My pet peeve with the movie was his modem setup...
He's using an acoustic coupler to dial all of those machines (he makes a point of dialing the school's computer with the phone's keypad) but his wardialer can automatically dial 40000 numbers... (how, exactly, does it HANG UP to dial the next number in the sequence?)
hmm... anyway.. other than that (and the bit about the passkey sequence) it wasn't too bad of a movie... I think I watched it about a dozen times when I was 12:o)
Have they really made glibc as fast as libc5? And as stable?
Odd.. I was under the impression that libc5 was slower than glibc... (which is why benchmarks show SUSE and Redhat outperforming Slackware and Caldera (1.3)...)
Is there anyone 'in the know' (one of the developers, perhaps?) that can clarify this?
Well, I'd love to say that I've never seen X crash, but the unforutnate truth is that it crashed on me a couple of times (actually, it was an old version of KWM that crashed - and it was reproducable... but it only ever happened with an old S3 video card.) And yes, it was a complete lock-up.. no network or anything else.
Also, my computer has crashed a few times in Linux; always with NFS (if I don't use NFS, it works 100%)
Netscape (under Linux) has crashed a total of 4 times (I think - might be only 3..) in 18 months.
Other than that, I've never experienced a single crash, or lockup, or failure (and this is on 18 boxes.)
#1, Does Mr. Gates believe his company makes products with a high degree of quality?
#2, If so, why does his company refuse to offer any sort of warranty on said products if they fail? (witness the End User License Agreement, from any version of Windows: "Microsoft Corporation hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to the software, including all implied warranties and conditions of mechantability or fitness for a particular purpose.")
If a company truly believes that they make a quality product, should they not be willing to back-up that belief with a warranty stating that the product will (at least) do what it was advertised to?
(nb. before anyone points out that GPL does pretty much the same thing, keep in mind that GPL software can be obtained for free (beer) - MS sells it's wares for money.. and since (in theory) I'm handing over my cash, I should be able to expect some guarantee that the damn thing will at least do what the box says.)
Why does Microsoft have to lose for us to win? Why can't we just be happy in making a great operating system that millions of people can enjoy? Do we have to make it into a competition?
MS has to lose because that's what they believe. (MS's attitude is that in order for them to win, everybody else has to lose; and if they don't win, then they lose... ergo in order for us to win, they have to lose.)
I agree that there is a lot of effort by people into "war-waging" (myself included, probably) but this is a natural reaction to being attacked. (And this is what MS is doing - attacking us.)
We have to fight back now, because who knows what might happen in the future (MS is one of the biggest lobbyer's for "software manufacturers rights" - like making reverse engineering of protocols a crime.) If we "let them do whatever the hell they want" then we're signing our own death warrant. What happens when they twist the laws until it becomes illegal to write your own software?
Am I being paranoid? Maybe... this is all conjecture after all... But the issue with it becoming illegal to write your own software has already started (software patents, "look & feel" lawsuits, etc.)
You need to look farther down the road before you say "they can't hurt me." Remember that "they can't hurt me now" does not mean "they can't hurt me ever."
Unrestricted internet communication IS NOT THE SAME AS HARRASSMENT.
SPAM == HARRASSMENT.
Harrassment is illegal - freedom of speech does not give you the right to scream into your neighbor's windows at 4:AM with a megaphone.
The people who are crying for anti-spam legistlation are only trying to clearly define what spam is, so that existing legal principles can be applied.
But what I'm getting at in the end is that anyone who can say that they want to legislate SPAM while simultaneously stating that there should be no internet censorship of any kind is simply a fool.
So... by this logic, anyone who says "there should be no internet censorship", and also says "kiddie porn should be illegal" is also a hypocrite? Not likely. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I was thinking about this recently (acually, I was thinking about how the world needs a calendar/scheduling/intranet -type program that's cross-platform, instead of the Exchange/Bloatus Notes that exists right now), and though "what about a server-based app that used the browser for display."
I mean, for a calendaring app (for multiple people) the data needs to be stored somewhere central, right? This becomes a "write for the web" application, but without the horrendous problems you mentioned (all of which I've encountered, BTW:o)
The original post mentions/. and Yahoo, both of which are "apps" that run on the server, and use the browser only as an interface (no java*)
I know that this doesn't apply to every situation, (anything that relies on interactive feedback wouldn't work) but for those that would work, it seems like the best way to make it truly cross-platform (not just cross-GUI toolkit:o)
If you want to see something like this in action, install Roxen (GPL web-server) and play with its configuration interface. Very slick.
Or, rather, the Industry doesn't care one way or the other. The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.
This is all true, but it goes beyond that.
The person who claims that "the industry" supports censorship is 100% accurate - it's not that they're indifferent to it.
The issue isn't "regulated or unregulated" data, it's HOW the data is regulated.
Regulated data requires more storage (to hold the list of what's accepted and what isn't,) more CPU power (to make decisions based on those lists,) and more software (to drive the CPU's.)
What dies this translate into? MORE MONEY that has to be spent on software and computers; which means more money for the "industry." Which, since that's what they're for, is why they support it.
Of course, for the ISPs (who have to put up the money to buy all of this,) this doesn't apply (I guess they're not "industry".)
You probably wouldn't. (At least not if you have to ask why - this goes for anything, not just computers... if you have to ask why, then you probably don't want one.) The only reason someone would want one nowadays is either Nostalgia, or for use with a Video Toaster.
Are they better for Sound/graphics?
At one time yes.. but not any more. My A3000 pales in comparison to my Deskpro 5100 (Pentium 100) even before I added the Voodoo3 card.
Can I hook them up to my TV esaier?
Yes - the default Amiga video modes run at the same scanrate as your TV. (In fact, you could plug a VCR/tuner into an Amiga monitor and watch TV, with a better quality picture than most consumer-brand TV sets.)
I don't mean to start any flame wars. I just want to know what an amiga can do my current dual pent.2 can't.
Run multiple screens at different resolutions on the same display simultaneously, or install a Video Toaster and do broadcast video switching/editing. Not too much else, except maybe run some old programs that were never ported to the PC.
My own system (an old Compaq P100, 32MB, 2MB Matrox Millennium) seems to run Gnome much faster than KDE (default settings - even with E as gnome's WM).. window resizing & moving seems snappier, and the system just feels smoother..
I still use both of them (not at the same time though:o)
It would be interesting to try Gnome using Kfm for both help browsing and for desktop icons, since gmc is quite heavy.
I tried using KWM and KFM under gnome (also tried Blackbox, with and without the gnome-patch), but experienced frequent crashes; I don't know whether this is something to do with my setup (libc5) but I don't care too much; I just don't use them together anymore:o)
Considering how Corel has embraced the OSS movement, it would be pretty strange for them to go back on their word. From everything I've heard from them, they're pretty clued-in.
Corel is putting quite a few of it's eggs in the Linux basket, which (for an "old-school" company) is a pretty big risk. We should all give them as much support as we can (whether that's monetary support by buying their products, coding support for whatever software they release as OSS, or even just giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of flying off the handle.)
If these jokers are "spam-friendly", then they're surely on the MAPS RBL already; convince your ISP to join the RBL (words to the effect of "I'm really pissed off at this spam, and if you don't do something to stop it, I'll be forced to switch providers; the MAPS RBL is the best way to protect your customers from being harrassed like this.")
It's important to be as polite as possible.. try to present it as a solution that would help their customer base, as opposed to hurt it (most ISP's cringe at the though that one of their customers might not be able to send/receive email to a particular domain; for whatever reason.)
A truly interesting observation, one that is worthy of hard consideration...
But even if it's true, it still doesn't soften the effect of the news; and that is that this is another setback for the die-hards (does that include me? I have an A3000 that I still use - and probably will until the PAR gives out and I can't use it for video any more.)
I think whatever the reason for this latest announcement, the result is that (to the faithful) it's another nail in the coffin.
Actually, the Canadian broadcasting folks are like an FCC with fewer lawsuits and more political correctness.
Umm, can you give some example of the political correctness?
I remember a couple of years ago, the great Pete Townsend was interviewed on the CBC (in the early afternoon.) During the interview, he was heard to say the "F-word" several times (along with some other colourful metaphors), and it was broadcast without being censored. (I doubt this would qualify as being "politically correct".)
As an amusing end to the tail, in one of the US towns close to the border (where they can receive our TV signals) there was a huge uproar, and many complaints were lodged at both the FCC and CRTC by US Citizens. Not one complaint from any Canadian was recorded.
I think it's interesting that I can listen to "vulgarity" and watch full frontal nudity on free broadcast television, while American TV regulations forbid the showing of two people in bed together, without some form of clothing or blanket between them.
What if it's a fact. Perhaps the encoding and compression of some music actually makes it "better" (remember that better in this case is defined as "less annoying for the majority of the population".
This reminds me of a similar article I read (probably about 12 years or so ago) in which a magazine ran double-blind test to determine the quality of T-120 vido tapes; IIRC the material was recorded on various manufacturer's tapes, and each recording was done three times (one for each speed, SP, LP, EP.)
The interesting thing (and the only reason I remember the article at all) was that the "regular joes" viewing the tapes frequently rated the EP recordings as giving the highest quality picture (EP always gives the lowest-quality picture.)
I think it's kind of like wine-tasting; if you get Joe Blow off the street to do a "blindfolded taste-test" with $100/bottle wines vs $10/bottle ones, you probably shouldn't place too much emphasis on the results if s/he picks the $10 bottle.
Yes, if the guy was really paranoid, he would have changed the boot sequence and password protected the BIOS, but it wouldn't have prevented "plan B" - which is to wipe the BIOS by opening the case, or to remove the HD and install it in another machine.
And yes, I'm aware of the need for physical security; (the servers were stored in a locked, alarmed room.)
I was just asking, because (as I said) this BSD shop told them that if it was running BSD, then there was no way anyone could break into them.
So which OS's do you use that can prevent you from booting from a different volume? (be it floppy, hard drive, or some other medium.)
A couple of weeks ago, I got a call from a company that was letting their sysadmin go (and not on good terms, either), and needed someone to hack their (linux) servers, as nobody else knew root passwords; I got called in; downtime was not an issue, so (with the aid of a rescue disk) it was just a matter of rebooting the boxes and editing the passwd file...
After seeing how simple it was to get into the boxes, they immediately asked if I could switch the boxes over to BSD, as the previous people they had called (a BSD shop) had told them that if they had used BSD, then there was no way anyone could get into the boxes, as BSD is "uncrackable."
Now, I don't have any experience with BSD (I tried installing it, but there are no drivers for my home machine, which I use as a testbed,) so I didn't have any firm comeback; but I would like to know (from the BSD people who will be reading this) if the same technique I used would be possible on a BSD machine. (I'm hard pressed to think of how this could be done, short of encrypting the root FS, or something similar.)
Can anyone shed some light on this? Is BSD really "uncrackable", or are these other guys just blowing smoke?
I imagine that the install costs are so high because the companies are defferring the cost of their equipment; they could do it for $50/mo, with a reasonable install cost, or they can do it for $30/mo. + large install fee. I work for a small ISP that provides DSL service, and this is the challenge we've run in to... in order to make money, someone has to pay for the gear. In the end, we opted to make it the customer's decision. (We have two install packages available, customer chooses withich one they want.)
(c'mon, you don't really think his wife is after his BODY do you?.. and we all know that his coding abilities suck...:o)
I'm glad to see SOMEONE has some sense...
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately, I've seen something else happen up here..
The Fire Department in a nearby city (St. Albert) uses software called "Crysis" for their 911 dispatching, which until recently, ran on QNX.. well, it seems in their infinite wisdom(?), Crysis has decided to switch over to Windows 98!
Hmm, now does this give anyone else here chills? I mean, think about if this happened in YOUR town... would you trust your emergency services?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's one...
:o)
My pet peeve with the movie was his modem setup...
He's using an acoustic coupler to dial all of those machines (he makes a point of dialing the school's computer with the phone's keypad) but his wardialer can automatically dial 40000 numbers... (how, exactly, does it HANG UP to dial the next number in the sequence?)
hmm... anyway.. other than that (and the bit about the passkey sequence) it wasn't too bad of a movie... I think I watched it about a dozen times when I was 12
Have they really made glibc as fast as libc5?
And as stable?
Odd.. I was under the impression that libc5 was slower than glibc...
(which is why benchmarks show SUSE and Redhat outperforming Slackware
and Caldera (1.3)...)
Is there anyone 'in the know' (one of the developers, perhaps?) that
can clarify this?
Long live Slackware!
Well, I'd love to say that I've never seen X crash, but the unforutnate truth is that it crashed on me a couple of times (actually, it was an old version of KWM that crashed - and it was reproducable... but it only ever happened with an old S3 video card.) And yes, it was a complete lock-up.. no network or anything else.
Also, my computer has crashed a few times in Linux; always with NFS (if I don't use NFS, it works 100%)
Netscape (under Linux) has crashed a total of 4 times (I think - might be only 3..) in 18 months.
Other than that, I've never experienced a single crash, or lockup, or failure (and this is on 18 boxes.)
I'd say that's pretty damn stable.
#1, Does Mr. Gates believe his company makes products with a high degree of quality?
#2, If so, why does his company refuse to offer any sort of warranty on said products if they fail? (witness the End User License Agreement, from any version of Windows: "Microsoft Corporation hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to the software, including all implied warranties and conditions of mechantability or fitness for a particular purpose.")
If a company truly believes that they make a quality product, should they not be willing to back-up that belief with a warranty stating that the product will (at least) do what it was advertised to?
(nb. before anyone points out that GPL does pretty much the same thing, keep in mind that GPL software can be obtained for free (beer) - MS sells it's wares for money.. and since (in theory) I'm handing over my cash, I should be able to expect some guarantee that the damn thing will at least do what the box says.)
Why does Microsoft have to lose for us to win? Why can't we just be happy in making a great operating system that millions of people can enjoy? Do we have to make it into a competition?
MS has to lose because that's what they believe. (MS's attitude is that in order for them to win, everybody else has to lose; and if they don't win, then they lose... ergo in order for us to win, they have to lose.)
I agree that there is a lot of effort by people into "war-waging" (myself included, probably) but this is a natural reaction to being attacked. (And this is what MS is doing - attacking us.)
We have to fight back now, because who knows what might happen in the future (MS is one of the biggest lobbyer's for "software manufacturers rights" - like making reverse engineering of protocols a crime.) If we "let them do whatever the hell they want" then we're signing our own death warrant. What happens when they twist the laws until it becomes illegal to write your own software?
Am I being paranoid? Maybe... this is all conjecture after all... But the issue with it becoming illegal to write your own software has already started (software patents, "look & feel" lawsuits, etc.)
You need to look farther down the road before you say "they can't hurt me." Remember that "they can't hurt me now" does not mean "they can't hurt me ever."
You're missing something...
Unrestricted internet communication IS NOT THE SAME AS HARRASSMENT.
SPAM == HARRASSMENT.
Harrassment is illegal - freedom of speech does not give you the right to scream into your neighbor's windows at 4:AM with a megaphone.
The people who are crying for anti-spam legistlation are only trying to clearly define what spam is, so that existing legal principles can be applied.
But what I'm getting at in the end is that anyone who can say that they want to legislate SPAM while simultaneously stating that there should be no internet censorship of any kind is simply a fool.
So... by this logic, anyone who says "there should be no internet censorship", and also says "kiddie porn should be illegal" is also a hypocrite? Not likely. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Is that what the original poster meant?
:o)
/. and Yahoo, both of which are "apps" that run on the server, and use the browser only as an interface (no java*)
:o)
I was thinking about this recently (acually, I was thinking about how the world needs a calendar/scheduling/intranet -type program that's cross-platform, instead of the Exchange/Bloatus Notes that exists right now), and though "what about a server-based app that used the browser for display."
I mean, for a calendaring app (for multiple people) the data needs to be stored somewhere central, right? This becomes a "write for the web" application, but without the horrendous problems you mentioned (all of which I've encountered, BTW
The original post mentions
I know that this doesn't apply to every situation, (anything that relies on interactive feedback wouldn't work) but for those that would work, it seems like the best way to make it truly cross-platform (not just cross-GUI toolkit
If you want to see something like this in action, install Roxen (GPL web-server) and play with its configuration interface. Very slick.
Just my two cents...
Or, rather, the Industry doesn't care one way or the other.
The Computer Industry doesn't make it's money off of freedom of speech, it makes it's money off of computers that push data around. Whether that data is regulated is irrelevant, because regulated data needs computers to push it around just as much as unregulated data.
This is all true, but it goes beyond that.
The person who claims that "the industry" supports censorship is 100% accurate - it's not that they're indifferent to it.
The issue isn't "regulated or unregulated" data, it's HOW the data is regulated.
Regulated data requires more storage (to hold the list of what's accepted and what isn't,) more CPU power (to make decisions based on those lists,) and more software (to drive the CPU's.)
What dies this translate into? MORE MONEY that has to be spent on software and computers; which means more money for the "industry." Which, since that's what they're for, is why they support it.
Of course, for the ISPs (who have to put up the money to buy all of this,) this doesn't apply (I guess they're not "industry".)
Why didn't you just use Cistron RADIUSD?
It's fast, stable, and open-source. We've used it for the past year (with and without NIS) and never had a problem with it.
One of the best examples of OSS I can think of.
Why would I want to get an amiga?
You probably wouldn't. (At least not if you have to ask why - this goes for anything, not just computers... if you have to ask why, then you probably don't want one.) The only reason someone would want one nowadays is either Nostalgia, or for use with a Video Toaster.
Are they better for Sound/graphics?
At one time yes.. but not any more. My A3000 pales in comparison to my Deskpro 5100 (Pentium 100) even before I added the Voodoo3 card.
Can I hook them up to my TV esaier?
Yes - the default Amiga video modes run at the same scanrate as your TV. (In fact, you could plug a VCR/tuner into an Amiga monitor and watch TV, with a better quality picture than most consumer-brand TV sets.)
I don't mean to start any flame wars. I just want to know what an amiga can do my current dual pent.2 can't.
Run multiple screens at different resolutions on the same display simultaneously, or install a Video Toaster and do broadcast video switching/editing. Not too much else, except maybe run some old programs that were never ported to the PC.
Interesting...
:o)
:o)
My own system (an old Compaq P100, 32MB, 2MB Matrox Millennium) seems to run Gnome much faster than KDE (default settings - even with E as gnome's WM).. window resizing & moving seems snappier, and the system just feels smoother..
I still use both of them (not at the same time though
It would be interesting to try Gnome using Kfm for both help browsing and for desktop icons, since gmc is quite heavy.
I tried using KWM and KFM under gnome (also tried Blackbox, with and without the gnome-patch), but experienced frequent crashes; I don't know whether this is something to do with my setup (libc5) but I don't care too much; I just don't use them together anymore
Considering how Corel has embraced the OSS movement, it would be pretty strange for them to go back on their word. From everything I've heard from them, they're pretty clued-in.
Corel is putting quite a few of it's eggs in the Linux basket, which (for an "old-school" company) is a pretty big risk. We should all give them as much support as we can (whether that's monetary support by buying their products, coding support for whatever software they release as OSS, or even just giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of flying off the handle.)
Well, a telnet to port 80 says it's Linux:
>$ telnet securelinux.hackpcweek.com
>Trying 208.184.64.170...
>Connected to securelinux.hackpcweek.com.
>Escape character is '^]'.
>HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:39:01 GMT
>Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux)
But even stranger... queso reports it as neither!
>$ queso securelinux.hackpcweek.com
>208.184.64.170:80 * HP/JETdirect Printer (old model)
So this begs the question... are they running behind some kind of firewall/load balancing proxy?
If these jokers are "spam-friendly", then they're surely on the MAPS RBL already; convince your ISP to join the RBL (words to the effect of "I'm really pissed off at this spam, and if you don't do something to stop it, I'll be forced to switch providers; the MAPS RBL is the best way to protect your customers from being harrassed like this.")
It's important to be as polite as possible.. try to present it as a solution that would help their customer base, as opposed to hurt it (most ISP's cringe at the though that one of their customers might not be able to send/receive email to a particular domain; for whatever reason.)
A truly interesting observation, one that is worthy of hard consideration...
But even if it's true, it still doesn't soften the effect of the news; and that is that this is another setback for the die-hards (does that include me? I have an A3000 that I still use - and probably will until the PAR gives out and I can't use it for video any more.)
I think whatever the reason for this latest announcement, the result is that (to the faithful) it's another nail in the coffin.
Actually, the Canadian broadcasting folks are like an FCC with fewer lawsuits and more political correctness.
Umm, can you give some example of the political correctness?
I remember a couple of years ago, the great Pete Townsend was interviewed on the CBC (in the early afternoon.) During the interview, he was heard to say the "F-word" several times (along with some other colourful metaphors), and it was broadcast without being censored. (I doubt this would qualify as being "politically correct".)
As an amusing end to the tail, in one of the US towns close to the border (where they can receive our TV signals) there was a huge uproar, and many complaints were lodged at both the FCC and CRTC by US Citizens. Not one complaint from any Canadian was recorded.
I think it's interesting that I can listen to "vulgarity" and watch full frontal nudity on free broadcast television, while American TV regulations forbid the showing of two people in bed together, without some form of clothing or blanket between them.
What if it's a fact. Perhaps the encoding and compression of some music actually makes it "better" (remember that better in this case is defined as "less annoying for the majority of the population".
This reminds me of a similar article I read (probably about 12 years or so ago) in which a magazine ran double-blind test to determine the quality of T-120 vido tapes; IIRC the material was recorded on various manufacturer's tapes, and each recording was done three times (one for each speed, SP, LP, EP.)
The interesting thing (and the only reason I remember the article at all) was that the "regular joes" viewing the tapes frequently rated the EP recordings as giving the highest quality picture (EP always gives the lowest-quality picture.)
I think it's kind of like wine-tasting; if you get Joe Blow off the street to do a "blindfolded taste-test" with $100/bottle wines vs $10/bottle ones, you probably shouldn't place too much emphasis on the results if s/he picks the $10 bottle.
Yes, if the guy was really paranoid, he would have changed the boot
sequence and password protected the BIOS, but it wouldn't have
prevented "plan B" - which is to wipe the BIOS by opening the case, or
to remove the HD and install it in another machine.
And yes, I'm aware of the need for physical security; (the servers
were stored in a locked, alarmed room.)
I was just asking, because (as I said) this BSD shop told them that if
it was running BSD, then there was no way anyone could break into
them.
So which OS's do you use that can prevent you from booting from a
different volume? (be it floppy, hard drive, or some other medium.)
This reminds me...
A couple of weeks ago, I got a call from a company that was letting
their sysadmin go (and not on good terms, either), and needed someone
to hack their (linux) servers, as nobody else knew root passwords; I
got called in; downtime was not an issue, so (with the aid of a
rescue disk) it was just a matter of rebooting the boxes and editing
the passwd file...
After seeing how simple it was to get into the boxes, they immediately
asked if I could switch the boxes over to BSD, as the previous people
they had called (a BSD shop) had told them that if they had used
BSD, then there was no way anyone could get into the boxes, as BSD is
"uncrackable."
Now, I don't have any experience with BSD (I tried installing it, but
there are no drivers for my home machine, which I use as a testbed,)
so I didn't have any firm comeback; but I would like to know (from
the BSD people who will be reading this) if the same technique I used
would be possible on a BSD machine. (I'm hard pressed to think of how
this could be done, short of encrypting the root FS, or something
similar.)
Can anyone shed some light on this? Is BSD really "uncrackable", or
are these other guys just blowing smoke?
I imagine that the install costs are so high because the companies are defferring the cost of their equipment; they could do it for $50/mo, with a reasonable install cost, or they can do it for $30/mo. + large install fee. I work for a small ISP that provides DSL service, and this is the challenge we've run in to... in order to make money, someone has to pay for the gear. In the end, we opted to make it the customer's decision. (We have two install packages available, customer chooses withich one they want.)
That map is labeled "proposed".. (last updated Feb. 99)... isn't it supposed to be finished? ... maybe they made some changes?
Cool... I live just 8 blocks from the fastest network in the world..
:) (I'd probably have to move down the street :)
Hmm... I wonder how the best way to tap into that would be
Any woman can live with a geek if he's loaded.
.. and we all know that his coding abilities suck... :o)
Agreed. Case in point, Bill Gates.
(c'mon, you don't really think his wife is after his BODY do you?
Unfortunately, I've seen something else happen up here..
The Fire Department in a nearby city (St. Albert) uses software called "Crysis" for their 911 dispatching, which until recently, ran on QNX.. well, it seems in their infinite wisdom(?), Crysis has decided to switch over to Windows 98!
Hmm, now does this give anyone else here chills? I mean, think about if this happened in YOUR town... would you trust your emergency services?
I'm just glad that I don't live there.
Sorry, of course you're correct, I got my semantics wrong..
Thanks for the correction.