I'm of the firm opinion that most Linux server should package its own shared libraries. Especially when those libraries differ between distros or are updated often with non-backwards compatible changes.
It's frustrating that you often can't use older software on newer Linux systems due to API compatibility issues. Meanwhile, you can run Windows software going all the way back to the 90s.
Macs also suffer from this lack of being able to run really ancient software, but for a more understandable reason: Multiple major system architecture changes over the years.
Also, RHEL versions are supported for a very long time. You can have systems running one version of RHEL, with security and bugfix updates for many years at a time. The whole point of the distro is stability; you don't have to worry about upgrading every six months.
This is the biggest example of "If it ain't broke..." ever. This code is ROCK SOLID STABLE, and has been around for decades. Just because something is old does not mean it needs to be replaced if it performs its function well.
Let's not mess with this code and introduce new bugs unless there's a good reason. If a year down the road I find systems crashing because of console code issues, I'm going to be PISSED.
I'm not sure why they are talking as if this is a new thing.
I remember receiving a large box at work ten years ago; it was something very expensive, I believe from IBM. There was an electronic shock sensor in the package, with a clock and everything that would log the time of any excessive shock or tipping.
This was between 2001 and 2003. In fact I STILL HAVE the thing, it's in a desk drawer somewhere at work.
I'd be more than happy to use long, more secure passwords if I'd be allowed to let my device memorize them. More and more sites are using the HTML option that denies autofill, keeping devices from memorizing passwords on them.
It should be possible to tell a device to ignore that HTML option if you have a passkey set on the device. Not letting devices remember passwords is less secure than just allowing it because people will use weaker, easier to type in passwords.
Not to mention Google's bad habit of making you reenter your password every so often. Just keep me logged in, damnit. My phone has a passkey.
I wouldn't call Option #2 immoral. Any law banning a book is immoral in itself and should not be followed if you can help it.
As for the piracy aspect, if you CAN'T buy it legally, the writer/publisher isn't losing any income when you pirate it. So morally you are in the clear; if the book is later legalized, though, you should definitely pay for it to show your support.
Why not allow the owner of the motherboard to sign their own code? This could be done at OS install, then if any malware modifies the code, it won't boot.
Giving control to the manufacturer just sounds wrong.
Sure, the iPhone 5 may have more processing power... But I bet if you put that thing in space, the first cosmic ray that comes along will happily crash the OS. Game over.
Hardware in spaecraft has to be hardened big time against radiation. Off the shelf junk will NOT work. Just sayin'.
This is rather ridiculous. The company was pretty much shut down during the time the hardware was not in use. Why should you have to pay for a subscription during a period the hardware wasn't in use?
Imagine if Comcast tried to do this. "Yeah, you're coming back to us after two years but to use the hardware you bought you have to pay two years of back-subscription."
If you want to deny eligibility for a replacement, or base it on years of subscription, rather than ownership, it would make more sense than holding the customer hostage and unable to start using your product! You might as well put up a big sign that says "Please go to our competitor, we don't want your business."
This company tried to charge my friend's employer for over a year of time during which the product wasn't being used when they tried to reactivate it after it had been in a storage closet for that time.
They wouldn't budge, either, and my friends company had to find an alternate solution.
So yeah, not doing business with them anytime soon.
I never thought in a million years that I'd say I love Comcast, but I do.
My business class connection through them has been rock solid without major issues for over two years. Other than lightning frying the modem once but they were out within hours with a replacement.
AT&T U-Verse can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
I can't believe anybody is even seriously considering this. Our government has become the biggest cluster fuck in the history of the world, and it will be the end of us if it is not reined in soon.
Facebook is one example of a site that has a crappy policy that only allows you to have one profile. It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life, where you add coworkers and talk about work.
Yet Facebook and other sites are forbidding this, making people put everything in one pot. It's becoming more difficult to separate your personal life from your professional life these days. Stupid real name policies and pervasive connection of everything to everything else is a curse.
We need a push towards policies that make it easy for people to keep personal and work lives separate. It's common sense.
I wish people could embrace the simple concept of not looking at things that offend them. It's not hard; it's not like YouTube will randomly show you videos containing blasphemy just because it doesn't like you.
If people could merely choose to not look at that which offends them rather than bitch, censorship wouldn't happen. But somehow folks have this bizarre idea that just because something offends them, *no one else should see it either*. And that is where society goes wrong...
I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.
This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever I rush myself, I make mistakes, miss things, etc.. I end up not doing a good job.
Isn't prioritizing speed a bad thing? Better to do the job right than fast.
Damnit, I need to proofread my comments before hitting submit. I meant "Linux software" not "Linux server". What is wrong with me.
I'm of the firm opinion that most Linux server should package its own shared libraries. Especially when those libraries differ between distros or are updated often with non-backwards compatible changes.
It's frustrating that you often can't use older software on newer Linux systems due to API compatibility issues. Meanwhile, you can run Windows software going all the way back to the 90s.
Macs also suffer from this lack of being able to run really ancient software, but for a more understandable reason: Multiple major system architecture changes over the years.
Did you come here JUST to complain? Because you're declaring my comment as useless, when yours is even more useless! ;)
What the heck are they thinking?
Also, RHEL versions are supported for a very long time. You can have systems running one version of RHEL, with security and bugfix updates for many years at a time. The whole point of the distro is stability; you don't have to worry about upgrading every six months.
What is Google thinking?
Why are we wasting development time on this?
This is the biggest example of "If it ain't broke..." ever. This code is ROCK SOLID STABLE, and has been around for decades. Just because something is old does not mean it needs to be replaced if it performs its function well.
Let's not mess with this code and introduce new bugs unless there's a good reason. If a year down the road I find systems crashing because of console code issues, I'm going to be PISSED.
I'm not sure why they are talking as if this is a new thing.
I remember receiving a large box at work ten years ago; it was something very expensive, I believe from IBM. There was an electronic shock sensor in the package, with a clock and everything that would log the time of any excessive shock or tipping.
This was between 2001 and 2003. In fact I STILL HAVE the thing, it's in a desk drawer somewhere at work.
So yeah, nothing new to see here, move along.
I'd be more than happy to use long, more secure passwords if I'd be allowed to let my device memorize them. More and more sites are using the HTML option that denies autofill, keeping devices from memorizing passwords on them.
It should be possible to tell a device to ignore that HTML option if you have a passkey set on the device. Not letting devices remember passwords is less secure than just allowing it because people will use weaker, easier to type in passwords.
Not to mention Google's bad habit of making you reenter your password every so often. Just keep me logged in, damnit. My phone has a passkey.
I wouldn't call Option #2 immoral. Any law banning a book is immoral in itself and should not be followed if you can help it.
As for the piracy aspect, if you CAN'T buy it legally, the writer/publisher isn't losing any income when you pirate it. So morally you are in the clear; if the book is later legalized, though, you should definitely pay for it to show your support.
Why not allow the owner of the motherboard to sign their own code? This could be done at OS install, then if any malware modifies the code, it won't boot.
Giving control to the manufacturer just sounds wrong.
Sure, the iPhone 5 may have more processing power... But I bet if you put that thing in space, the first cosmic ray that comes along will happily crash the OS. Game over.
Hardware in spaecraft has to be hardened big time against radiation. Off the shelf junk will NOT work. Just sayin'.
MIT sure seems like a petty and vengeful institution. I hope this makes some potential students think about their decision of school.
This is rather ridiculous. The company was pretty much shut down during the time the hardware was not in use. Why should you have to pay for a subscription during a period the hardware wasn't in use?
Imagine if Comcast tried to do this. "Yeah, you're coming back to us after two years but to use the hardware you bought you have to pay two years of back-subscription."
If you want to deny eligibility for a replacement, or base it on years of subscription, rather than ownership, it would make more sense than holding the customer hostage and unable to start using your product! You might as well put up a big sign that says "Please go to our competitor, we don't want your business."
This company tried to charge my friend's employer for over a year of time during which the product wasn't being used when they tried to reactivate it after it had been in a storage closet for that time.
They wouldn't budge, either, and my friends company had to find an alternate solution.
So yeah, not doing business with them anytime soon.
I never thought in a million years that I'd say I love Comcast, but I do.
My business class connection through them has been rock solid without major issues for over two years. Other than lightning frying the modem once but they were out within hours with a replacement.
AT&T U-Verse can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
Sound is pressure waves. Heat, or more accurately, infrared, is electromagnetic radiation.
They are so vastly different, far beyond just frequency, that I'm not sure what the person who wrote the summary is smoking. :)
Why is being able to run fast and throw/catch a ball accurately considered something that elevates these people above everyone else?
Why can't people be elevated for doing things that actually contribute to society?
Our priorities as a culture are SERIOUSLY fucked up.
I would honestly rather not pay to keep these scumbags alive.
These people chose their own fate. They chose to rape that girl. I have no sympathy because this isn't something that can happen by accident.
"Yeah my dick just came out and dragged me over to her."
No. Just end them. They are a serious threat to others and have shown it, willingly and without remorse.
I can't believe anybody is even seriously considering this. Our government has become the biggest cluster fuck in the history of the world, and it will be the end of us if it is not reined in soon.
How does this hold any legal water at all? Isn't the manufacturer of a product liable for patent infringements, not the end user?
Facebook is one example of a site that has a crappy policy that only allows you to have one profile. It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life, where you add coworkers and talk about work.
Yet Facebook and other sites are forbidding this, making people put everything in one pot. It's becoming more difficult to separate your personal life from your professional life these days. Stupid real name policies and pervasive connection of everything to everything else is a curse.
We need a push towards policies that make it easy for people to keep personal and work lives separate. It's common sense.
I wish people could embrace the simple concept of not looking at things that offend them. It's not hard; it's not like YouTube will randomly show you videos containing blasphemy just because it doesn't like you.
If people could merely choose to not look at that which offends them rather than bitch, censorship wouldn't happen. But somehow folks have this bizarre idea that just because something offends them, *no one else should see it either*. And that is where society goes wrong...
I'm glad we have a judge with sense here. Banning the sale of the product will only hurt consumers and the economy, with no real benefit to either company.
This patent bullshit is getting old and really needs some reform. :P
They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.
Holy shit man, 4 pizzas? No wonder we are obese as a nation.