It's good to *LEARN* to use the correct tool for the job (in this case, that would be sed.) Memorizing the "perl" way to do something is just one step towards afflicting yourself with the brain damage known as "perl syndrome", wherein you waste time re-inventing the wheel (suboptimally) every time you're confronted with a problem.
The reason Windows doesn't allow superusers to su to other accounts without their password is for accountability.
Umm, I think that you're using the word "accountability" in some new, unusual way, which has nothing to do with it's original meaning (ie. people actually being accountable for something.)
It's a lot harder to notice a rogue admin reading and modifying files of execs when he/she can do it without knowing their password.
That has nothing to do with accountability.
By making the Administrator know user passwords to perform administration functions, you *REMOVE* accountability, because you can't ever know who's using the account.
Windows is designed in most ways to be Nerfed so that you don't shoot your eye out
No, I'd say that windows wasn't actually designed at all - nobody with a modicum of understanding of security would ever design a system to be like Windows.
My wife is Filipino (we live in Canada); she spends way more than $10 each month calling her family. If her family in Manila can get broadband, then we could use that instead of the telephone.
Can you give some details on this broadband service? I went to the SMART website, and all they have listed there is a service that offers "up to" 112Kbps, at (approximately) $18 (988P) per month - technically it might be broadband (depending on how they deliver the signal) but it's not quite what I was expecting, and it's more than $10.
Can you provide a link to the service you mentioned?
I prefered the "Soylent Paper" one. (Phil running into an office doing his Heston impression, screaming "it's people!", and the office workers acting terrified of their typewriters..)
It sounds like he is doing a simple grep for the word Linux and automatically sending a demand letter if the word Linux is detected anywhere on your website.
there's some serious advantages - like the fact that all major and most minor browsers will render them identically, that they're far more intuitive, and that they allow re-flowing in a way that you can only do with CSS attributes that are explicitly designed to mimic the layout algorithms of "traditional" tables
If you really believe all of this, then I don't think theres hope for you... unless you define "major and minor" browsers as "IE". Tables get rendered differently by different browsers, just like CSS gets rendered differently.. the only thing is that it's easier to work around CSS bugs
CSS is *WAY* more intuitive than tables ever were (and there's a reason - because it's designed that way.) You use DIVs to define blocks of code, then use CSS to say how you want them positioned. With tables, you have to screw around with row and column spans *in the HTML itself*.
It's pretty obvious that you prefer tables because you've spent a lot of time learning their quirks - don't slam CSS just because you don't know how to use it properly.
In Canada (or at least Alberta), libraries are not allowed (by law) to install filters of any kind, because doing so violates their charter (open access to public information.)
There are several rural schools that share network access with public libraries, and this is one of the things that we have to work around (computers belonging to the school must be filtered, but computers belonging to the library must not be.)
I find it amazing that libraries in the US are not only allowed to censor information, but that they are *expected* to.
I'm not even sure I said Microsoft at all during my few minutes up there
According to TFA, they say (or at least imply) you said "Windows" in reference to the OS (although not in the part that's quoted.)
'DiBona pointed out that if Google used Windows, or any other non-open source software program, to make changes to that system he would be required to essentially ask permission from that vendor.'
They may have inserted the word as a clarification to their readers (who may not know what an OS is) but the article definitely gives the impression that you mention the Beast from Redmond by name.
Maybe, although that is far from proven - all we have is the word of the spammers themselves, and you must remember rule #1 (spammers lie.)
if there weren't there wouldn't be any spam.
Bullshit. If this were true, then there would never have been spam to begin with, because the *very first* spammers got exactly zero orders. Nobody bought anything, and yet spammers still spammed - why? because they could.
It doesn't matter if nobody buys anything - as long as sociopaths believe someone *might* buy their crap, they will continue to do it, and new ones will pop up as the old ones run out of money.
What they see is lots of spam from other companies, and (just like others who lack critical thinking skills) believe that "someone must be buying", and start spamming.
if we're really going to stop junk email, these are the people we should be working on educating.
How are we going to do that when *YOU* buy into the self-perpetuating "someone must be buying" myth? Since *YOU* believe it, spammers will believe it, and they will keep spamming.
A few things that bother me: 1. Novell didn't come out MUCH earlier to claim their 95% of royalties
If you read Novell's filing, you will see that they have, in fact, been doing this for the past two years. As litigation and public aggrandizement weren't their goals, they've been doing it privately (ie., the way business professionals work.) It's only when they're sure that they have 100% legal proof that SCOX wouldn't hold up their end of the contract that they brought it to court.
2. Darl et al probably will not see any jail time
Don't count this out yet - it could still happen (wait for SCO to go bankrupt first.)
3. who put SCOX up to this? And I mean proof of who's pulling the strings, not the "it just has to be MSFT" speculation, though I agree with that speculation.
Without a whistleblower, anything right now will be speculation.
For the record, I don't think anyone put them up to it - I think that MS (and possibly Sun) may have seized the opportunity to fund some anti-Linux FUD, but it started out as Darl's get-rich-quick scheme to get IBM to buy SCO. IBM called, and SCO was forced to launch the suits to maintain face.
If IBM had just bought SCO out like they were supposed to, Darl wouldn't have had to file the bogus suits, or make all those stupid (and actionable) claims in the media!
It's not Darl's fault for trying to extort a golden parachute from IBM, it's IBM's fault for refusing to play along!
Phew, I can't believe I kept a straight face while typing that.:o)
Slashdot Mirror
It's good to memorize the Perl way to do this.
No, it really, really isn't.
It's good to *LEARN* to use the correct tool for the job (in this case, that would be sed.) Memorizing the "perl" way to do something is just one step towards afflicting yourself with the brain damage known as "perl syndrome", wherein you waste time re-inventing the wheel (suboptimally) every time you're confronted with a problem.
Learn Unix, not Perl.
If you have a homemade movie you must be able to play that.
Uh, yeah, right.
The reason Windows doesn't allow superusers to su to other accounts without their password is for accountability.
Umm, I think that you're using the word "accountability" in some new, unusual way, which has nothing to do with it's original meaning (ie. people actually being accountable for something.)
It's a lot harder to notice a rogue admin reading and modifying files of execs when he/she can do it without knowing their password.
That has nothing to do with accountability.
By making the Administrator know user passwords to perform administration functions, you *REMOVE* accountability, because you can't ever know who's using the account.
Windows is designed in most ways to be Nerfed so that you don't shoot your eye out
No, I'd say that windows wasn't actually designed at all - nobody with a modicum of understanding of security would ever design a system to be like Windows.
My wife is Filipino (we live in Canada); she spends way more than $10 each month calling her family. If her family in Manila can get broadband, then we could use that instead of the telephone.
Can you give some details on this broadband service? I went to the SMART website, and all they have listed there is a service that offers "up to" 112Kbps, at (approximately) $18 (988P) per month - technically it might be broadband (depending on how they deliver the signal) but it's not quite what I was expecting, and it's more than $10.
Can you provide a link to the service you mentioned?
the United States, a large country with more vast, unpopulated areas than any other industrial nation.
Umm, yeah, right.
That's more the technology we masses need.
yes, because the messes like taking pictures from the surface of the sun.
Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever.
it's a story that ran on Slashdot in MARCH.
:o)
So thanks a lot for the 6 month old news.
It's not a dupe, it's a tripe (at least - it was posted in December, too.)
And the pedant in me has to point out that the link you posted was from March 2004 - which makes it 18 months old, not 6
I prefered the "Soylent Paper" one. (Phil running into an office doing his Heston impression, screaming "it's people!", and the office workers acting terrified of their typewriters..)
if he's "always" threatening people with such things, perhaps you'd like to refer to at least two examples?
c id=13326820
There are two examples posted here:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159125&
It was posted by the author you're trying to refute, a whopping six hours before your post claiming there wasn't two examples.
You can't? What a surprise.
Feeling a little stupid now?
Umm, you *do* realize who you're correcting, right?
It sounds like he is doing a simple grep for the word Linux and automatically sending a demand letter if the word Linux is detected anywhere on your website.
In other words, he's a spammer.
there's some serious advantages - like the fact that all major and most minor browsers will render them identically, that they're far more intuitive, and that they allow re-flowing in a way that you can only do with CSS attributes that are explicitly designed to mimic the layout algorithms of "traditional" tables
If you really believe all of this, then I don't think theres hope for you... unless you define "major and minor" browsers as "IE". Tables get rendered differently by different browsers, just like CSS gets rendered differently.. the only thing is that it's easier to work around CSS bugs
CSS is *WAY* more intuitive than tables ever were (and there's a reason - because it's designed that way.) You use DIVs to define blocks of code, then use CSS to say how you want them positioned. With tables, you have to screw around with row and column spans *in the HTML itself*.
It's pretty obvious that you prefer tables because you've spent a lot of time learning their quirks - don't slam CSS just because you don't know how to use it properly.
try using the correct tools for the right job
If you really believed this, you'd be using CSS.
Yeah, too bad it doesn't validate. :o)
In Canada (or at least Alberta), libraries are not allowed (by law) to install filters of any kind, because doing so violates their charter (open access to public information.)
There are several rural schools that share network access with public libraries, and this is one of the things that we have to work around (computers belonging to the school must be filtered, but computers belonging to the library must not be.)
I find it amazing that libraries in the US are not only allowed to censor information, but that they are *expected* to.
Well, it's obvious. You should have patented the idea.
:o)
Isn't non-obviousness one of the requirements of patentability?
There are some good and great programmers out there. However, for every one of those I'd say there are 2-3 that don't know what they are doing.
I think you just described the state of the entire IT industry.
s/programmers/people in IT jobs/g
The boxes themselves aren't free. FedEx pays for them [...] FedEx stands to lose a lot of cash in all of this
Then FedEx shoudn't be giving them away now, should they?
Obviously FedEx sees a benefit in giving the boxes away (otherwise they wouldn't do it.) If the cost outweighed the benefit, they'd stop doing it.
You wanna give something away? Fine. Just don't play the sore loser if someone takes you up on it.
Why does a tank need an OS?
To run Minesweeper, obviously!
I've found that Compaq/HP systems more often than not have problems right out of the box
My experience with Compaq/HP is exactly the opposite - 99.9% of the time they just work, and continue to almost forever.
Of course, that 0.1% of the cases where they don't work are the Presario crap, but the Deskpro and server-class machines are rock-solid.
I'm not even sure I said Microsoft at all during my few minutes up there
According to TFA, they say (or at least imply) you said "Windows" in reference to the OS (although not in the part that's quoted.)
'DiBona pointed out that if Google used Windows, or any other non-open source software program, to make changes to that system he would be required to essentially ask permission from that vendor.'
They may have inserted the word as a clarification to their readers (who may not know what an OS is) but the article definitely gives the impression that you mention the Beast from Redmond by name.
he has done a better job than either Gore or Kerry would have done
Cool - as you apparently have the ability to see into alternate universes, I have a favour to ask you:
Can you tell me what would have happened if my girlfriend and I hadn't broken up when I was 20? I'm just curious.
TIA.
there are people out there who buy that stuff...
Maybe, although that is far from proven - all we have is the word of the spammers themselves, and you must remember rule #1 (spammers lie.)
if there weren't there wouldn't be any spam.
Bullshit. If this were true, then there would never have been spam to begin with, because the *very first* spammers got exactly zero orders. Nobody bought anything, and yet spammers still spammed - why? because they could.
It doesn't matter if nobody buys anything - as long as sociopaths believe someone *might* buy their crap, they will continue to do it, and new ones will pop up as the old ones run out of money.
What they see is lots of spam from other companies, and (just like others who lack critical thinking skills) believe that "someone must be buying", and start spamming.
if we're really going to stop junk email, these are the people we should be working on educating.
How are we going to do that when *YOU* buy into the self-perpetuating "someone must be buying" myth? Since *YOU* believe it, spammers will believe it, and they will keep spamming.
A few things that bother me: 1. Novell didn't come out MUCH earlier to claim their 95% of royalties
If you read Novell's filing, you will see that they have, in fact, been doing this for the past two years. As litigation and public aggrandizement weren't their goals, they've been doing it privately (ie., the way business professionals work.) It's only when they're sure that they have 100% legal proof that SCOX wouldn't hold up their end of the contract that they brought it to court.
2. Darl et al probably will not see any jail time
Don't count this out yet - it could still happen (wait for SCO to go bankrupt first.)
3. who put SCOX up to this? And I mean proof of who's pulling the strings, not the "it just has to be MSFT" speculation, though I agree with that speculation.
Without a whistleblower, anything right now will be speculation.
For the record, I don't think anyone put them up to it - I think that MS (and possibly Sun) may have seized the opportunity to fund some anti-Linux FUD, but it started out as Darl's get-rich-quick scheme to get IBM to buy SCO. IBM called, and SCO was forced to launch the suits to maintain face.
No - really!
:o)
If IBM had just bought SCO out like they were supposed to, Darl wouldn't have had to file the bogus suits, or make all those stupid (and actionable) claims in the media!
It's not Darl's fault for trying to extort a golden parachute from IBM, it's IBM's fault for refusing to play along!
Phew, I can't believe I kept a straight face while typing that.
D'OH!
Bingo - the first answer is a tip off...
Q: "how do you respond when people accuse you of helping MS to crush OSS?"
A: "My job is to help MS understand OSS."
What was it Sun Tzu said about understanding your enemy?