If you're patient (and have a lot of money), you can wait a little for the rumored dual-processor G4 PowerMacs from Apple. You could also get a PowerMac and add a dual-processor G4 card from any of the vendors like PowerLogix, Sonnet or Newer Technology, but that will (obviously) get very expensive--though I *think* they will take trade-ins on ZIF chips.
Other possibility: you could try getting in touch with Groupe Bull or Motorola Computer Group (at http://www.mcg.mot.com/) about that. Both make PowerPC-based boards and computers, though AFAIK they only sell to vendors and not to little saps like us.;-)
For that matter, if you wait a little, IBM's open hardware specs ought to also generate some interest amoung hardware manufacturers.
Last recommendation: Get in touch with Yellow Dog Linux or LinuxPPC about it. They'd be happy to help you out in finding something, I'm sure. Both are pretty quick in supporting new hardware, as well; though AltiVec is not yet supported (the code has to be "vectorized" first), meaning only that its advantages won't yet make a difference in Linux, that development is already starting to get underway.
Oh, and if you're looking for news and info about Linux for PowerPC Macs, check out my site at http://linux.macnews.de/.:-)
On 17 September 1999, an open discussion about the registration of the trademark "Linux" took place at the annual congress of the Open Systems/German Unix Users Group (GUUG).
Those present: Wolfgang Dreyer, Linux International Achim Cloer, LIVE Linux-Verband / Delta Internet Edmund Humenberger, Owner of the Trademark "Linux" in Germany Rainer Feldkamp, Patent Attorney Christian Hüttermann, Owner/operator of the domain linux.de
Moderated by: Martin Schulte, GUUG e.V.
Mr. Humenberger, owner of the German trademark "Linux", sent a license agreement in mid-July 1997 to Christian Hüttermann, owner/operator of Linux.de, in which Mr. Humenberger guaranteed 10 years' use of the trademark "Linux" in return for an agreement not to resort to legal recourse.
In response, Mr. Hütterman referred the matter to the Linux Verband LIVE, Linux International and the GUUG.
The first contact regarding this situation came in a telephone converstaion between Achim Cloer and Mr. Humenberger, in which no agreement was reached.
Further process was placed in the hands of Mr. Feldkamp, a patent attorney and Linux user, in coordination with the various associations and with an American patent attorney.
In the course of the meeting, the representatives of the involved groups reviewed the current events.
Wolfgang Dreyer, as representative of Linux International, announced that, at a metting between patent attorney Feldkamp and Mr. Humenberger shortly before, an agreement had been reached. During the open discussion, Mr. Humenberger transferred his rights to the name "Linux" to Linus Torvalds in full.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Humenberger made the following statement with regards to his actions:
Mr. Humenberger had followed a discussion in newsgroups regarding the registration of the name "Linux" since 1993. As no interest group in the Linux community existed at that time, Mr. Humenberger reigstered the name himself to protect it on behalf of the Linux community.
Herewith is the controversy about the German trademark "Linux" and the related registered marque "Linux" resolved. ---
One would hope that ChannelOne would have similar intentions. I do know that they have been involved in Linux for some time, so let's hope they are benevolent enough to give Linus the rights...
Someone once made the comparison of the Internet to the Wild West. I forget who it was--I believe it was Nicholas Negroponte of Wired and MIT--but with things like this, it seems ever more apt than ever.
The premise of the comparison was that the Wild West of the USA was once wild, untamed, mob rule--yet still on the whole tranquil, at least for the first Europeans who arrived (Davy Crockett types) who also got along with the local Indians. Then the later settlers came in, who promptly began trying to "civilize" everything--imposing rules, laws, institutions and so on, both on the earler settlers and on the Indians living with them. The previous occupants resented this and tried to fight back, but ultimately the settlers--and especially the corporations who followed them--won out through force of numbers and money (and, in the case of the Indians, through guns and disease). This is exactly what is happening here: a large, multinational company--hand in hand with other "interest groups" recently become interested in the Net--are trying to impose their value system on the wild, untamed Internet. I'm as angry as anyone here about it, but let's face it, there is little to be done: money (and power and influence) talks.
Furthermore, those suggesting a free Internet Jr. to run parallel to the current one ignore that, eventually, it too would be swamped by corporate interests--someone would begin using it for profit, and as soon as that day arrives, it's the beginning of the end for Internet Jr. as others begin elbowing their way in. Nevermind the logistics: who would set up the backbones? Where would the bandwidth come from?
The crazy part is that the Internet is already being Balkanized anyway, as China, Singapore, and others are in effect building parallel Internets that only have limited access to the greater Internet--precisely to screen content for political purposes. Censorship is already taking place on a massive scale, and self-censorship--i.e. by not seeking or clicking on subversive or unacceptable content for fear of prosecution or persecution--already takes place as well.
I wish I knew of a solution, and hate being such a pessimist, but my gut feeling tells me we just have to get used to it--or go out and vote for liberal/libertarian parties up the yin-yang, then pray.
As a consultant and contractor (I do website design and development--graphics, server setup, backend and programming--Loki's site is one that I did and am working on), I find it rather amazing that some people assume that contractors are somehow disloyal, slothful, or less than acceptable. Personally, I think I do far better work now that I did when I was an employee--because of two things: one, I get paid for the extra time and effort, and more importantly, I take great pride in making sure that my product is as good as possible--because that's my name going on that product.
When I do a project, I certainly intend to be there for the long haul, and intend to keep my clients as long as I can. It's to my benefit to do so, since my clients will be happier with me, and my name gets spread around as being someone who does good work--meaning I can charge more later when demand picks up, plus I can choose my projects.
I consider myself to be the specialist who does an excellent job and is at the peak of his field, and I am more flexible in my time planning and production than most (if not all) employees. I'm also not afraid to say my opinion of how the job should best be done--no simple "yes, sir" from me, but rather I'll help my client make sure that he/she gets what they need, not just what they want.
Anyone who slags a contractor as being the shlep who skulks in the door only to collect his/her paycheck needs to think harder about. A contractor always knows that he/she can be fired in an instant, with no severance pay or other lasting benefits. The only benefit a contractor gets is to simply do a good job and get paid--because there will always be a day when there is no work to do at all, and no money.
Y'know, reading this makes me shudder. Frankly, I don't think AOL stands a chance, assuming the DOJ doesn't come down on MS like a ton of bricks.
There's a simple reason: AOL's only _real_ advantage is content. They have special AOL-only chat, forums, and so on, and (you have to give them credit) make the Net simpler (some would say *too* simple).
But what about MS? Suppose they brought all their content to bear. They have _tons_ that they can marshal: MSNBC, ZDnet, Bloomberg, and so on, since MS has been investing in other companies like crazy. Add to that the fact that MS has broadband access coming up (where AOL is lagging), and you have a serious threat where MSN failed before--especially if they are serious about offering it for free. Imagine--preinstalled on all Windows computers, and free...can anyone say "Explorer vs. Netscape"?
Of course, MS could still fall flat--like by having the whole thing run on NT, in which case it's MS-Offline--but they could really hurt AOL, since they _can_ go on forever losing money on MSN Junior--remember, this is the company that scratches its armpit and earns another billion on the stock market.
I'm no fan of AOL, but they are the only real hope of taking down MS in the near future IMHO (Linux is getting there in the server market, but has some ways to go in the desktop market). Even AOL's putative alliances with Sun, Netscape and Apple probably won't help--none of them have the financial clout that MS does.
Sad story...I'll continue using my Mac and Linux until I get run over by a dump truck, but there are lots of PHBs and know-nothing users willing to go along with MS's garbage virtually in perpetuity...*sigh*
Anyone is free to prove me wrong. I'd be _delighted_ to be wrong on this one.:-)
I'm wondering when the Gerald Holmes movie is coming out.
"Who is...Gerald Holmes?" Masked croosader for windos oh boy. Well buddy see this moovie cos gerald homes is in it an he tells you about how great windows is oh boy. Yeah so Gerlad is gonna tell you who he reely is. The hole movvie was filmed with a quickkam whihc was invented by bill gates Cause hes relly smart bcause he founded Mircosoft which was realy realy smart. No pinko commy linus users can come or else ill send my lawyers. Oh boy!!!!
Somebody call Paramount. I think I have an idea.:-)
Loki is going to be adding more as time goes by. If you have a good connection free, e-mail them and let 'em know...and if you have a spare Origin2, send it to 'em, too--their server needs a break...:-/
Kinda sucks, too. Spent all that effort redoing the Loki site, and nobody gets to see it. *sigh*
I really hate to say it, but I'm forced to think of a cartoon from "Bloom County" some years back, where Opus the penguin is trying to book a flight to Cleveland or some such, and the person on the phone from Megacorp Airways (something like that) is extremely rude and demands $2000 for the ticket. So Opus gets steamed, calls a competitor, and the same person answers the phone...'cos Megacorp bought 'em all out. And btw the price is now $3000. And say "please", poophead.
I can't help but think that once one ISP starts doing this, they all will follow, just because of the old lemming instinct--they would perceive their competitors using this Cisco garbage as having an "advantage" and would want it also. Even though AT&T claims they won't use it, it's probably only a matter of time.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! - Patrick Henry (1736-1799) Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 1775
Now, there's the small problem that Patrick Henry was a monarchist...kinda odd when you think that the Yoo Ess of Ay coulda had a Prussian prince as King of America (he was invited but turned the offer down). And if Ben Franklin had had his way, we'd have had a turkey as our mascot instead of a bald eagle...and we came close to choosing German as our national language after the Revolution.
Just think. A German speaking, Prussian-monarch-ruled nation with a turkey for its emblem. Imagine your dollars (sorry, guess it woulda been "taler") with a big honkin' turkey on the back, with "EINS" in huge letters. And a picture of König Friedrich Wilhelm IX on the front. Odd...
Interesting to see companies getting in on the act. In Germany, there was a court ruling about a year ago stating that it was forbidden to link to hate sites or sites containing illegal material under German law. Thus, if you are in Germany and link to a site containing, say, pictures of Nazi leaders (regardless of where that site is), you could be in trouble with the law in Germany (pro-Nazi material and political parties are strictly forbidden), even though you may think you bear no responsibility for what is on the other site.
Unfortuntately, I can't remember exactly when or where that ruling was, but I certainly remember the impact it had on my mind: utter disbelief.
ISTR that this ruling was linked to the prosecution of a CompuServe Germany exec for supposedly facilitating access to illegal pornography. Obviously, he had nothing to do with it, but he was held responsible anyway on behalf of CompuServer by a Bavarian court. Go figure.
Not having used MSN Messenger but having used AIM, don't you have to have a Username/Password to access the AIM network?
That's not the point. At least you're only giving it to AOL, which "knows" it anyway. Why give it to someone else? AOL is (so they say) only trying to limit the potential number of people who can find it out.
ESR says it himself--Microsoft's hypocrisy in this is galling. It's hard to think of a more "closed" shop than MS (except maybe Apple, though that's changing), yet they are the ones to whine when someone else shafts them. TFB.
OTOH ESR is dead-on when he chastises AOL for their tactics--this was a stupid move on their part. I'd love to play Case & Co. in a game of chess... they'd probably fall for the four-move checkmate every time.
AOL could have been a lot more subtle about it, like MS was with their fake warnings and so on (cf. QuickTime, DR-DOS)--maybe by spiking their protocol to limit use only to "registered" users, or by deliberately bringing out a new, more invincible version with weak encryption or whatever. But no, they made a public fuss and openly tried to yank the carpet from under MS while ignoring the banana peel under their feet.
Case: Aha, I got your queen! (giggles) Gates: Fine. Checkmate.
Embedded tables are "bad" for the reason that they slow down the rendering speed of the page dramatically. Try it sometime--do the same design with and without embedded tables (i.e. use tables with ALIGN="LEFT" and ALIGN="RIGHT" instead of having them all inside of other tables). It's much faster having each table separate. Sometimes there is no other way, but one should try to avoid it if possible.
Slashdot uses them to excess. Just look at their code and you'll see what I mean.
This has nothing to do with hard-coding every element size and font-type on your web-page.
I beg to differ. It has *everything* to do with it. The problem is having things like the logo, logotype, global typography, etc. visible (even dominant) and legible on the page at any resolution, and also preserving things like column widths to maintain legibility (as someone else touched on). But the most important thing is CONSISTENCY. You can't guarantee the customer that the site will look even remotely the same on all browsers (or the imporant ones, at least) if the tables are all totally flexible--or if there are none at all. It's a tradeoff, pure and simple.
Again, look at slashdot, it looks good and consistent most everywhere
Slashdot is not exactly a paragon of virtue in regards to web design--it's got its strong points (good use of contrast, consistent positioning of navigation, etc.) and weaknesses (smallish type in some spots, addiction to embedded tables...bad Slashdot, no cookie...and lack of polish on the graphics).
and it doesn't use Flash
The reason I referred to Flash is because of scalability. At least with Flash you can guarantee a layout is going to work in practically any size. Too bad it's proprietary...and you can't search or index the text in it...and body copy is damned near illegible in some cases. *sigh*
I myself don't use Flash unless I have to, mainly because I avoid all plugins and Java if at all possible. I sometimes use JavaScript, but never make it central to the interface--i.e. the site should work with JS or without it.
If you really want 30-70 characters per row, HTML will need some way of specifying widths in em's. Unfortunately, HTML is currently too brain-dead to do sizes in anything other than percentages or pixels. Using pixel sizes is the wrong thing to do for anything other than raster images.
You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head as to why you _must_ often use a fixed width in designing a webpage: fixed-width pixmaps. 99.99% of customers (this is a verifiable statistic, really it is, I swear, really, honest) want their websites to have a consistent look across all platforms and browsers, and they also insist (rightly) that their corporate identity system be preserved. This means following guidelines for positioning logos, type, etc., and in most cases this is only to be done using pixmaps (until Flash becomes a *real* standard...where the hell's Flash for Linux?).
So you are forced to use fixed-width pixmaps and tables for positioning...which, by extension, forces you to resort to using things like "columns" (like Red Hat does) and fixed widths.
Admittedly, Red Hat did it in a particularly crappy way...no flexibility at all. But you can't assume that all pages can be made to fit your 4096 pixel screen. It just ain't in the cards.
Trust me, as a web designer, I can tell you that that ain't gonna work, at least not within reason.
Yes, Linux.com does a good job already. Yes, there are other portals. But c'mon. Isn't that what Open Source is all about? Don't trust any service of block of information to only a single provider. Hell, that's what Slashdot's all about, if you ask me.
That's not what I was criticizing; I was mainly worried at the apparent "demotion" of/. on their site. It used to have a much more prominent place.
The idea of a portal is to have _one_ central place where you get a sampling of info that you can customize to suit you. The "old" Red Hat site (which, oddly, wasn't *that* old) came closer to that goal; now, I have to hunt for the/. link (which is pretty tiny) and don't get any other real info on the same page. Just a huge mass of links.
And for a while, at least, I *was* using it as a portal, until I realized you could customize/. a lot more.:-)
Seems like Red Hat is trying to cut their moorings from the open source/geek/Linux community at large. What's this? No more headlines from Slashdot? Huh?
I also think the new site is one great big yawn. CmdrTaco may think that it's more simple and elegant, but to me it just looks cheap (sloppy design here and there IMO--what's with the cheesy flags?--and there is such a thing as TOO simple).
Only advantage I can see to the new site is that it loads hellaciously faster, but I'd like at least a _little_ eye candy.
Would we put up the source code for Photoshop?" Warnock said. "Not in a million years.... Well, maybe sometime in the future. But something like that is so horrendously complex, it is just not feasible...
Um, GIMP, anyone? TIFFany? As if open source developers are somehow too stupid to figure out a graphics program...besides, don'tcha think those very same developers could actually clean up the mess that Photoshop is?
"I think organizations like Quark, who are fiercely proprietary, will suffer at the hands of those who use open standards and invite help from the open source community."
Exactomundo, mon cher suit-o-rama. And not releasing the code of your products means you are just as proprietary as Quark.
"I want to pay for an operating system from a vendor with a contractual relationship that gives me recourse if things go wrong," Warnock said.
So...in other words, you believe open source is good, but not good enough for Adobe to actually use. Linux not good enough? Just because it's FREE? Besides, all you have to do is get Linux from Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux or whatever, and voila, you have someone to scream at. If you're desperate, maybe you can drop Linus a line on Usenet.
I have grown to despise Quark--way too expensive, and when was the last time we say a truly *significant* upgrade?--but Adobe just went down about 1000 notches on my scale.
If you're going to be proprietary, at least be honest about it. Don't try act like you're a big fan of open source...and then slam one of its crown jewels.
I'd like to see benchmarks comparing PHP3 or 4 with ASP, mod_perl, static HTML, SSI/xSSI, and so on--in other words, a definitive list of _all_ the major development platforms for websites.
I'm wondering partly because I use PHP a lot, but know just about zilch about mod_perl and don't know if it's worth it to try using it. FWIW I use PHP mainly to make a global, dynamic template for a website, which then reacts to the browser type to generate code. Anybody know how PHP and mod_perl compare for that kind of use?
Damn, IBM really pulled out the stops for this, didn't they? Interesting to see our very own CmdrTaco show up there, too. (Congrats, Rob.)
I, for one, am pleased pink about this. It's high time that someone did a tightly organized, professional and concise developer support site for Linux. Looks to be tons of info there...I'm jealous.;-)
Add this to SmartBeak, and things are looking up in Linuxland.
Funny to note that ten to twenty years ago, IBM was The Great Enemy(TM), at least for us Mac fans. Now they've turned 180 degrees in my book.
So when is IBM gonna start selling Aptivas only with Linux?;-)
Seems some people have missed a big issue as to why IPv6 is a Really Big Thing(TM): ubiquitous computing. Imagine that your cellphone, pager, wristwatch, PC, PalmPilot, laptop, etc. all have chips in them that each are interconnected to the Net. Each would get its own IP address to make things easier--dynamic assignment for such things would be a nightmare.
Now imagine the idea of having your milk carton have a chip embedded in it, which is monitored by your fridge. If the milk is going bad or getting low, it'll "tell" the fridge and the supermarket (maybe even you) that you need a new carton. Both the milk carton (and the millions of other milk cartons) and fridge would theoretically also need unique IPs for such a function.
As it is, there are literally millions (billions?) of microprocessor chips produced a year. Processors are also dirt-cheap--the ones we hear of, like PowerPCs, Pentia and Alphas, are enormously expensive compared to the "average" chip. (Think of all those annoying singing greeting cards.) If each new chip were to have a unique, embedded IP, even IPv6 would run out eventually. They're already everywhere--in your car (dozens of 'em, if not hundreds), in your TV, maybe even in your toothbrush, for all I know. The idea of interconnectivity and ubiquitous computing screams for billions upon billions of unique IPs to have it all work.
And, of course, the milk carton would be running Linux.;-)
Mind you, the idea of somebody being able to hack into my milk is a little, er, worrisome...
I already have a copy of Civilization: Call to Power for LinuxPPC, and it runs great. (You can read a review of it that I wrote at http://linux.macn ews.de/articles/29061999.loki.shtml?lang=english.) Even the sound works, and it was a thrill to see movies in the thing that actually both looked nice and worked. ('Course, I cheated a little and went through and looked at all the movies on the CD. Damn, they're cool.)
The game was a little slowish at times, but on the other hand I have yet to get 100% real genuine accelerated X going (on a beige G3), so it's probably more my fault than anything.:-/
It's especially ironic that Mac users who want to play Civ:CTP have to install Linux to do it.:-)
I'm a little worried about this putative rivalry between Red Hat and LinuxCare, if it is indeed as rabid as Salon makes it out to be. Love 'em or hate 'em, Red Hat is quite possibly the most important distribution for getting Linux to spread beyond its current user base, with perhaps SuSE close behind. Red Hat gets most of its income from support, not from sales of CDs.
Suppose LinuxCare, which does not have its own distribution, were to choke off Red Hat's supply line by killing off RH's support. Where does that leave Red Hat? Where does that leave Linux in general? We'd be left with Debian, Slackware, et. al., all of which are highly advanced distros, but none of which can really set foot in the enterprise or home market (cf. PHB, MomTest).
In the end, only Red Hat and SuSE are in a position to spread Linux beyond its current "market" and seriously challenge Microsoft. If one or both of them dies off (or at least only limps along), Linux will not get anywhere. _Some_ kind of corporate or organized backing is needed.
I'm not suggesting that anyone boycott LinuxCare for the sake of Red Hat--far from it. I wish them well. Rather, I suggest that Red Hat and LinuxCare merge, cooperate, or that LinuxCare offers its own polished distro, for the sake of the greater good. A rivalry between the two--as things are now--is a Very Bad Thing(TM).
Slashdot Mirror
Other possibility: you could try getting in touch with Groupe Bull or Motorola Computer Group (at http://www.mcg.mot.com/) about that. Both make PowerPC-based boards and computers, though AFAIK they only sell to vendors and not to little saps like us. ;-)
For that matter, if you wait a little, IBM's open hardware specs ought to also generate some interest amoung hardware manufacturers.
Last recommendation: Get in touch with Yellow Dog Linux or LinuxPPC about it. They'd be happy to help you out in finding something, I'm sure. Both are pretty quick in supporting new hardware, as well; though AltiVec is not yet supported (the code has to be "vectorized" first), meaning only that its advantages won't yet make a difference in Linux, that development is already starting to get underway.
Oh, and if you're looking for news and info about Linux for PowerPC Macs, check out my site at http://linux.macnews.de/. :-)
Ethelred
---
Conflict over "Linux" put aside
Wiesbane/Offene Systeme, 17 September 1997
On 17 September 1999, an open discussion about the registration of the trademark "Linux" took place at the annual congress of the Open Systems/German Unix Users Group (GUUG).
Those present:
Wolfgang Dreyer, Linux International
Achim Cloer, LIVE Linux-Verband / Delta Internet
Edmund Humenberger, Owner of the Trademark "Linux" in Germany
Rainer Feldkamp, Patent Attorney
Christian Hüttermann, Owner/operator of the domain linux.de
Moderated by:
Martin Schulte, GUUG e.V.
Mr. Humenberger, owner of the German trademark "Linux", sent a license agreement in mid-July 1997 to Christian Hüttermann, owner/operator of Linux.de, in which Mr. Humenberger guaranteed 10 years' use of the trademark "Linux" in return for an agreement not to resort to legal recourse.
In response, Mr. Hütterman referred the matter to the Linux Verband LIVE, Linux International and the GUUG.
The first contact regarding this situation came in a telephone converstaion between Achim Cloer and Mr. Humenberger, in which no agreement was reached.
Further process was placed in the hands of Mr. Feldkamp, a patent attorney and Linux user, in coordination with the various associations and with an American patent attorney.
In the course of the meeting, the representatives of the involved groups reviewed the current events.
Wolfgang Dreyer, as representative of Linux International, announced that, at a metting between patent attorney Feldkamp and Mr. Humenberger shortly before, an agreement had been reached. During the open discussion, Mr. Humenberger transferred his rights to the name "Linux" to Linus Torvalds in full.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Humenberger made the following statement with regards to his actions:
Mr. Humenberger had followed a discussion in newsgroups regarding the registration of the name "Linux" since 1993. As no interest group in the Linux community existed at that time, Mr. Humenberger reigstered the name himself to protect it on behalf of the Linux community.
Herewith is the controversy about the German trademark "Linux" and the related registered marque "Linux" resolved. ---
One would hope that ChannelOne would have similar intentions. I do know that they have been involved in Linux for some time, so let's hope they are benevolent enough to give Linus the rights...
Ethelred
Someone once made the comparison of the Internet to the Wild West. I forget who it was--I believe it was Nicholas Negroponte of Wired and MIT--but with things like this, it seems ever more apt than ever.
The premise of the comparison was that the Wild West of the USA was once wild, untamed, mob rule--yet still on the whole tranquil, at least for the first Europeans who arrived (Davy Crockett types) who also got along with the local Indians. Then the later settlers came in, who promptly began trying to "civilize" everything--imposing rules, laws, institutions and so on, both on the earler settlers and on the Indians living with them. The previous occupants resented this and tried to fight back, but ultimately the settlers--and especially the corporations who followed them--won out through force of numbers and money (and, in the case of the Indians, through guns and disease). This is exactly what is happening here: a large, multinational company--hand in hand with other "interest groups" recently become interested in the Net--are trying to impose their value system on the wild, untamed Internet. I'm as angry as anyone here about it, but let's face it, there is little to be done: money (and power and influence) talks.
Furthermore, those suggesting a free Internet Jr. to run parallel to the current one ignore that, eventually, it too would be swamped by corporate interests--someone would begin using it for profit, and as soon as that day arrives, it's the beginning of the end for Internet Jr. as others begin elbowing their way in. Nevermind the logistics: who would set up the backbones? Where would the bandwidth come from?
The crazy part is that the Internet is already being Balkanized anyway, as China, Singapore, and others are in effect building parallel Internets that only have limited access to the greater Internet--precisely to screen content for political purposes. Censorship is already taking place on a massive scale, and self-censorship--i.e. by not seeking or clicking on subversive or unacceptable content for fear of prosecution or persecution--already takes place as well.
I wish I knew of a solution, and hate being such a pessimist, but my gut feeling tells me we just have to get used to it--or go out and vote for liberal/libertarian parties up the yin-yang, then pray.
Ethelred
When I do a project, I certainly intend to be there for the long haul, and intend to keep my clients as long as I can. It's to my benefit to do so, since my clients will be happier with me, and my name gets spread around as being someone who does good work--meaning I can charge more later when demand picks up, plus I can choose my projects.
I consider myself to be the specialist who does an excellent job and is at the peak of his field, and I am more flexible in my time planning and production than most (if not all) employees. I'm also not afraid to say my opinion of how the job should best be done--no simple "yes, sir" from me, but rather I'll help my client make sure that he/she gets what they need, not just what they want.
Anyone who slags a contractor as being the shlep who skulks in the door only to collect his/her paycheck needs to think harder about. A contractor always knows that he/she can be fired in an instant, with no severance pay or other lasting benefits. The only benefit a contractor gets is to simply do a good job and get paid--because there will always be a day when there is no work to do at all, and no money.
Best regards,
Ethelred
There's a simple reason: AOL's only _real_ advantage is content. They have special AOL-only chat, forums, and so on, and (you have to give them credit) make the Net simpler (some would say *too* simple).
But what about MS? Suppose they brought all their content to bear. They have _tons_ that they can marshal: MSNBC, ZDnet, Bloomberg, and so on, since MS has been investing in other companies like crazy. Add to that the fact that MS has broadband access coming up (where AOL is lagging), and you have a serious threat where MSN failed before--especially if they are serious about offering it for free. Imagine--preinstalled on all Windows computers, and free...can anyone say "Explorer vs. Netscape"?
Of course, MS could still fall flat--like by having the whole thing run on NT, in which case it's MS-Offline--but they could really hurt AOL, since they _can_ go on forever losing money on MSN Junior--remember, this is the company that scratches its armpit and earns another billion on the stock market.
I'm no fan of AOL, but they are the only real hope of taking down MS in the near future IMHO (Linux is getting there in the server market, but has some ways to go in the desktop market). Even AOL's putative alliances with Sun, Netscape and Apple probably won't help--none of them have the financial clout that MS does.
Sad story...I'll continue using my Mac and Linux until I get run over by a dump truck, but there are lots of PHBs and know-nothing users willing to go along with MS's garbage virtually in perpetuity...*sigh*
Anyone is free to prove me wrong. I'd be _delighted_ to be wrong on this one. :-)
Ethelred
<nitpick>
Actually, it's "LinuxPPC" (without the slash).
</nitpick>
Ethelred
I'm wondering when the Gerald Holmes movie is coming out.
"Who is...Gerald Holmes?"
Masked croosader for windos oh boy. Well buddy see this moovie cos gerald homes is in it an he tells you about how great windows is oh boy. Yeah so Gerlad is gonna tell you who he reely is. The hole movvie was filmed with a quickkam whihc was invented by bill gates Cause hes relly smart bcause he founded Mircosoft which was realy realy smart. No pinko commy linus users can come or else ill send my lawyers. Oh boy!!!!
Somebody call Paramount. I think I have an idea. :-)
Ethelred
Sure, there are mirrors--they are listed on Loki's site, which keeps getting /.'ed like crazy. But here are the FTP sites listed:
ftp://ftp.linuxberg.com/pub/Loki/
ftp://happypenguin.org/pub/loki/myth2/
ftp://download.linuxlords.com/pub/de mos/myth2/
Loki is going to be adding more as time goes by. If you have a good connection free, e-mail them and let 'em know...and if you have a spare Origin2, send it to 'em, too--their server needs a break... :-/
Kinda sucks, too. Spent all that effort redoing the Loki site, and nobody gets to see it. *sigh*
Ethelred
I really hate to say it, but I'm forced to think of a cartoon from "Bloom County" some years back, where Opus the penguin is trying to book a flight to Cleveland or some such, and the person on the phone from Megacorp Airways (something like that) is extremely rude and demands $2000 for the ticket. So Opus gets steamed, calls a competitor, and the same person answers the phone...'cos Megacorp bought 'em all out. And btw the price is now $3000. And say "please", poophead.
I can't help but think that once one ISP starts doing this, they all will follow, just because of the old lemming instinct--they would perceive their competitors using this Cisco garbage as having an "advantage" and would want it also. Even though AT&T claims they won't use it, it's probably only a matter of time.
*sigh*
Ethelred
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! - Patrick Henry (1736-1799) Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 1775
Now, there's the small problem that Patrick Henry was a monarchist...kinda odd when you think that the Yoo Ess of Ay coulda had a Prussian prince as King of America (he was invited but turned the offer down). And if Ben Franklin had had his way, we'd have had a turkey as our mascot instead of a bald eagle...and we came close to choosing German as our national language after the Revolution.
Just think. A German speaking, Prussian-monarch-ruled nation with a turkey for its emblem. Imagine your dollars (sorry, guess it woulda been "taler") with a big honkin' turkey on the back, with "EINS" in huge letters. And a picture of König Friedrich Wilhelm IX on the front. Odd...
Ethelred
Interesting to see companies getting in on the act. In Germany, there was a court ruling about a year ago stating that it was forbidden to link to hate sites or sites containing illegal material under German law. Thus, if you are in Germany and link to a site containing, say, pictures of Nazi leaders (regardless of where that site is), you could be in trouble with the law in Germany (pro-Nazi material and political parties are strictly forbidden), even though you may think you bear no responsibility for what is on the other site.
Unfortuntately, I can't remember exactly when or where that ruling was, but I certainly remember the impact it had on my mind: utter disbelief.
ISTR that this ruling was linked to the prosecution of a CompuServe Germany exec for supposedly facilitating access to illegal pornography. Obviously, he had nothing to do with it, but he was held responsible anyway on behalf of CompuServer by a Bavarian court. Go figure.
Ethelred
That's not the point. At least you're only giving it to AOL, which "knows" it anyway. Why give it to someone else? AOL is (so they say) only trying to limit the potential number of people who can find it out.
Ethelred
OTOH ESR is dead-on when he chastises AOL for their tactics--this was a stupid move on their part. I'd love to play Case & Co. in a game of chess... they'd probably fall for the four-move checkmate every time.
AOL could have been a lot more subtle about it, like MS was with their fake warnings and so on (cf. QuickTime, DR-DOS)--maybe by spiking their protocol to limit use only to "registered" users, or by deliberately bringing out a new, more invincible version with weak encryption or whatever. But no, they made a public fuss and openly tried to yank the carpet from under MS while ignoring the banana peel under their feet.
Case: Aha, I got your queen! (giggles)
Gates: Fine. Checkmate.
Boneheads...
Ethelred
Embedded tables are "bad" for the reason that they slow down the rendering speed of the page dramatically. Try it sometime--do the same design with and without embedded tables (i.e. use tables with ALIGN="LEFT" and ALIGN="RIGHT" instead of having them all inside of other tables). It's much faster having each table separate. Sometimes there is no other way, but one should try to avoid it if possible.
Slashdot uses them to excess. Just look at their code and you'll see what I mean.
Hope that makes sense...
Ethelred
I beg to differ. It has *everything* to do with it. The problem is having things like the logo, logotype, global typography, etc. visible (even dominant) and legible on the page at any resolution, and also preserving things like column widths to maintain legibility (as someone else touched on). But the most important thing is CONSISTENCY. You can't guarantee the customer that the site will look even remotely the same on all browsers (or the imporant ones, at least) if the tables are all totally flexible--or if there are none at all. It's a tradeoff, pure and simple.
Again, look at slashdot, it looks good and consistent most everywhere
Slashdot is not exactly a paragon of virtue in regards to web design--it's got its strong points (good use of contrast, consistent positioning of navigation, etc.) and weaknesses (smallish type in some spots, addiction to embedded tables...bad Slashdot, no cookie...and lack of polish on the graphics).
and it doesn't use Flash
The reason I referred to Flash is because of scalability. At least with Flash you can guarantee a layout is going to work in practically any size. Too bad it's proprietary...and you can't search or index the text in it...and body copy is damned near illegible in some cases. *sigh*
I myself don't use Flash unless I have to, mainly because I avoid all plugins and Java if at all possible. I sometimes use JavaScript, but never make it central to the interface--i.e. the site should work with JS or without it.
Anyways, enough ranting for t'day... :-)
Ethelred
You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head as to why you _must_ often use a fixed width in designing a webpage: fixed-width pixmaps. 99.99% of customers (this is a verifiable statistic, really it is, I swear, really, honest) want their websites to have a consistent look across all platforms and browsers, and they also insist (rightly) that their corporate identity system be preserved. This means following guidelines for positioning logos, type, etc., and in most cases this is only to be done using pixmaps (until Flash becomes a *real* standard...where the hell's Flash for Linux?).
So you are forced to use fixed-width pixmaps and tables for positioning...which, by extension, forces you to resort to using things like "columns" (like Red Hat does) and fixed widths.
Admittedly, Red Hat did it in a particularly crappy way...no flexibility at all. But you can't assume that all pages can be made to fit your 4096 pixel screen. It just ain't in the cards.
Trust me, as a web designer, I can tell you that that ain't gonna work, at least not within reason.
Ethelred
Yes, Linux.com does a good job already. Yes, there are other portals. But c'mon. Isn't that what Open Source is all about? Don't trust any service of block of information to only a single provider. Hell, that's what Slashdot's all about, if you ask me.
That's not what I was criticizing; I was mainly worried at the apparent "demotion" of /. on their site. It used to have a much more prominent place.
The idea of a portal is to have _one_ central place where you get a sampling of info that you can customize to suit you. The "old" Red Hat site (which, oddly, wasn't *that* old) came closer to that goal; now, I have to hunt for the /. link (which is pretty tiny) and don't get any other real info on the same page. Just a huge mass of links.
And for a while, at least, I *was* using it as a portal, until I realized you could customize /. a lot more. :-)
Ethelred
Seems like Red Hat is trying to cut their moorings from the open source/geek/Linux community at large. What's this? No more headlines from Slashdot? Huh?
I also think the new site is one great big yawn. CmdrTaco may think that it's more simple and elegant, but to me it just looks cheap (sloppy design here and there IMO--what's with the cheesy flags?--and there is such a thing as TOO simple).
Only advantage I can see to the new site is that it loads hellaciously faster, but I'd like at least a _little_ eye candy.
Yawn...
Ethelred
Would we put up the source code for Photoshop?" Warnock said. "Not in a million years. ... Well, maybe sometime in the future. But something like that is so horrendously complex, it is just not feasible...
Um, GIMP, anyone? TIFFany? As if open source developers are somehow too stupid to figure out a graphics program...besides, don'tcha think those very same developers could actually clean up the mess that Photoshop is?
"I think organizations like Quark, who are fiercely proprietary, will suffer at the hands of those who use open standards and invite help from the open source community."
Exactomundo, mon cher suit-o-rama. And not releasing the code of your products means you are just as proprietary as Quark.
"I want to pay for an operating system from a vendor with a contractual relationship that gives me recourse if things go wrong," Warnock said.
So...in other words, you believe open source is good, but not good enough for Adobe to actually use. Linux not good enough? Just because it's FREE? Besides, all you have to do is get Linux from Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux or whatever, and voila, you have someone to scream at. If you're desperate, maybe you can drop Linus a line on Usenet.
I have grown to despise Quark--way too expensive, and when was the last time we say a truly *significant* upgrade?--but Adobe just went down about 1000 notches on my scale.
If you're going to be proprietary, at least be honest about it. Don't try act like you're a big fan of open source...and then slam one of its crown jewels.
Ethelred
Your link seems to be deader than the proverbial steel entryway affixation unit...can you check it and try again?
Thanks for the other info, though! :-)
TIA,
Ethelred
I'm wondering partly because I use PHP a lot, but know just about zilch about mod_perl and don't know if it's worth it to try using it. FWIW I use PHP mainly to make a global, dynamic template for a website, which then reacts to the browser type to generate code. Anybody know how PHP and mod_perl compare for that kind of use?
Ethelred
Damn, IBM really pulled out the stops for this, didn't they? Interesting to see our very own CmdrTaco show up there, too. (Congrats, Rob.)
I, for one, am pleased pink about this. It's high time that someone did a tightly organized, professional and concise developer support site for Linux. Looks to be tons of info there...I'm jealous. ;-)
Add this to SmartBeak, and things are looking up in Linuxland.
Funny to note that ten to twenty years ago, IBM was The Great Enemy(TM), at least for us Mac fans. Now they've turned 180 degrees in my book.
So when is IBM gonna start selling Aptivas only with Linux? ;-)
Ethelred
function post() { if ($ethelred) { $post = 'First';} echo $post.' :-) '; }
Seems some people have missed a big issue as to why IPv6 is a Really Big Thing(TM): ubiquitous computing. Imagine that your cellphone, pager, wristwatch, PC, PalmPilot, laptop, etc. all have chips in them that each are interconnected to the Net. Each would get its own IP address to make things easier--dynamic assignment for such things would be a nightmare.
Now imagine the idea of having your milk carton have a chip embedded in it, which is monitored by your fridge. If the milk is going bad or getting low, it'll "tell" the fridge and the supermarket (maybe even you) that you need a new carton. Both the milk carton (and the millions of other milk cartons) and fridge would theoretically also need unique IPs for such a function.
As it is, there are literally millions (billions?) of microprocessor chips produced a year. Processors are also dirt-cheap--the ones we hear of, like PowerPCs, Pentia and Alphas, are enormously expensive compared to the "average" chip. (Think of all those annoying singing greeting cards.) If each new chip were to have a unique, embedded IP, even IPv6 would run out eventually. They're already everywhere--in your car (dozens of 'em, if not hundreds), in your TV, maybe even in your toothbrush, for all I know. The idea of interconnectivity and ubiquitous computing screams for billions upon billions of unique IPs to have it all work.
And, of course, the milk carton would be running Linux. ;-)
Mind you, the idea of somebody being able to hack into my milk is a little, er, worrisome...
Ethelred
I already have a copy of Civilization: Call to Power for LinuxPPC, and it runs great. (You can read a review of it that I wrote at http://linux.macn ews.de/articles/29061999.loki.shtml?lang=english.) Even the sound works, and it was a thrill to see movies in the thing that actually both looked nice and worked. ('Course, I cheated a little and went through and looked at all the movies on the CD. Damn, they're cool.)
The game was a little slowish at times, but on the other hand I have yet to get 100% real genuine accelerated X going (on a beige G3), so it's probably more my fault than anything. :-/
It's especially ironic that Mac users who want to play Civ:CTP have to install Linux to do it. :-)
Can't wait for Myth II...
Ethelred
Suppose LinuxCare, which does not have its own distribution, were to choke off Red Hat's supply line by killing off RH's support. Where does that leave Red Hat? Where does that leave Linux in general? We'd be left with Debian, Slackware, et. al., all of which are highly advanced distros, but none of which can really set foot in the enterprise or home market (cf. PHB, MomTest).
In the end, only Red Hat and SuSE are in a position to spread Linux beyond its current "market" and seriously challenge Microsoft. If one or both of them dies off (or at least only limps along), Linux will not get anywhere. _Some_ kind of corporate or organized backing is needed.
I'm not suggesting that anyone boycott LinuxCare for the sake of Red Hat--far from it. I wish them well. Rather, I suggest that Red Hat and LinuxCare merge, cooperate, or that LinuxCare offers its own polished distro, for the sake of the greater good. A rivalry between the two--as things are now--is a Very Bad Thing(TM).
Just my thoughts...
cya
Ethelred