continued work on the product.
Quote: "I'm a little confused where you're coming from with that comment. Are you suggesting that the more common something becomes the less of a problem it is (which sounds completely backwards) or was that just a sort of random observation?"
I wouldn't call it a random observation or observation OF A PROBLEM. Cutting right to the chase: What the fuck kind of fascist purpose do you think the data collection is being used for? It is being used for consumer research, for crying outloud! What else would it be used for when the majority of the WWW is focused on commerce nowadays? If you see something horribly WRONG with that, you're nitpicking and yet again, are looking for another reason to get on a soapbox and complain about some idiotically perceived injustice.
2nd Quote: "Who, the school or the provider? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, if the school is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they sigend with a third party (the provider) is irrelevant. If the provider is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they signed with a third party (the school) is irrelevant. If neither is vulnerable to action by the individual then any contract they make between them is irrelevant. Or you mean the school can't take action against the provider because the contract lets them collect the data? That may be true but the school could choose not to renew the contract on those terms in future."
The idea of taking action with a school over the whole thing is absurd. Furthermore, put aside your childish American I'm-suing-you bullshit mentality (which is what your focus on the whole "legal liability" translates into) for a second and that into consideration it's nice the school is providing connection to something as dynamically moving as the Internet in the first place -- mabye students should appreciate that for face value.
3rd Quote: "An extremely defeatist attitude. It'd be pretty depressing if even at school age people had already given up believing they could make an impact on the world."
I don't apply that attitude to everything in life, but generally speaking you should try to accept what is unalterable. Building a strong dislike toward something does not always equal taking action when taking action is unrealistic.
Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays.
Not to sound hostile, but this really sounds very petty. Mainly because I would doubt you are really losing any privacy. A distinct username isn't associated with any of the data, let alone personal information. While you can argue it's the principle of the thing, it still doesn't seem like that big of an issue.
In any event, the usage contract the school signed with the proxy provider probably has them covered. It's a waste of energy to dislike something intensely that can't go anywhere.
This is completely ludicrous, and even shards of the "Microsoft Executive" desired outcome would never stand a chance to be court issued. Any fool can stand on a soapbox; I guess it scares more people when it's MS talking.
It perplexes me what is worse; the Microsoft campaign (they will suffer in court, allow that to keep ya cool:) or the collective thought and post energy consumed by the slashdot MS V Linux pavalov's dog condition;)
Looking for other money sources with this current action?
Oh, bullshit. With all due respect, what does Theo have to offer in the way of money? I don't know Theo's pocketbook, but I'd be willing to guess he's not the gates of UNIX, let alone BSD!
O'Reilly not providing a FreeBSD book -- you ask, "Shouldn't they"? I think the major reason they haven't is they deem the usage volume of FreeBSD much less then would be necessary for a title regarding it to be a financial success. Which is a shame, as they do produce quality documentation. Much of the current FreeBSD printed documentation is of poor quality.
I hate to join in this inevitable flamewar, but I really have to disagree with your view on GNOME and it being the superior offering CURRENTLY. And this is coming from someone who uses GNOME entirely -- I don't even have KDE installed. I have tried a recent incanation of KDE (2.0.)
KDE is offerring a lot, and GNOME is letting users "preview" a lot. There is substantial difference. The only real advantage I see GNOME having is the OpenOffice commitment, but QT ports of OpenOffice are possible, too. The cutting edge GNOME applications thus far has shown us lots of quirky framework, crashing, and nowhere near completeness in its two biggest offerrings, Nautilus and Evolution. Evolution in its current state looks less then alpha. I haven't tried Nautilus and really don't want to. On both sides, it's a shame developers can't get away from the notion that the file manager must contain web browser capability. Don't get me wrong, Konquerer has nice HTML rendering, but it would do better on its own. It seems hypocritical for Miguel to criticize Unix for not being "componentized" enough, and then stand for an application [Nautilus] that does the work of two. I know his arguement was along different lines -- programming ones -- but it is still easy to point out flaw in Nautiuls from a certain perspective with it in mind. I perfer GNOME over KDE for looks, mainly, but I detest the idea of my file manager being a memory hog due to its own inadaquencies and use of library from mozilla while not being the *COMPLETE* embodiment of Mozilla (an even greater memory hog...)
Anyhow, these applications that show the new advancement of GNOME come in June/July while KDE is already a whole level above GNOME. I really don't understand your argument at all. I use software I like, but I don't illogically dismiss the competitor (unless it's Microsoft, which we all are morally obligated to despise.) Lastly, the GNOME foundation. It's a commitment, nothing more at this point. Having read the official HTML release regarding their opinion of the GNOME foundation development, they sound like they maintain a healthy outlook -- may the best desktop win, regardless of names behind it.
> Add that to the fact that John Ashcroft is a die-hard privacy proponent, and arch-nemesis of Carnivore, etc.... hey, things are pretty good. >
Yes, things are great. Now, with the help of Bush cutting funds for public abortion, we'll have even MORE [underfed, unkept, unnecessary] children in the country who will never have to witness the evils of censorship! It's great in America.
What kind of a conservative (read:mindless) anal bloke are you, anyway? This reads too serious to be considered a troll, though it probably should be considered one, as are most mindless "In Christ" responses here.
I don't recall a video/computer game displaying someone having their entrails ripped out, ever; the gore in most video games isn't photorealistic, nor is it detailed. I also don't recall a home that is forever free of a TV show, movie, or even news segment that won't expose a child to violence present in our society. Furthermore, how is a childs "life" thrown anyway by watching violence? I fail to see a correlation between a child becoming less "naive" and their life changed for the worse.
While you are entitled to your opinion, it certainly sounds like you are the type of person who lets "principle" override "logic," albeit feeble-minded belief to begin with.
Firstly, regarding the major glare toward the article: The CEO states Linux is not profitable. That isn't the case for a lot of companies out there. An innovative Linux distribution with extra features not found in the more common ones (i.e. the ReiserFS installation in SuSE) is as good downloaded as sold, they argue, and thus is as good as dead as a business opportunity. Wrong! I can think of many ways to implement "extra features" for paying customers while maintaining adherence with the GPL (redhat pro being the perfect example.) Be creative, be thoughtful. The more the community comes to praise and like a distribution they more willing they are to show support and pay for it. Plus, genuinely quailty documentation in printed format for Linux is costly -- if it came with that and the documentation was known to be of the utmost help (Oreilly quality) people would be all the more motivated to pay for it. Obviously, though, with as many distributions as there are today, you'd have to try to be "as compatible" with an existing one as possible -- and be GROUNDBREAKING to make it anywhere.
Corel's distribution did try the free to "delue" version thing, but they did it wrong. IMHO, they failed for these reasons: They weren't offering anything new and groundbreaking; The programs they were offering in deluxe weren't anything special, i.e. wordperfect 8 wasn't even more then the free, downloadable version; The cost was too high. Corel's distribution also failed because it had a reputation of failing to keep up with the latest releases. They should have pushed for KDE 1.9x series, as they were atleast working on Konquerer, and tried to make more packages available. They had good ideas, though -- especially basing it off Debian.
As far as Corel's "Linux" applications go, complete shite. You might as well buy the Windows version and have the latest version of the REAL Wine run them. You'd probably have a much easier go. Corel has never written a true UNIX app (widely used; yes, I am aware they had Paint 3.5 available many moons ago) aside from Word Perfect 7 (I'm not going to say 8 because it had so many bugs it was disgusting. Way to ruin a program that functioned perfectly, Corel.) I think if they want a real chunk of the UNIX market (which could easily be theirs) they ought to find some talented UNIX/MOTIF programmers who can actually make ports of the applications they are so found of. It wouldn't be *Impossible*, but it would be quite an undertaking; I don't expect it to happen.
Well, I guess it shouldn't be much of a suprise.NET is being embraced by Corel -- Money talks. However, I feel (and I'm sure lots of others here, too).NET will be a commercial failure in attempting to provide large productivity applications. I really doubt most consumers could entertain the idea of "subscribing" to a productivity program. Specialized, custom programs written for a specific purpose or operation, mabye -- although really, what's the real advantage vs a normal program? Certainly not speed. The update argument isn't really strong. And what about all the Java programmers a company already has -- aren't they doing this? For that matter, what about programmers in general within a company -- wouldn't a company needing a specialized application choose a programming language that was more proven in general?
OK, you pretentious sounding twit, I've heard just enough of your inane bull shit ranting.
Money talks. "Geeks" do not magically wave a wand and make the Internet their own. Nor do they close the door to the Internet on corporation. Doing so would make the Internet the very opposite of the principle it was founded upon: Freedom of speech.
The most effective communication medium is used by the masses. Get used to it. I, a computer literate person, am not intimidated.
I personally feel much more drawn to the SysV approach because it's so easier to see, at a glance, what exactly is being started/killed per each run level.
While I recognize there is a clear.conf for BSD rc, I don't like it as much as the individualized approach Linux takes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, any telnettable BBS running under OS/2 using VCOM (virtual comm port -- any internet connection can be redirected to a virtual comm port) can have whatever door game running, provided it uses BNU/X00 one for access. There is also a utility for Windows that is basically the same thing, virtual comm ports that work via telnet, but it isn't free and keys are/were closely watched (I think the keys were transmitted to the guy who wrote it.) I know there WAS a list of telnettable boards around; I do not know its current status. You might want to go to Renegade's home page -- there could be a list of telnettable boards there...
... about the whole subscription model is the presence of .NET (which is said similar to JAVA and crossplatform -- in any event, interpreted on the fly rather then compiled into native executable code, though declared "compiled" regardless) being used as backend for this "new technology." I do not know much about .NET, but I know it is not the same as a natively executable file. Therefore, it takes a performance hit. We already have many many interpreted languages with cross platformness their strength and Microsoft hasn't stated they will be providing .NET for any of the UNIX environments. Which brings me to the point of this message...
.NET clearly seems like more of a buzzword in the presence of the new subscription based Office then any real innovation. Why? ANY executable program can control its expiration, licensing, and most importantly, automatic updating. It doesn't seem very appropriate to run such a large program in an interpreted language -- past efforts by different companies have failed in that regard, atleast with Java. .NET will/does have purpose, perhaps, but I question it in the largest and most commonly used software package (Office.) In fact, I will be somewhat suprised if Microsoft even makes enough sales to justify continued work on the product.
... with all this in mind,
Quote: "I'm a little confused where you're coming from with that comment. Are you suggesting that the more common something becomes the less of a problem it is (which sounds completely backwards) or was that just a sort of random observation?"
I wouldn't call it a random observation or observation OF A PROBLEM. Cutting right to the chase: What the fuck kind of fascist purpose do you think the data collection is being used for? It is being used for consumer research, for crying outloud! What else would it be used for when the majority of the WWW is focused on commerce nowadays? If you see something horribly WRONG with that, you're nitpicking and yet again, are looking for another reason to get on a soapbox and complain about some idiotically perceived injustice.
2nd Quote: "Who, the school or the provider? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, if the school is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they sigend with a third party (the provider) is irrelevant. If the provider is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they signed with a third party (the school) is irrelevant. If neither is vulnerable to action by the individual then any contract they make between them is irrelevant. Or you mean the school can't take action against the provider because the contract lets them collect the data? That may be true but the school could choose not to renew the contract on those terms in future."
The idea of taking action with a school over the whole thing is absurd. Furthermore, put aside your childish American I'm-suing-you bullshit mentality (which is what your focus on the whole "legal liability" translates into) for a second and that into consideration it's nice the school is providing connection to something as dynamically moving as the Internet in the first place -- mabye students should appreciate that for face value.
3rd Quote: "An extremely defeatist attitude. It'd be pretty depressing if even at school age people had already given up believing they could make an impact on the world."
I don't apply that attitude to everything in life, but generally speaking you should try to accept what is unalterable. Building a strong dislike toward something does not always equal taking action when taking action is unrealistic.
Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays.
Not to sound hostile, but this really sounds very petty. Mainly because I would doubt you are really losing any privacy. A distinct username isn't associated with any of the data, let alone personal information. While you can argue it's the principle of the thing, it still doesn't seem like that big of an issue.
In any event, the usage contract the school signed with the proxy provider probably has them covered. It's a waste of energy to dislike something intensely that can't go anywhere.
This is completely ludicrous, and even shards of the "Microsoft Executive" desired outcome would never stand a chance to be court issued. Any fool can stand on a soapbox; I guess it scares more people when it's MS talking.
:) or the collective thought and post energy consumed by the slashdot MS V Linux pavalov's dog condition ;)
It perplexes me what is worse; the Microsoft campaign (they will suffer in court, allow that to keep ya cool
Looking for other money sources with this current action?
Oh, bullshit. With all due respect, what does Theo have to offer in the way of money? I don't know Theo's pocketbook, but I'd be willing to guess he's not the gates of UNIX, let alone BSD!
O'Reilly not providing a FreeBSD book -- you ask, "Shouldn't they"? I think the major reason they haven't is they deem the usage volume of FreeBSD much less then would be necessary for a title regarding it to be a financial success. Which is a shame, as they do produce quality documentation. Much of the current FreeBSD printed documentation is of poor quality.
I hate to join in this inevitable flamewar, but I really have to disagree with your view on GNOME and it being the superior offering CURRENTLY. And this is coming from someone who uses GNOME entirely -- I don't even have KDE installed. I have tried a recent incanation of KDE (2.0.)
KDE is offerring a lot, and GNOME is letting users "preview" a lot. There is substantial difference. The only real advantage I see GNOME having is the OpenOffice commitment, but QT ports of OpenOffice are possible, too. The cutting edge GNOME applications thus far has shown us lots of quirky framework, crashing, and nowhere near completeness in its two biggest offerrings, Nautilus and Evolution. Evolution in its current state looks less then alpha. I haven't tried Nautilus and really don't want to. On both sides, it's a shame developers can't get away from the notion that the file manager must contain web browser capability. Don't get me wrong, Konquerer has nice HTML rendering, but it would do better on its own. It seems hypocritical for Miguel to criticize Unix for not being "componentized" enough, and then stand for an application [Nautilus] that does the work of two. I know his arguement was along different lines -- programming ones -- but it is still easy to point out flaw in Nautiuls from a certain perspective with it in mind. I perfer GNOME over KDE for looks, mainly, but I detest the idea of my file manager being a memory hog due to its own inadaquencies and use of library from mozilla while not being the *COMPLETE* embodiment of Mozilla (an even greater memory hog...)
Anyhow, these applications that show the new advancement of GNOME come in June/July while KDE is already a whole level above GNOME. I really don't understand your argument at all. I use software I like, but I don't illogically dismiss the competitor (unless it's Microsoft, which we all are morally obligated to despise.) Lastly, the GNOME foundation. It's a commitment, nothing more at this point. Having read the official HTML release regarding their opinion of the GNOME foundation development, they sound like they maintain a healthy outlook -- may the best desktop win, regardless of names behind it.
> Add that to the fact that John Ashcroft is a die-hard privacy proponent, and arch-nemesis of Carnivore, etc.... hey, things are pretty good. >
Yes, things are great. Now, with the help of Bush cutting funds for public abortion, we'll have even MORE [underfed, unkept, unnecessary] children in the country who will never have to witness the evils of censorship! It's great in America.
What kind of a conservative (read:mindless) anal bloke are you, anyway? This reads too serious to be considered a troll, though it probably should be considered one, as are most mindless "In Christ" responses here.
I don't recall a video/computer game displaying someone having their entrails ripped out, ever; the gore in most video games isn't photorealistic, nor is it detailed. I also don't recall a home that is forever free of a TV show, movie, or even news segment that won't expose a child to violence present in our society. Furthermore, how is a childs "life" thrown anyway by watching violence? I fail to see a correlation between a child becoming less "naive" and their life changed for the worse.
While you are entitled to your opinion, it certainly sounds like you are the type of person who lets "principle" override "logic," albeit feeble-minded belief to begin with.
Firstly, regarding the major glare toward the article: The CEO states Linux is not profitable. That isn't the case for a lot of companies out there. An innovative Linux distribution with extra features not found in the more common ones (i.e. the ReiserFS installation in SuSE) is as good downloaded as sold, they argue, and thus is as good as dead as a business opportunity. Wrong! I can think of many ways to implement "extra features" for paying customers while maintaining adherence with the GPL (redhat pro being the perfect example.) Be creative, be thoughtful. The more the community comes to praise and like a distribution they more willing they are to show support and pay for it. Plus, genuinely quailty documentation in printed format for Linux is costly -- if it came with that and the documentation was known to be of the utmost help (Oreilly quality) people would be all the more motivated to pay for it. Obviously, though, with as many distributions as there are today, you'd have to try to be "as compatible" with an existing one as possible -- and be GROUNDBREAKING to make it anywhere.
Corel's distribution did try the free to "delue" version thing, but they did it wrong. IMHO, they failed for these reasons: They weren't offering anything new and groundbreaking; The programs they were offering in deluxe weren't anything special, i.e. wordperfect 8 wasn't even more then the free, downloadable version; The cost was too high. Corel's distribution also failed because it had a reputation of failing to keep up with the latest releases. They should have pushed for KDE 1.9x series, as they were atleast working on Konquerer, and tried to make more packages available. They had good ideas, though -- especially basing it off Debian.
As far as Corel's "Linux" applications go, complete shite. You might as well buy the Windows version and have the latest version of the REAL Wine run them. You'd probably have a much easier go. Corel has never written a true UNIX app (widely used; yes, I am aware they had Paint 3.5 available many moons ago) aside from Word Perfect 7 (I'm not going to say 8 because it had so many bugs it was disgusting. Way to ruin a program that functioned perfectly, Corel.) I think if they want a real chunk of the UNIX market (which could easily be theirs) they ought to find some talented UNIX/MOTIF programmers who can actually make ports of the applications they are so found of. It wouldn't be *Impossible*, but it would be quite an undertaking; I don't expect it to happen.
Well, I guess it shouldn't be much of a suprise
I wrote the message in a hurry, and I quickly realized the mistake.
In any event, the point that I was trying to make was freedom of speech is a key element of the Internet's continued existence.
OK, you pretentious sounding twit, I've heard just enough of your inane bull shit ranting.
Money talks. "Geeks" do not magically wave a wand and make the Internet their own. Nor do they close the door to the Internet on corporation. Doing so would make the Internet the very opposite of the principle it was founded upon: Freedom of speech.
The most effective communication medium is used by the masses. Get used to it. I, a computer literate person, am not intimidated.
I personally feel much more drawn to the SysV approach because it's so easier to see, at a glance, what exactly is being started/killed per each run level.
.conf for BSD rc, I don't like it as much as the individualized approach Linux takes.
While I recognize there is a clear