There is a reason these doclets don't work... in fact, with sawfish 2, the reason seems to be that there is no good protocol currently for these doclets or other swallowed apps, so sawfish, which expressly does not have any code designed to support these non-standard protocols, and the panel which is trying to swallow the windows, both end up competing to grab the window first (or maybe last). If you enable and disable the gabber status icon, you'll see it appear in various states (unswallowed with window border, unswallowed with no window border, swallowed into the gnome status dock). Gnome 2 is supposed to be working towards supporting a new, Gnome-centric and window-manager agnostic system tray, based on the protocol being documented at www.freedesktop.org. Hopefully it will be ready when Gnome 2 ships.
I'd like someone to explain to me how these several companies each of who has failed to compete on their own are going to be able to combine their efforts in order to combat the dominant vendor (Red Hat) and be successful. How does this solve the problem of alternatives? Currently, each of these vendors offers an alternative distribution of Linux, and they have apparently not been as successful as they would like. Instead, they are joining efforts in an attempt to influence the market (by reducing the number of real alternatives) without any real improvement to their products.
Adopting a "at least they're not Red Hat" view is only going to be harmful in the long run. One of the greatest benefits of free software such as Linux (and the programs it generally comes with) is that it doesn't rely on purely market forces to flourish... if this were a proprietary system (such as CDE), then vendors could unite and control the market (e.g. if no Unix vendor is going to ship with anything except CDE, then in 90+% of the cases, that's what their users will use), regardless of the actual merit of the software. With Linux, market forces are much less important; anyone with the appropriate know-how can customize the system, and if those customizations are valued by others, they can build their own distribution around them.
UnitedLinux may, in the end, offer such a value to its customers, and if so, it may meet with some success. Merely supporting these vendors efforts for the sake of reducing Red Hat's share of the market, however, is counter-productive. No responsible business (the target market for UnitedLinux) would make a decision based on such emotional reactions, and individuals should not either.
That's rediculous. Amazon is not copying these books any more than individuals are. In fact, Amazon is not selling these books at all, they are providing a service to other individuals who have decided to sell their used copies. I don't pretend to know the full economics of Amazon's system, but even if they were to charge a nominal fee for individuals to use that service, what's it to you?
Just because it's to the economic benefit of the authors (as well as the publishers) for everyone to purchase a new copy and either keep it or obliterate it, even if they never intend to read it again, doesn't mean that it's not fair for the book owners to do just that!
Or why not go with a 32-dimensional hypersphere. It seems to me we already have that address space handled, routing and all-- IPv4.
A client can do everything you suggest (to try to shape the network) based on its IP address. This way, the current TCP/IP network routing can be used, which is probably more comprehensive and efficient (in real-world terms) than any "virtual" network would be. Even better... it could be fitted into the current Gnutella protoco by only adding to the connection process.
If they are just coating normal DVDs with material, then it is actually more expensive for the manufacturers to produce these "Divx2" discs.
Even assuming that normal DVDs are extremely cheap to produce, and that a $3-$4 Divx2 disc is still profitable, what kind of volume would they need to actually turn a profit? How many times do they think someone is going to buy one of these discs? I would say on average, a person who is going to buy one would buy it at most once (maybe twice) before just buying the regular DVD (that's assuming that the regular DVD exists). Further assuming that not everyone who buys the DVD is going to buy the Divx2 disc, it seems that they are dealing with a rather small volume, which again, reduces their profit due to manufacturing costs.
Furthermore, they probably wouldn't include all the special features on a Divx2 disc that they would on a DVD disc, because most special features are designed for re-watchability (director/actor comments audio track, deleted scenes, etc).
All in all, I wonder if this makes good business sense from the manufacturers' and the studios' perspective.
That the folks who the real developers will be depending on for infrastructure would support a buggy, expensive OS? They'd be making themselves obsolete otherwise.
I'd be curious to see a similar study among actual computer science students.
How ironic that a "free promotional" CD would prevent users from listening to it, much less copy it. You'd think if you were giving out promotional material, you would want it to be spread the furthest you could.
How many of you have actually read any of the pdf files? Hemos, you should have at least. The suit was not brought about due primarily to spamming (although it is mentioned in the case), but due to a conflict over the lines to be installed for the company's bandwidth. Basically, they are arguing they were given the runaround first, the spamming concerns coming later. If there is evidence of them spammin, I would whole-heartedly agree to cutting their access, but I don't agree that they should have been given the ole bait-and-switch on their original bandwidth agreement.
The letter says that the code contains licensed elements of their AC3 technology. They don't actually ever claim copyright or patent infringement against NetBSD or the ac3dec developer.
Are they claiming that the ac3dec package contains copywritten code owned by Dolby that was not properly licensed? Or are they claiming they have a software patent covering the decoding of the AC3 format? Or are they just using scare tactics to avoid having an open-source competitor to deal with, while they really have no legal basis to complain?
Brilliant. ICQ has more features and is an overall better client. You do know that ICQ is owned by AOL, right?:) --
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually, I think they had two R2D2s, one they used Kenny Baker with and the other was remote controlled or something. The scenes that you see R2D2 "walking" (versus driving on "his" wheels), and probably when you see him up close, were Kenny Baker.
I don't understand why Lucas would want to do a CGI R2. It seems like it's more work than necessary, when a perfectly good prop is available and proven. He certainly is in danger of repeating the problem that plagued Star Trek The Motion Picture: reliance on the "wizz-bang" special effects even when wizz-bang special effect are neither called for nor expected. --
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Aside from the main issue, the article makes some weak arguments....
Companies can forbid pricing sites from automatically extracting their prices The company will be hurting themselves, as they would close themselves off to any possible customers from the pricing site. Sure, potential customers may tend to go for the lowest priced (although there are often other factors at work such as service), but they certainly won't choose a vendor who doesn't show up at all.
Companies can restrict which search engines they are listed in, making the search engine owners pay to list them That's insane. Companies want to be on search engines, how else are people going to find them? Unless a search engine is inappropriate for the company to be listed on (for example, a company may not want to be on a porn search engine and seem thus affiliated), there's no reason they wouldn't want to have a listing; and there's certainly few reasons that a search engine would want to pay to list a company...if people miss the company's URL on a search engine, chances are they already know it and don't need to search for it.
-- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
A piece of software which does something useful but contains some malicious code is called a trojan; no doubt these exist for Linux.
A virus is a piece of code which can replicate itself and 'infect' previously clean executable data, while not otherwise affecting the functionality of the executable. I don't know the internals of the ELF binary format, but what the previous poser is saying is that it is less suceptible to being infected with a virus than the Windows EXE format. So even if a naive administrator installs a trojan, it will have a hard time replicating. Furthermore, most programs installed are executed with the user's level of access, so even a trojan installed by root and owned by root will only be able to have the permissions of the user running it. Most such trojans simply use the user account as a means to gain some level of access to the system, and then precede to attempt to gain root access through traditional password cracking mechanisms.
The RPM package format allows for md5 checksums, and I presume that other ones (such as DEB) do the same. So, one can verify that the package has been unaltered from the original source.
Most virii nowadays come from naive users running EXEs that were sent as attachments or "fun games" over the internet. Most such things for Linux are distributed as source code, and so can be examined for malicious content.
In the end, though, a box is only as secure as its administrator and users. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Re:"Imminent death of the net predicted!"
on
The End of Unix?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah. Just try completing your Bluebird collections on Slashdot! -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason these doclets don't work... in fact, with sawfish 2, the reason seems to be that there is no good protocol currently for these doclets or other swallowed apps, so sawfish, which expressly does not have any code designed to support these non-standard protocols, and the panel which is trying to swallow the windows, both end up competing to grab the window first (or maybe last). If you enable and disable the gabber status icon, you'll see it appear in various states (unswallowed with window border, unswallowed with no window border, swallowed into the gnome status dock). Gnome 2 is supposed to be working towards supporting a new, Gnome-centric and window-manager agnostic system tray, based on the protocol being documented at www.freedesktop.org. Hopefully it will be ready when Gnome 2 ships.
Or maybe that should be "Blecchistan"?
I'd like someone to explain to me how these several companies each of who has failed to compete on their own are going to be able to combine their efforts in order to combat the dominant vendor (Red Hat) and be successful. How does this solve the problem of alternatives? Currently, each of these vendors offers an alternative distribution of Linux, and they have apparently not been as successful as they would like. Instead, they are joining efforts in an attempt to influence the market (by reducing the number of real alternatives) without any real improvement to their products.
Adopting a "at least they're not Red Hat" view is only going to be harmful in the long run. One of the greatest benefits of free software such as Linux (and the programs it generally comes with) is that it doesn't rely on purely market forces to flourish... if this were a proprietary system (such as CDE), then vendors could unite and control the market (e.g. if no Unix vendor is going to ship with anything except CDE, then in 90+% of the cases, that's what their users will use), regardless of the actual merit of the software. With Linux, market forces are much less important; anyone with the appropriate know-how can customize the system, and if those customizations are valued by others, they can build their own distribution around them.
UnitedLinux may, in the end, offer such a value to its customers, and if so, it may meet with some success. Merely supporting these vendors efforts for the sake of reducing Red Hat's share of the market, however, is counter-productive. No responsible business (the target market for UnitedLinux) would make a decision based on such emotional reactions, and individuals should not either.
It's called "Ctrl-Alt-F7".
That's rediculous. Amazon is not copying these books any more than individuals are. In fact, Amazon is not selling these books at all, they are providing a service to other individuals who have decided to sell their used copies. I don't pretend to know the full economics of Amazon's system, but even if they were to charge a nominal fee for individuals to use that service, what's it to you?
Just because it's to the economic benefit of the authors (as well as the publishers) for everyone to purchase a new copy and either keep it or obliterate it, even if they never intend to read it again, doesn't mean that it's not fair for the book owners to do just that!
You mean like hand-written signatures? Yeah.. those are hard to forge...
Hypercube, that is :)
Or why not go with a 32-dimensional hypersphere. It seems to me we already have that address space handled, routing and all-- IPv4.
A client can do everything you suggest (to try to shape the network) based on its IP address. This way, the current TCP/IP network routing can be used, which is probably more comprehensive and efficient (in real-world terms) than any "virtual" network would be. Even better... it could be fitted into the current Gnutella protoco by only adding to the connection process.
If they are just coating normal DVDs with material, then it is actually more expensive for the manufacturers to produce these "Divx2" discs.
Even assuming that normal DVDs are extremely cheap to produce, and that a $3-$4 Divx2 disc is still profitable, what kind of volume would they need to actually turn a profit? How many times do they think someone is going to buy one of these discs? I would say on average, a person who is going to buy one would buy it at most once (maybe twice) before just buying the regular DVD (that's assuming that the regular DVD exists). Further assuming that not everyone who buys the DVD is going to buy the Divx2 disc, it seems that they are dealing with a rather small volume, which again, reduces their profit due to manufacturing costs.
Furthermore, they probably wouldn't include all the special features on a Divx2 disc that they would on a DVD disc, because most special features are designed for re-watchability (director/actor comments audio track, deleted scenes, etc).
All in all, I wonder if this makes good business sense from the manufacturers' and the studios' perspective.
You could pass "this", as long as it's explicitly in the signature (as a void*, for example).
That the folks who the real developers will be depending on for infrastructure would support a buggy, expensive OS? They'd be making themselves obsolete otherwise.
I'd be curious to see a similar study among actual computer science students.
We certainly don't need internet packets visiting every other point on the internet, now do we?
How ironic that a "free promotional" CD would prevent users from listening to it, much less copy it. You'd think if you were giving out promotional material, you would want it to be spread the furthest you could.
What idiots.
How many of you have actually read any of the pdf files? Hemos, you should have at least. The suit was not brought about due primarily to spamming (although it is mentioned in the case), but due to a conflict over the lines to be installed for the company's bandwidth. Basically, they are arguing they were given the runaround first, the spamming concerns coming later. If there is evidence of them spammin, I would whole-heartedly agree to cutting their access, but I don't agree that they should have been given the ole bait-and-switch on their original bandwidth agreement.
The letter says that the code contains licensed elements of their AC3 technology. They don't actually ever claim copyright or patent infringement against NetBSD or the ac3dec developer.
Are they claiming that the ac3dec package contains copywritten code owned by Dolby that was not properly licensed? Or are they claiming they have a software patent covering the decoding of the AC3 format? Or are they just using scare tactics to avoid having an open-source competitor to deal with, while they really have no legal basis to complain?
Try: http://members.tripod.com/khazad_dum0/
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Check out http://www.vcdhelper.com/dvdplayers.htm.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Couldn't have had to do with the roughly 800+ million more Mandarin speakers...
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Brilliant. ICQ has more features and is an overall better client. You do know that ICQ is owned by AOL, right? :)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually, I think they had two R2D2s, one they used Kenny Baker with and the other was remote controlled or something. The scenes that you see R2D2 "walking" (versus driving on "his" wheels), and probably when you see him up close, were Kenny Baker.
I don't understand why Lucas would want to do a CGI R2. It seems like it's more work than necessary, when a perfectly good prop is available and proven. He certainly is in danger of repeating the problem that plagued Star Trek The Motion Picture: reliance on the "wizz-bang" special effects even when wizz-bang special effect are neither called for nor expected.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
The company will be hurting themselves, as they would close themselves off to any possible customers from the pricing site. Sure, potential customers may tend to go for the lowest priced (although there are often other factors at work such as service), but they certainly won't choose a vendor who doesn't show up at all.
That's insane. Companies want to be on search engines, how else are people going to find them? Unless a search engine is inappropriate for the company to be listed on (for example, a company may not want to be on a porn search engine and seem thus affiliated), there's no reason they wouldn't want to have a listing; and there's certainly few reasons that a search engine would want to pay to list a company...if people miss the company's URL on a search engine, chances are they already know it and don't need to search for it.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
So, Windows will never make it because so many secretaries who only know Office 2000 use it?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
A piece of software which does something useful but contains some malicious code is called a trojan; no doubt these exist for Linux.
A virus is a piece of code which can replicate itself and 'infect' previously clean executable data, while not otherwise affecting the functionality of the executable. I don't know the internals of the ELF binary format, but what the previous poser is saying is that it is less suceptible to being infected with a virus than the Windows EXE format. So even if a naive administrator installs a trojan, it will have a hard time replicating. Furthermore, most programs installed are executed with the user's level of access, so even a trojan installed by root and owned by root will only be able to have the permissions of the user running it. Most such trojans simply use the user account as a means to gain some level of access to the system, and then precede to attempt to gain root access through traditional password cracking mechanisms.
The RPM package format allows for md5 checksums, and I presume that other ones (such as DEB) do the same. So, one can verify that the package has been unaltered from the original source.
Most virii nowadays come from naive users running EXEs that were sent as attachments or "fun games" over the internet. Most such things for Linux are distributed as source code, and so can be examined for malicious content.
In the end, though, a box is only as secure as its administrator and users.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Yeah. Just try completing your Bluebird collections on Slashdot!
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Supposedly the GeForce is supported:
http://www.xfree86.org/4.0/Status21.html#21
That doesn't mean DRI support though, only 2-D
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.