Science Fiction is a story that deals with the implications of advanced technology. This is things like first contact, faster than light travel, defending yourself against mindless agressors that you can't communicate with, etc, etc.
Star Wars is most definitely not Sci-Fi, in that definition. Star Wars (and many many Star Trek episodes, but not all) is more what I would call "Space Fantasy". It uses a futuristic, technological setting, but tells a story of heros and heroines, beating evil.
Now, I don't make any claim to have invented these definitions - I first ran across them in Realms of Fantasy (sorry, I don't know a link for them.)
In the sense that Xenocide and Children of the Mind deal with issues, they are still Sci-Fi. Children really drifted almost into another universe, and lost of lot of supporters there, but it still dealt with true Sci-Fi issues.
This is almost exactly what AT&T's Crowd's does. Haven't heard anything about it in ages, but this is what it does. No link handy at the moment, unfortunately.
With Linux on the S/390, IBM can make one small port to Linux, and then a second, again, small port to the Linux-S/390, and be able to deliver Linux on the biggest server platform in existence.
So you object to the fact that public libraries have anything about human sexuality in them, right?
Public libraries in the US contain a great deal of information about human sexuality, and so do the high school libraries. If you truly object to your children learning about human sexuality, why haven't you been crusading against that?
It'll never happen because it's not really fair, just like the flat-tax.
Well, that's a valid complaint, I'll give you that. There is, however, a way to do a flat tax that's not nearly as unfair. I wrote something about this a while ago.
I don't know of any good arguments as to why this would be worse than the current situation, where only a few truly understand the tax code well enough to exploit it. I'm aware that there are some obvious problems (Capital gains gets taxed at a much more painful rate than currently, I think), but it's a good starting point for a discussion.
Well, if some of the code uses the modified BSD license (the license without the advertising clause), it's fully compatible with the GPL, and can relicensed, I believe.
n any event, the Debian-legal mailing list mentioned in the article, is probably a good place to be looking for this.
The problem is that the program is linked to both GPL'd code and QPL'd code. The licenses, while both open-source, are mutually exclusive (just like GPL and the traditional BSD license).
I don't understand why lib_apt is under the GPL, and not the LGPL. The LGPL is designed exactly for this situation.
The distinction in the US relates entirely to the patents on the RSA algorithm in the US. (I don't believe there is a patent on it anywhere else in the world.)
Basically, because of this patent, US sites must license the RSA algorithm from RSADSI to use it. Anyone outside the US doesn't really need to worry about that, and can use mod_ssl, or any other free variant you want.
SSL == Secure Sockets Layer(s?) This is *not* Secure HTTP. Secure HTTP was a competing spec used by IBM on it's OS/2 web browser for a little while. It completely flopped.
Ender's War was the name of the publication of Ender's Game + Speaker for the Dead, but in hardcover.
As was the case with Feist's Magician, when it went to paperback, it got split into the two constituent books. (This is a *massive* source of confusion for me, as I remember Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead as one book, not two.)
I believe Ender's War was also the name of the short story. If you can track down a copy of Maps in a Mirror, you should be all set.
By the way, before anyone tries to correct me, I just doublechecked this: Ender's War includes Ender's Game, copyright 1984, and Speaker for the Dead, copyright 1986. Maps in a Mirror includes Ender's Game, the original short story.
btw: Ender's Shadow is one of the few books I've read in the last year, cover to cover, twice in one week. It compares well with the original combo of Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, in my opinion.
Re:Glacial compile times and huge dwarf builds
on
GCC 2.95 Released
·
· Score: 1
It sounds like you're not happy with compile times, either. You really need to look into "make -j2" to get any performance benefit on a dual processor machine.
By default, GNU Make only deals with 1 "job" at a time, so it's only really using one processor. When you run "make -j2" you set that limit to two active jobs, and then you actually use your improved machine.
Everyone who thinks that they are a designer should read "The Elements of Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst at least 2 times, or at the very least read this page for Yale's web style manual: http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/pages/typogra phy2.html
I just looked through that page, a little bit, and while it is well written, they haven't really adapted to the use of the web. Their example pages (well, images of them) are labeled backwards in my opinion. The large rectangular blocks of text with no variation are very hard to read through. The pages with nice breaks and appropriate headers where necessary are much easier to use to find the information I want.
They've also failed to compensate for the fact that most people will sit further from their monitor than they will hold a book or paper in front of their face. I figure I'm sitting twice as far from this 19" monitor in front of me than I would hold a book or newspaper here. That shows up in the amount of text I can comfortably read on a line. My 21" monitor at home is even farther away.
Strangely, on the Typography 1 page they make many of the arguments I am making here, but in terms of lower case and uppper case text. Overall patterns are important for keeping track of where you are in the page. I find it hard to read solid blocks of text without paying extra attention to where I am in the block of text. A more varied paragraph doesn't cause me those problems.
I can resize my window size to however large I want it. Different font sizes really make these pages annoying, however.
It's very important to be able to read Slashdot in about 1024 pixels wide, when you're reading comments in nested mode. Comments 4-6 layers deep waste a lot of space on the left side of the browser - I'd hate to read those in a smaller window. I'd spend all my time moving my eyes down lines.
Besides, the *TABLE* shouldn't be limited in size - the cells inside it should be. It would allow better word wrapping inside the outer cells, typically the ones starved for space as it is.
Why does everyone designing these so-called portal sites insist on setting all their table widths to 600 pixels? It's really annoying on those of us who have monitors 17 inches and bigger. I mean, it's stupid to run my SGI monitor in anything less than 1280x1024, so i get to see this itty-bitty table in a massive browser window.
Folks, the trick is to do then specify everything else in percentages as well. It'll look the same on browsers with windows limited to 600 pixels, but those of us with bigger monitors won't think you're idiots. (Well, at least not as much.)
On the same tack, GUI != Bad, although there are horrible examples of both (MacOS comes to mind).
God, you can't have used MacOS very much. I've used it extensively, as well as Windows 95 and a variety of Linux window mangers and both full-fledged GUIs.
The Macintosh has, by far, the most internally consistent and sensible interface. It even has useful keyboard shortcuts, that are extremely consistent across applications. Don't let that one mouse button confuse you, it's modifed extensively with the keyboard, making use of your other hand.
Perhaps. It is, however, time to bring this to the forefront. Sun, IBM, SGI, HP, etc, would greatly benefit from taking Linux, actively sponsoring ports to their respective platforms, and moving as much of their proprietary software onto the platform. I, honestly, don't even care if all of it is open sourced. Ideally, it would be, but in some cases it will just take time to convince them that it's worth it to do so.
SGI would be my prime example here - great graphics performance, but a fairly bad track record in the last two years security-wise. Why not work towards transitioning the base operating system to something fairly auditable by outside sources (linux, *BSD, whatever.) Then you get real support systems, with huge development teams contributing and moving Unix forward in ways that hasn't happened in years.
Utopia, I know, and there are hordes of tertiary effects that would cause many people problems, but this is really the direction the computer industry seems to need to head. Historically it's been either "one size fits all" or "look at all the variety you've got - though, none if it works with anything else"
Thank you! That's the attitude I was really looking for here. I'm investigate most of the alternatives mentioned here (except cfengine, I haven't tracked that down yet), and I'm still forced to use rdist for this application.
Unfortunately, according to the email I've received from MagniComp, using it to communicate with another company does require you to pay for the license.
Since the particular application I'm using this in isn't on Linux, I'm at a disadvantage as is, but I happened to notice rdist on my RedHat box the day after I noticed the licensing terms, prompting this whole discussion.
It's more complicated than that - there are multiple sets of files that get sent to those 1000 machines, and those must be configured on a machine-by-machine basis. Currently that's handled via a centralized web interface.
I won't deny that it's possible to rework the whole system to use rsync, but it's probably much easier to rework the system to split internal destinations from external (client/vendor) destinations, and reduce our ssh licensing costs to something manageable that way.
Slashdot Mirror
your definition of science fiction, honestly.
Science Fiction is a story that deals with the implications of advanced technology. This is things like first contact, faster than light travel, defending yourself against mindless agressors that you can't communicate with, etc, etc.
Star Wars is most definitely not Sci-Fi, in that definition. Star Wars (and many many Star Trek episodes, but not all) is more what I would call "Space Fantasy". It uses a futuristic, technological setting, but tells a story of heros and heroines, beating evil.
Now, I don't make any claim to have invented these definitions - I first ran across them in Realms of Fantasy (sorry, I don't know a link for them.)
In the sense that Xenocide and Children of the Mind deal with issues, they are still Sci-Fi. Children really drifted almost into another universe, and lost of lot of supporters there, but it still dealt with true Sci-Fi issues.
This is almost exactly what AT&T's Crowd's does. Haven't heard anything about it in ages, but this is what it does. No link handy at the moment, unfortunately.
Even easier method: Turn all computer monitors towards the public aisle-ways.
Porting
Notes
to
OS/390
takes
forever.
With Linux on the S/390, IBM can make one small port to Linux, and then a second, again, small port to the Linux-S/390, and be able to deliver Linux on the biggest server platform in existence.
I don't believe ICANN has any jurisdiction over the .xx country code domains, so I don't believe the conflict resolution policy comes into play here.
No other operating system had the openess needed to do that development, IIRC.
hey, the cluser of "D" engines is really cool.
If it doesn't melt your engine mount.
Public libraries in the US contain a great deal of information about human sexuality, and so do the high school libraries. If you truly object to your children learning about human sexuality, why haven't you been crusading against that?
Well, that's a valid complaint, I'll give you that. There is, however, a way to do a flat tax that's not nearly as unfair. I wrote something about this a while ago.
I don't know of any good arguments as to why this would be worse than the current situation, where only a few truly understand the tax code well enough to exploit it. I'm aware that there are some obvious problems (Capital gains gets taxed at a much more painful rate than currently, I think), but it's a good starting point for a discussion.
All of this, is of course, IMHO, and IANAL.
n any event, the Debian-legal mailing list mentioned in the article, is probably a good place to be looking for this.
I don't understand why lib_apt is under the GPL, and not the LGPL. The LGPL is designed exactly for this situation.
Basically, because of this patent, US sites must license the RSA algorithm from RSADSI to use it.
Anyone outside the US doesn't really need to worry about that, and can use mod_ssl, or any other free variant you want.
SSL == Secure Sockets Layer(s?)
This is *not* Secure HTTP. Secure HTTP was a competing spec used by IBM on it's OS/2 web browser for a little while. It completely flopped.
As was the case with Feist's Magician, when it went to paperback, it got split into the two constituent books. (This is a *massive* source of confusion for me, as I remember Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead as one book, not two.)
I believe Ender's War was also the name of the short story. If you can track down a copy of Maps in a Mirror, you should be all set.
By the way, before anyone tries to correct me, I just doublechecked this:
Ender's War includes Ender's Game, copyright 1984, and Speaker for the Dead, copyright 1986. Maps in a Mirror includes Ender's Game, the original short story.
btw: Ender's Shadow is one of the few books I've read in the last year, cover to cover, twice in one week. It compares well with the original combo of Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, in my opinion.
By default, GNU Make only deals with 1 "job" at a time, so it's only really using one processor. When you run "make -j2" you set that limit to two active jobs, and then you actually use your improved machine.
The speed improvement is stunning, btw.
http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/pages/typogr
I just looked through that page, a little bit, and while it is well written, they haven't really adapted to the use of the web. Their example pages (well, images of them) are labeled backwards in my opinion. The large rectangular blocks of text with no variation are very hard to read through. The pages with nice breaks and appropriate headers where necessary are much easier to use to find the information I want.
They've also failed to compensate for the fact that most people will sit further from their monitor than they will hold a book or paper in front of their face. I figure I'm sitting twice as far from this 19" monitor in front of me than I would hold a book or newspaper here. That shows up in the amount of text I can comfortably read on a line. My 21" monitor at home is even farther away.
Strangely, on the Typography 1 page they make many of the arguments I am making here, but in terms of lower case and uppper case text. Overall patterns are important for keeping track of where you are in the page. I find it hard to read solid blocks of text without paying extra attention to where I am in the block of text. A more varied paragraph doesn't cause me those problems.
It's very important to be able to read Slashdot in about 1024 pixels wide, when you're reading comments in nested mode. Comments 4-6 layers deep waste a lot of space on the left side of the browser - I'd hate to read those in a smaller window. I'd spend all my time moving my eyes down lines.
Besides, the *TABLE* shouldn't be limited in size - the cells inside it should be. It would allow better word wrapping inside the outer cells, typically the ones starved for space as it is.
Folks, the trick is to do then specify everything else in percentages as well. It'll look the same on browsers with windows limited to 600 pixels, but those of us with bigger monitors won't think you're idiots. (Well, at least not as much.)
>/rant off
Not to be too pedantic, but it's "DaimlerChrysler" now.
God, you can't have used MacOS very much. I've used it extensively, as well as Windows 95 and a variety of Linux window mangers and both full-fledged GUIs.
The Macintosh has, by far, the most internally consistent and sensible interface. It even has useful keyboard shortcuts, that are extremely consistent across applications. Don't let that one mouse button confuse you, it's modifed extensively with the keyboard, making use of your other hand.
SGI would be my prime example here - great graphics performance, but a fairly bad track record in the last two years security-wise. Why not work towards transitioning the base operating system to something fairly auditable by outside sources (linux, *BSD, whatever.) Then you get real support systems, with huge development teams contributing and moving Unix forward in ways that hasn't happened in years.
Utopia, I know, and there are hordes of tertiary effects that would cause many people problems, but this is really the direction the computer industry seems to need to head. Historically it's been either "one size fits all" or "look at all the variety you've got - though, none if it works with anything else"
Argh!
Again, thanks for making my point again.
Unfortunately, according to the email I've received from MagniComp, using it to communicate with another company does require you to pay for the license.
Since the particular application I'm using this in isn't on Linux, I'm at a disadvantage as is, but I happened to notice rdist on my RedHat box the day after I noticed the licensing terms, prompting this whole discussion.
It's more complicated than that - there are multiple sets of files that get sent to those 1000 machines, and those must be configured on a machine-by-machine basis. Currently that's handled via a centralized web interface.
I won't deny that it's possible to rework the whole system to use rsync, but it's probably much easier to rework the system to split internal destinations from external (client/vendor) destinations, and reduce our ssh licensing costs to something manageable that way.