Having personal understanding of technology is not part of the criteria. Making presidential decisions requires so much expertise in various fields that nobody has enough information to do the job. This is why presidents have cabinets and advisors.
My problem with Gore is that he appears to think that he has personal understanding of technology. He has delusions of competence. That's much, much worse than being merely ignorant. One who is ignorant usually knows enough to ask an expert. The poser experts are the dangerous types.
I'd rather get medical treatment from someone with no medical training than from someone who thinks he's a doctor. The one with no medical training will likely do nothing, or find someone with medical training. the poser doctor may well break out the scalpel and stare, amazed, at my incredible array of innards. For much the same reason, I'd rather have a president who didn't understand tech than one who thinks he does.
Good point. There are likely a lot of/.ers that haven't bothered to go to the source (or got hit with the/. effect and couldn't). As a matter of public record, we are all arguing the executive summary. If you go to the site, you have to fill out an ID form to get the summary. You are then invited to purchase the full report, for $995.00 (not $9.95). Nobody I know has coughed up the k-buck, so we're all looking at the executive summary. Normally, I'd be peeved at people judging the book by its cover. However, the above shows the extenuating circumstances. I'd love to see the real report, but I wouldn't love it that much. Does anybody have access to the full report, or money to burn for same? I'd assume that a repost would be mondo illegal, but some intelligent points from it would be appreciated. Until then, we'll have to argue the stuff that we can read.
A **BETTER** strategy might be to make a low-end LINUX with a wide variety of supported boxes, an idiot-proof setup program, and an auto-configured, auto-running XFree86 or KDE. . . drop the compilers, extra configurability, etc, for a fixed version. . .
(I realize I'm advocating a Win-95'ing of LINUX, to get newbies into it. ..then show how much BETTER it runs, when you learn to customize it to your individual system. ..and then, they're suddenly one of us. . . )
No shame in that.
You want an auto-configuring "Linux lite". Sounds like a very good plan to me. Reproduce the one piece of MS software that actually works better than anybody else's; the install-time configurator. As far as minimizing the system, you'd just want a stripped-down kernel and fewer daemons running around.
The alternative is to put together a software spec for a Linux game machine. Power users and geeks would download the video drivers and other software to make their systems compliant, while comopanies could make money building miniature Linux boxen that just meet the software spec, and selling them alongside the Nintendo consoles. Which game outfit wants to make a Linux console? Show of hands, please.
To be blunt: just why do you hate Microsoft? Would you still hate them if they wrote good code? If Linux Distro X takes over 90% of the market, will you feel obligated to hate them because they took over 90% of the market? I hate being forced (yes, I will say it, forced) to pay good money to get brain-damaged software. I hate business models that make their money off of disservice to the customer. I despise the ability of a company to ignore the needs of the customer base and so improve their profits. Are you afraid of Windows becoming a decent OS? I would love it! Give me a copy of Windows that works and works well, and I will gladly pay for it. Give me a truly Open Source Windows (that is, one with OSI-compliant licensing), and I will work with people to improve it so that it stays up, remove the bloat, and plain old make a respectable OS out of it. If that is impossible, screw it. If Microsoft puts out an Apple-style license, they can watch the Open Source movement pass them by. If they put out an OSI-compliant license, there may be some benefit. We might be able to improve it. If they take on an open-source mindset as a company, then they stand a chance at becoming the greatest respectable software house in our time. Microsoft may be making a careful gesture of reform and repentence. Then again, they may be trying to sucker us again. I suggest that we remain cautiously optimistic.
I think that what's beginning to sink in (for some, anyway), though, is that fighting free software is kind of like fighting the undead -- there's not much you can really do to stop it. Thank you for stating a thought that's been crawling through my subconscious for a long time! I guess we can now officially identify ourselves with the Zombie Hordes of the B-Class sci-fi horrors. You're absolutely right, of course. Open code is The Thing That Would Not Die. You can fork it, you can FUD it into submission, but you absolutely cannot kill it. Of course, you have now put a nasty vision in my head. I'll have to tell Illiad over at UF...
Something I never understood. Companies are regarded as legal entities--essentially people--for most legal purposes. They get the rights guaranteed for "the people", and in most civil law are considered as people. Why, then, are they immune to criminal prosecution? Why can a company get a fine for something that you or I would get 20 in the pokey for? Why does a corporation enjoy more legal rights and priveleges than a flesh-and-blood citizen? There are two ways to resolve this one. The first is to declare that a corporation is a citizen, and can be tried, convicted, and punished for felonies and misdemeanors. When a company commits a crime, it literally does the time--perhaps with a shutdown. A seven-year sentence gets split between the employees and served as time that the company cannot engage in business. The inability to sell product for a month or so is an excellent deterrant in most cases. The second remedy is to specifically state that a company is not a person, and does not enjoy the same rights and priveleges as a "person". That is, the Bill of Rights and similar documents do not apply to corporations. Perhaps another bill of corporate rights needs to be made; perhaps not. Of course, the problem with this is the nature of that bill of corporate rights. I'd be waiting for "Congress shall pass no law exposing a corporation to civil action from a person"...
I emailed the campaign. I noted that, between the positioning as the "online" candidate and the reaction he is eliciting out of the software community, he will have a similar problem to a law-and-order candidate that can't get approval from the cops. I suggested that he either back off on the online stuff (I don't know his stances elsewhere), or hire a hardboiled geek as a point of reference. Maybe he should just listen to his own Webmaster... There's no need to shock or get angry at Gore or the Gore campaign. If this hurts nothing but Gore and his campaign, all we should do is inform the fool of his folly. If they listen, Gore may become the online candidate, or at least give up the idea altogether. If not, he marches off the precipice alone.
This could be anything from: Gnu LINux Debian Architecture to Gnu LINux Distribution Alliance
One of the main problems with the term GNU/Linux is pronunciation. I won't use it for the same reason I won't use "International Business Machines"; it's far too tempting to say "IBM" or simply "Big Blue". For the same reason, I pronounce "WWW" as "dub-dub-dub".
GNU/Linux simply isn't easily reducable, and too long to use in normal conversation. GLinux doesn't cut it, nor does GNUnux (though maybe GNUx would--wouldn't that make RMS happy!) GLX sounds too much like a car or a biotech firm. Maybe just calling it "Penguin" would work...
Okay, so Linux/X86doesn't scale with Godzilla
on
WSJ Says Linux Lags
·
· Score: 1
The jist I was getting was that a Linux box, specifically a Linux/X86 machine, can't scale with the big boys, where big boys are the 64-processor jobbies, likely liquid-cooled.
My three reactions: 1) Linux wasn't particularly built for that. I see no shame in that it can't handle business applications like a monster server. I've never seen a monster server. How many applications are there for a 64-processor server? the only ones I see are monster scientific and graphical work, like ray-tracing and fluid flow dynamics. Such applications work well on clusters of Linux machines. IBM bought a $150K horde of machine last month, installed Linux on the whole bunch, and proceeded to go stride-for-stride on a ray-tracing problem with a $9M Cray YMP.
2) There are good odds that a lot of the limitations are those of the x86 architecture. It's almost a miracle that x86 scales to real servers, considering its bitty-box heritage. If you want big box performance, you gotta buy a big box.
3) Are they trying to tell us that NT is more scalable than Linux? By what criteria? This is the shocking part. I'd say "laughably", but they're serious. Wrong, but serious.
Clanlib is multi-platform in that it is open-source, and thus portable. They decided to spend their effort getting the library to work on one platform, likely in the hope that enthusiasts on other platforms will download, compile, and port. This is part of the power of Open Source: you don't have to do it all yourself.
If you want it on JRandomIx, just port the sucker! It's probably easier to port the library than to use it. If you don't have the hardware to do the port, what could you use the port for anyhow?
When you do port it, send Clanlib your diffs and your binary. They're likely to be more than happy to integrate your code and give you credit.
This is a true case of lighting a torch rather than cursing the darkness. Especially when you have the torch in one hand and a Zippo in the other.
You ask, "Linux on every desktop?" I say, "why limit yourself?" Linux can be used for desktop computing, but that's a small amount. Linux can become a contender on the desktop, in the back room, in your basement, your car, your pocket.
Linux is an OS that can be used all over the place, for all sorts of users and all sorts of applications. It's not ready for everybody now, but can be made ready.
Does Linux even have to be for anybody? With a monolithic OS like Windows/?? or MacOS, the question "Who is it for?" is very important. The user interacts directly with the OS every day.
Linux (or other Unix) isn't monolithic; you can build any user interface you want on top of it. Even the mighty X is not sacred to Unix; it can be thrown out if need be. Given that a user doesn't have to deal with Linux on a daily basis, the question "Who is it for?" is less important than the question "What can it do?". The answer to "Who is it for?" is "whoever wants things that it can do".
Neal Stephenson (earlier story) described OSs as cars. He described Windows as a clunky old station wagon and Linux as a tank. I'm going to go one step further. Windows, the monolithic OS, is the clunky old station wagon. It's got a badly tuned engine that sucks down too much gas and stalls a lot, but at least you have a steering wheel where you expect one and the gear selector works as normal.
Linux, the operating system (or more appropriately, the kernel and drivers) isn't even a tank. It's a tank engine, one of those powerful turbine jobbies that can haul twenty tons at 150 MPH, while taking up half the space of the MS piston engine.
By custom, we throw the geeky frontend onto it: X, shells, Lesstif, Emacs, and similar apps. That frontend is the tank that we build around that turbine; geeks love it, because they're all tank drivers. It can go anywhere the station wagon can, and places the station wagon can't. It can beat the wagon off the line, and do it with less fuel. It has a zero turning radius: it can even park easier.
But it doesn't have a steering wheel. It has two hand throttles, one for each tread.
I may like cars, but I've never been in the army. Put me on Stephenson's intersection, and I'll buy the station wagon over the free tank, every time. That tank scares me. I don't know how to drive a tank, and the tank driver schools aren't advertising. Even if they were, I don't want to bother.
You can get Linux to work for everybody. You can't get that damned tank to work for everybody. You need to build different vehicles, all powered by that rediculously powerful turbine called the Linux kernel. You need the sexy sports car for the executive to put on his desk. You need the Station Wagon From Hell, for family use (expands to fit your entire family, then cruises along at Warp Factor 6). You need the network server semi-tractor (nowadays, you see Linux M-1s pulling corporate trailers). You need those specialized backhoe units for specialized applications. Now you're selling a half dozen different vehicles. But they're all running the same OS, all have the same power plant.
Linux can go everywhere. Things like Emacs can't.
Possible new applications and the interfaces to go with them:
1: the Linux Game Console. Built with high-end video cards and largely yesterday's hardware for the rest of it, this will likely be more expensive than other consoles but cheaper than normal Linux boxen. And since the interface is open, you can snarf down free titles. When the technology increases, you either upgrade or replace your console (depending on your faith in screwdrivers), and your old games still work! Also, this could make Linux a tier 1 or 2 platform for game ports, and many have said that the games sell the platform in computing. This is the NASCAR stock racer--not useful for normal applications (don't try to get the milk with it), but very good for exactly what it does.
2: The out-of-the-box server. This may already be available. I need a file server, I buy one. You set it up with a local HTTP browser, and add RAID units on demand. If you have to go under the hood to do some funkier configuration, you have your sysadmins do it. Otherwise, some applications (esp. home use) don't need sysadmin assistance. These implementations are trucks; anywhere from pickups to semis.
3: The palmtop. You need a simple user interface because of the limited options you get with stand-up computing. The nice thing about this is that palmtopping isn't an exact science yet; Linux may be able to make one that's easier to use than others come up with. This is one of those foldable mopeds that fit in a briefcase.
4: The home box; the Station Wagon from Hell. Here we have a couple of problems. Since everybody's used to the Microsoft Station Wagon, they can get frightened off by non-MS station wagons. As a suggestion: the trick may be to have a configurable UI, originally set to as close to Windows as allowed by law. Then let users reconfigure their UI to "improve" it, bit by bit. The Law of Least Astonishment applies.
5: The specialized applications; the backhoes. Home controllers. Automotive Linux. Control boxes for things like broadcast booths and sports arenas. These won't even be recognizably Linux; if you want to do some maintenance on these, bring your own console.
Finally, we must make sure that we leave a tank folded up in each of these applications. The geek is always going to want the high-control, many-choices interface. Leave Emacs and friends on the hard drive, so that the Linux tank drivers can fix it if and when it breaks.
Higher-level languages such as Perl and Java are built to add capabilities by linking in C++ modules. Expect such C++-extensible languages to have compatibility libraries shortly. Better yet, make it happen.
...is that it allows us to calibrate our bogometers.
A well-calibrated bogometer helps us get through life. People throw bogons at you day-in and day-out, and you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Can you trust the news today? Can you even take Slashdot for gospel? IMHO, anyone who takes an uncorroborated report from a hacker bboard gets exactly what they deserve.
Then, one day a year, many of us take an opportunity to crank up their own personal bogosity, all for the sake of fun. Some think it's fun, others don't.
But we all come out of it wiser.
If you don't like AFD as a big set of jokes, think of it as a one-day challenge to your ability to separate fact from fiction. It'll help you out when the talking head on the 6:00 News is jawing off about our latest military endeavour or somesuch...
I honestly don't know either way. While the letters started about a week ago, this simply implies that, if it's a joke, it's a very elaborate one.
This from the culture that planted a balloon on the 50-yard line of the Harvard-Yale game and put a bogus police cruiser on top of a dome. Spending a week setting up an April Fool's joke makes sense, in this context.
Also, the legal notes are particularly miniscule from both sites. The air of wrongness has been around this from the get-go, but we have been chalking it up to legal foul play (a favorite to blame anything from the Internet to bad weather on).
If this is an April Fool's joke, I am humbled to be caught by one of the great ones.
If this is real, somebody has made a big mistake. The benefit of shutting down these sites down will be little compared to the media and legal frenzy that follows.
And people thought that the Slashdot Effect itself was bad enough...
Sorry, not likely, until and unless the power requirements for computing go way down.
A sedentary person, burning 2,000 calories per day, puts out about 100 watts. If you could harness all of that, you would barely have the power to keep a low end desktop computer running, much less its monitor. You can't harness anywhere near that; maybe ten, twenty watts tops. Of course, you can generate a whole lot more harnessable energy on an excercise bike, but that's a bit unwieldy for a laptop accessory.
As far as harnessing the light from the monitor, there are two issues. The first one is, where is the energy from the monitor coming from? If it's coming from the computer, you have a perpetual motion machine--unlikely in the extreme. The second one is that, if you take the energy from the light of the monitor, you have no visible light left!
I read the Compaq Vs. RH story, and the MS-behavior is not obvious to me. Okay, so they don't feel that support for Alpha is important. Note that they aren't dropping the platform entirely. Even if they did, Compaq could start up their own distribution.
Nowhere in that story do I see Red Hat threatening anyone who deals with competitors. Compaq is using multiple Linux distributions. Compaq/Red Hat relationships are strained. No cause and effect are implied.
Most importantly, Red Hat _can't_ ruin Compaq's day. In the worst-case scenario, Red Hat pulls every scrap of Alpha code from its next distribution. Compaq can either branch off from an older RH, can go with a distribution that supports Alpha, or go into the Linux distribution biz themselves. They have more than enough Unix engineers for that!
With MS, the problem is that you have no option. They can cut you off, and you are no longer in the Windows computing biz. Nobody can cut anybody off from the Linux biz, even Red Hat.
I ran across one issue in the MWPL; I think it's more of a bug than a deliberate trap.
6.3. Derivative Works. If you create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this License), you must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases "GameCode", "GC", MWGC, "Metrowerks" or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear anywhere in your license and (b) otherwise make it clear that your version of the license contains terms which differ from the Metrowerks Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of this License.)
The problem with all of this is that you cannot create a derivative license at all! You have to remove all references to Metroworks, but then you have to specifically state that this is different from the Metroworks license. It would take a politician to state that the license is different from the Metroworks license without mentioning them...
As said before, I'm chalking this up to a thinko. I've just emailed them and told them about the same thing.
Microsoft delay tactics are fine with me. Considering that companies appear to be willing to actually _say_ the word "Linux" so far as the company is in court, time is on our side. Every delay tactic, every broken negotiation round, every round of appeals keeps Microsoft from being able to punish the infidels.
Me, I can't see a useful verdict out of this short of the "Baby Bill" one, and I don't see that happening. The current court action is providing the _unintended_ side effect of forcing Microsoft to play nice for awhile. This allows companies to start making Linux announcements with little fear of retribution. And that eats away at the "But nothing runs on Linux" argument.
Currently, fission requires a critical mass of fissionable material. This is because you need the neutrons that a fission reaction gets to hit other fissionable material to keep the reaction going.
If tabletop fusion becomes cheap enough, you could put it in the center of a subcritical mass of fissionable material and stop relying on the fission reaction to supply its own neutrons. It would be fail-safe as well, because you stop the reaction by turning off the laser.
And the above may result in tabletop _fission_. Usable as a power supply or a weapon. Atomic-powered airplanes, or nuclear SAMs to shoot them with. Either way, I'm scared.
Slashdot Mirror
My problem with Gore is that he appears to think that he has personal understanding of technology. He has delusions of competence. That's much, much worse than being merely ignorant. One who is ignorant usually knows enough to ask an expert. The poser experts are the dangerous types.
I'd rather get medical treatment from someone with no medical training than from someone who thinks he's a doctor. The one with no medical training will likely do nothing, or find someone with medical training. the poser doctor may well break out the scalpel and stare, amazed, at my incredible array of innards. For much the same reason, I'd rather have a president who didn't understand tech than one who thinks he does.
Good point. There are likely a lot of /.ers that haven't bothered to go to the source (or got hit with the /. effect and couldn't). As a matter of public record, we are all arguing the executive summary. If you go to the site, you have to fill out an ID form to get the summary. You are then invited to purchase the full report, for $995.00 (not $9.95). Nobody I know has coughed up the k-buck, so we're all looking at the executive summary. Normally, I'd be peeved at people judging the book by its cover. However, the above shows the extenuating circumstances. I'd love to see the real report, but I wouldn't love it that much. Does anybody have access to the full report, or money to burn for same? I'd assume that a repost would be mondo illegal, but some intelligent points from it would be appreciated. Until then, we'll have to argue the stuff that we can read.
A **BETTER** strategy might be to make a low-end
.then show how much .and then,
LINUX with a wide variety of supported boxes, an
idiot-proof setup program, and an auto-configured,
auto-running XFree86 or KDE. . . drop the
compilers, extra configurability, etc, for a fixed
version. . .
(I realize I'm advocating a Win-95'ing of LINUX,
to get newbies into it. .
BETTER it runs, when you learn to customize
it to your individual system. .
they're suddenly one of us. . . )
No shame in that.
You want an auto-configuring "Linux lite". Sounds like a very good plan to me. Reproduce the one piece of MS software that actually works better than anybody else's; the install-time configurator. As far as minimizing the system, you'd just want a stripped-down kernel and fewer daemons running around.
The alternative is to put together a software spec for a Linux game machine. Power users and geeks would download the video drivers and other software to make their systems compliant, while comopanies could make money building miniature Linux boxen that just meet the software spec, and selling them alongside the Nintendo consoles.
Which game outfit wants to make a Linux console? Show of hands, please.
To be blunt: just why do you hate Microsoft? Would you still hate them if they wrote good code? If Linux Distro X takes over 90% of the market, will you feel obligated to hate them because they took over 90% of the market? I hate being forced (yes, I will say it, forced) to pay good money to get brain-damaged software. I hate business models that make their money off of disservice to the customer. I despise the ability of a company to ignore the needs of the customer base and so improve their profits. Are you afraid of Windows becoming a decent OS? I would love it! Give me a copy of Windows that works and works well, and I will gladly pay for it. Give me a truly Open Source Windows (that is, one with OSI-compliant licensing), and I will work with people to improve it so that it stays up, remove the bloat, and plain old make a respectable OS out of it. If that is impossible, screw it. If Microsoft puts out an Apple-style license, they can watch the Open Source movement pass them by. If they put out an OSI-compliant license, there may be some benefit. We might be able to improve it. If they take on an open-source mindset as a company, then they stand a chance at becoming the greatest respectable software house in our time. Microsoft may be making a careful gesture of reform and repentence. Then again, they may be trying to sucker us again. I suggest that we remain cautiously optimistic.
I think that what's beginning to sink in (for some, anyway), though, is that fighting free software is kind of like fighting the undead -- there's not much you can really do to stop it. Thank you for stating a thought that's been crawling through my subconscious for a long time! I guess we can now officially identify ourselves with the Zombie Hordes of the B-Class sci-fi horrors. You're absolutely right, of course. Open code is The Thing That Would Not Die. You can fork it, you can FUD it into submission, but you absolutely cannot kill it. Of course, you have now put a nasty vision in my head. I'll have to tell Illiad over at UF...
Something I never understood. Companies are regarded as legal entities--essentially people--for most legal purposes. They get the rights guaranteed for "the people", and in most civil law are considered as people. Why, then, are they immune to criminal prosecution? Why can a company get a fine for something that you or I would get 20 in the pokey for? Why does a corporation enjoy more legal rights and priveleges than a flesh-and-blood citizen? There are two ways to resolve this one. The first is to declare that a corporation is a citizen, and can be tried, convicted, and punished for felonies and misdemeanors. When a company commits a crime, it literally does the time--perhaps with a shutdown. A seven-year sentence gets split between the employees and served as time that the company cannot engage in business. The inability to sell product for a month or so is an excellent deterrant in most cases. The second remedy is to specifically state that a company is not a person, and does not enjoy the same rights and priveleges as a "person". That is, the Bill of Rights and similar documents do not apply to corporations. Perhaps another bill of corporate rights needs to be made; perhaps not. Of course, the problem with this is the nature of that bill of corporate rights. I'd be waiting for "Congress shall pass no law exposing a corporation to civil action from a person"...
I emailed the campaign. I noted that, between the positioning as the "online" candidate and the reaction he is eliciting out of the software community, he will have a similar problem to a law-and-order candidate that can't get approval from the cops. I suggested that he either back off on the online stuff (I don't know his stances elsewhere), or hire a hardboiled geek as a point of reference. Maybe he should just listen to his own Webmaster... There's no need to shock or get angry at Gore or the Gore campaign. If this hurts nothing but Gore and his campaign, all we should do is inform the fool of his folly. If they listen, Gore may become the online candidate, or at least give up the idea altogether. If not, he marches off the precipice alone.
Just a new entry into the Linux/GNU Linux wars:
GLINDA
This could be anything from:
Gnu LINux Debian Architecture
to
Gnu LINux Distribution Alliance
One of the main problems with the term GNU/Linux is pronunciation. I won't use it for the same reason I won't use "International Business Machines"; it's far too tempting to say "IBM" or simply "Big Blue". For the same reason, I pronounce "WWW" as "dub-dub-dub".
GNU/Linux simply isn't easily reducable, and too long to use in normal conversation. GLinux doesn't cut it, nor does GNUnux (though maybe GNUx would--wouldn't that make RMS happy!) GLX sounds too much like a car or a biotech firm. Maybe just calling it "Penguin" would work...
The jist I was getting was that a Linux box, specifically a Linux/X86 machine, can't scale with the big boys, where big boys are the 64-processor jobbies, likely liquid-cooled.
My three reactions:
1) Linux wasn't particularly built for that. I see no shame in that it can't handle business applications like a monster server. I've never seen a monster server. How many applications are there for a 64-processor server? the only ones I see are monster scientific and graphical work, like ray-tracing and fluid flow dynamics. Such applications work well on clusters of Linux machines. IBM bought a $150K horde of machine last month, installed Linux on the whole bunch, and proceeded to go stride-for-stride on a ray-tracing problem with a $9M Cray YMP.
2) There are good odds that a lot of the limitations are those of the x86 architecture. It's almost a miracle that x86 scales to real servers, considering its bitty-box heritage. If you want big box performance, you gotta buy a big box.
3) Are they trying to tell us that NT is more scalable than Linux? By what criteria? This is the shocking part. I'd say "laughably", but they're serious. Wrong, but serious.
Clanlib is multi-platform in that it is open-source, and thus portable. They decided to spend their effort getting the library to work on one platform, likely in the hope that enthusiasts on other platforms will download, compile, and port. This is part of the power of Open Source: you don't have to do it all yourself.
If you want it on JRandomIx, just port the sucker! It's probably easier to port the library than to use it. If you don't have the hardware to do the port, what could you use the port for anyhow?
When you do port it, send Clanlib your diffs and your binary. They're likely to be more than happy to integrate your code and give you credit.
This is a true case of lighting a torch rather than cursing the darkness. Especially when you have the torch in one hand and a Zippo in the other.
You ask, "Linux on every desktop?" I say, "why limit yourself?" Linux can be used for desktop computing, but that's a small amount. Linux can become a contender on the desktop, in the back room, in your basement, your car, your pocket.
Linux is an OS that can be used all over the place, for all sorts of users and all sorts of applications. It's not ready for everybody now, but can be made ready.
Does Linux even have to be for anybody? With a monolithic OS like Windows/?? or MacOS, the question "Who is it for?" is very important. The user interacts directly with the OS every day.
Linux (or other Unix) isn't monolithic; you can build any user interface you want on top of it. Even the mighty X is not sacred to Unix; it can be thrown out if need be. Given that a user doesn't have to deal with Linux on a daily basis, the question "Who is it for?" is less important than the question "What can it do?". The answer to "Who is it for?" is "whoever wants things that it can do".
Neal Stephenson (earlier story) described OSs as cars. He described Windows as a clunky old station wagon and Linux as a tank. I'm going to go one step further. Windows, the monolithic OS, is the clunky old station wagon. It's got a badly tuned engine that sucks down too much gas and stalls a lot, but at least you have a steering wheel where you expect one and the gear selector works as normal.
Linux, the operating system (or more appropriately, the kernel and drivers) isn't even a tank. It's a tank engine, one of those powerful turbine jobbies that can haul twenty tons at 150 MPH, while taking up half the space of the MS piston engine.
By custom, we throw the geeky frontend onto it: X, shells, Lesstif, Emacs, and similar apps. That frontend is the tank that we build around that turbine; geeks love it, because they're all tank drivers. It can go anywhere the station wagon can, and places the station wagon can't. It can beat the wagon off the line, and do it with less fuel. It has a zero turning radius: it can even park easier.
But it doesn't have a steering wheel. It has two hand throttles, one for each tread.
I may like cars, but I've never been in the army. Put me on Stephenson's intersection, and I'll buy the station wagon over the free tank, every time. That tank scares me. I don't know how to drive a tank, and the tank driver schools aren't advertising. Even if they were, I don't want to bother.
You can get Linux to work for everybody. You can't get that damned tank to work for everybody. You need to build different vehicles, all powered by that rediculously powerful turbine called the Linux kernel. You need the sexy sports car for the executive to put on his desk. You need the Station Wagon From Hell, for family use (expands to fit your entire family, then cruises along at Warp Factor 6). You need the network server semi-tractor (nowadays, you see Linux M-1s pulling corporate trailers). You need those specialized backhoe units for specialized applications. Now you're selling a half dozen different vehicles. But they're all running the same OS, all have the same power plant.
Linux can go everywhere. Things like Emacs can't.
Possible new applications and the interfaces to go with them:
1: the Linux Game Console. Built with high-end video cards and largely yesterday's hardware for the rest of it, this will likely be more expensive than other consoles but cheaper than normal Linux boxen. And since the interface is open, you can snarf down free titles. When the technology increases, you either upgrade or replace your console (depending on your faith in screwdrivers), and your old games still work! Also, this could make Linux a tier 1 or 2 platform for game ports, and many have said that the games sell the platform in computing. This is the NASCAR stock racer--not useful for normal applications (don't try to get the milk with it), but very good for exactly what it does.
2: The out-of-the-box server. This may already be available. I need a file server, I buy one. You set it up with a local HTTP browser, and add RAID units on demand. If you have to go under the hood to do some funkier configuration, you have your sysadmins do it. Otherwise, some applications (esp. home use) don't need sysadmin assistance. These implementations are trucks; anywhere from pickups to semis.
3: The palmtop. You need a simple user interface because of the limited options you get with stand-up computing. The nice thing about this is that palmtopping isn't an exact science yet; Linux may be able to make one that's easier to use than others come up with. This is one of those foldable mopeds that fit in a briefcase.
4: The home box; the Station Wagon from Hell. Here we have a couple of problems. Since everybody's used to the Microsoft Station Wagon, they can get frightened off by non-MS station wagons. As a suggestion: the trick may be to have a configurable UI, originally set to as close to Windows as allowed by law. Then let users reconfigure their UI to "improve" it, bit by bit. The Law of Least Astonishment applies.
5: The specialized applications; the backhoes. Home controllers. Automotive Linux. Control boxes for things like broadcast booths and sports arenas. These won't even be recognizably Linux; if you want to do some maintenance on these, bring your own console.
Finally, we must make sure that we leave a tank folded up in each of these applications. The geek is always going to want the high-control, many-choices interface. Leave Emacs and friends on the hard drive, so that the Linux tank drivers can fix it if and when it breaks.
Or to languages that embed C++.
Higher-level languages such as Perl and Java are built to add capabilities by linking in C++ modules. Expect such C++-extensible languages to have compatibility libraries shortly. Better yet, make it happen.
Okay, sounds good to me.
...is that it allows us to calibrate our bogometers.
A well-calibrated bogometer helps us get through life. People throw bogons at you day-in and day-out, and you have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Can you trust the news today? Can you even take Slashdot for gospel? IMHO, anyone who takes an uncorroborated report from a hacker bboard gets exactly what they deserve.
Then, one day a year, many of us take an opportunity to crank up their own personal bogosity, all for the sake of fun. Some think it's fun, others don't.
But we all come out of it wiser.
If you don't like AFD as a big set of jokes, think of it as a one-day challenge to your ability to separate fact from fiction. It'll help you out when the talking head on the 6:00 News is jawing off about our latest military endeavour or somesuch...
I honestly don't know either way. While the letters started about a week ago, this simply implies that, if it's a joke, it's a very elaborate one.
This from the culture that planted a balloon on the 50-yard line of the Harvard-Yale game and put a bogus police cruiser on top of a dome. Spending a week setting up an April Fool's joke makes sense, in this context.
Also, the legal notes are particularly miniscule from both sites. The air of wrongness has been around this from the get-go, but we have been chalking it up to legal foul play (a favorite to blame anything from the Internet to bad weather on).
If this is an April Fool's joke, I am humbled to be caught by one of the great ones.
If this is real, somebody has made a big mistake. The benefit of shutting down these sites down will be little compared to the media and legal frenzy that follows.
And people thought that the Slashdot Effect itself was bad enough...
Sorry, not likely, until and unless the power requirements for computing go way down.
A sedentary person, burning 2,000 calories per day, puts out about 100 watts. If you could harness all of that, you would barely have the power to keep a low end desktop computer running, much less its monitor. You can't harness anywhere near that; maybe ten, twenty watts tops. Of course, you can generate a whole lot more harnessable energy on an excercise bike, but that's a bit unwieldy for a laptop accessory.
As far as harnessing the light from the monitor, there are two issues. The first one is, where is the energy from the monitor coming from? If it's coming from the computer, you have a perpetual motion machine--unlikely in the extreme. The second one is that, if you take the energy from the light of the monitor, you have no visible light left!
I read the Compaq Vs. RH story, and the MS-behavior is not obvious to me. Okay, so they don't feel that support for Alpha is important. Note that they aren't dropping the platform entirely. Even if they did, Compaq could start up their own distribution.
Nowhere in that story do I see Red Hat threatening anyone who deals with competitors. Compaq is using multiple Linux distributions. Compaq/Red Hat relationships are strained. No cause and effect are implied.
Most importantly, Red Hat _can't_ ruin Compaq's day. In the worst-case scenario, Red Hat pulls every scrap of Alpha code from its next distribution. Compaq can either branch off from an older RH, can go with a distribution that supports Alpha, or go into the Linux distribution biz themselves. They have more than enough Unix engineers for that!
With MS, the problem is that you have no option. They can cut you off, and you are no longer in the Windows computing biz. Nobody can cut anybody off from the Linux biz, even Red Hat.
The problem with all of this is that you cannot create a derivative license at all! You have to remove all references to Metroworks, but then you have to specifically state that this is different from the Metroworks license. It would take a politician to state that the license is different from the Metroworks license without mentioning them...
As said before, I'm chalking this up to a thinko. I've just emailed them and told them about the same thing.
Microsoft delay tactics are fine with me. Considering that companies appear to be willing to actually _say_ the word "Linux" so far as the company is in court, time is on our side. Every delay tactic, every broken negotiation round, every round of appeals keeps Microsoft from being able to punish the infidels.
Me, I can't see a useful verdict out of this short of the "Baby Bill" one, and I don't see that happening. The current court action is providing the _unintended_ side effect of forcing Microsoft to play nice for awhile. This allows companies to start making Linux announcements with little fear of retribution. And that eats away at the "But nothing runs on Linux" argument.
Of all things...fission.
Currently, fission requires a critical mass of fissionable material. This is because you need the neutrons that a fission reaction gets to hit other fissionable material to keep the reaction going.
If tabletop fusion becomes cheap enough, you could put it in the center of a subcritical mass of fissionable material and stop relying on the fission reaction to supply its own neutrons. It would be fail-safe as well, because you stop the reaction by turning off the laser.
And the above may result in tabletop _fission_. Usable as a power supply or a weapon. Atomic-powered airplanes, or nuclear SAMs to shoot them with. Either way, I'm scared.