Doubling lifespan that way requires that you only use half the disk capacity.
Actually, the amount of data that can be written is: the capacity of the device that is used × the number of times it can be written. For example, a CD-R and a DVD-R can both be written only once, but you can write at 10MB/s to a DVD much longer than you can to a CD-R. Using only half the capacity of the DVD-R wouldn't help, and would in fact halve the amount of time you could write 10MB/s to the DVD. A SSD is similar, except that it has multiple write cycles. The way wear leveling works is that writes are are distributed evenly across the medium, so you always use the full capacity of the device.
We need to heavily censor the Internet to protect predators from children like this. *sigh* I'd use a winking smily but I don't think it is appropriate here.
Caller:> I'd like a Family Size BBQ Pizza. Techie:> ehh... (checks customer service manual... must do what ever caller wants...) OK, I guess we can handle that what address do you want it delivered to? Caller:> (Address) Techie:> OK, we will get it to you right away
Techie orders and collects pizza, delivers to address
Techie:> That'll be $13.95 Caller:> OK, (hands over fee) Techie:> You are welcome, at newbie-tech-support we do everything we can to help our customers. In future you might as well cut out the middle man and go straight to pizza hut/ though to be honest Pizza Hut is probably more qualified for your pizza delivery needs. If you have any computer related needs we will be happy to provide qualified assistance.
IMHO In that case *nothing* is legal. After all it is a common practice to send a lawyers letter that is no more than an empty threat for just that reason.
For example, a company wanted us to forward a message to an anonymous person associated with our business. They threatened to sue us for interfering with the mail service (a serious offense). However the mail service *had* delivered the letter to its addressee (us), and had become our property which we could dispose of if we wish.
On the other hand a valid legal letter can be dressed up as a bluff so that the opponent will technically be legally notified, but will not realise the severity of the threat against them. An example of this is when a union send us a letter stating that they wanted our staff to be paid at least three times the national average, and that it should not be a condition of employment that our staff be required to work. Ever.
In this case this was a serious attempt to enter a legal state of "dispute" with us which would give them special legal powers over us. They were hoping that we would either write a letter back saying "ha, ha very funny" or simply not reply - either option would have put us in a state of "dispute". The correct solution in this case was to point out that we do not employ any employees covered by the award governed by the union we could not be in dispute because there is nobody to be in dispute about.
Then of-course there are all the people who claim to be tax office investigators/child welfare to try to spy/intimidate our company or our staff. Although it is illegal to be impersonate a police officer, there is no law that prevents impersonation in general. It may still be possible to prosecute them for things they did while impersonating.
In every case we have to decide whether it is worth bringing in the lawyers. Generally the answer is "Yes".
>requires the "gift" be given Not really, there is no obligation to write GPL code, or to release your software if you do. It just means you can't *take* existing software out of the GPL pool.
If someone wants to buy product X with their own money, they should not have to answer to anybody.
However they are purchasing on behalf of the U.S. govt. and thus they *do* have to answer to the govt.
Once one of our customers was in the situation that they were selling a product to the NZ govt. The product was at the same price as a foreign company, and the governments internal report found that our product was higher quality.
However the councillor responsible for the purchase decided to take the foreign product. He then took his family on a tax-payer funded business trip to inspect the manufacture.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that a government official should have to follow some purchasing guidelines. Not that it would necesarily mean that the decision would be different, but at least it would give the losing party a warm fuzzy feeling to know that they did not lose due to some under-the-counter deal.
>more willing to ignore it when their kid >downloads some warez, whereas they would be very >sad if said kid shoplifted. Because they >attribute some value to physical products.
There does seem to be some fantisim on both sides.
I don't have anything against companies using proprietary license's, in particular.
To critise someone for doing this without making a major contibution to OSS would be hypocritical.
However there is clearly a big difference between physical crime and copyright violations.
Say that a kid installs an illegal $10,000 dollar graphics package on their system. Is this the same as stealing a 10 grand car? In either case the kid could never have got the product legitimately they have not directly deprived the owner of income. However with a physical product the owner has lost the ability to sell the car to someone else.
I remember reading our newspaper someone moaning the laws which made aggraved robbery a more serious crime than piracy `despite the fact that more money is lost from piracy than aggravated robbery'. I believe the keyword in aggravated robbery is `aggravated'.
Hey, Get a life people! (I mean both the cyber-hippies and the piracy-is-thought-crime-squad)
>I used to, as a matter of usability, have my >Linux shut down by powering it down on a regular >basis with no ill effect.
Yes, it is just like FAT, while a crash may in theory cause corruption it is highly unlikely to damage anything more important than temporary files that are rendered useless by a crash. Linux and recent versions of windows will automatically check partitions if it suspects they have been corrupted.
The only place we use lfs' are on the servers where uptime is really important, and we don't want to have to check the partitions if a calamity forces a reboot.
One niggly thing about Linux2.2 is that by default it that it now wants user-interaction before it repairs a broken fs. This could be a pain for a new user.
MS seems to always insist that the only reason they are in court is that they bundled Explorer with Windows. As is often pointed out bundling _is_ a good thing (usually by MS supporters). Technically MS may have been in violation simply because of their consent decree. However Netscape _agreed_ that MS should be allowed to bundle Explorer with windows. Note that: - Microsoft refuses to let Windows be bundled with Netscape. Since bundling is good this is bad. By allowing bundling with one browser but not the other clearly does not result in a level playing field. This is unlike e.g. Red Hat, where you can re-arrange the distro any way you feel like. - Other companies (e.g. apple) allow bundled software to be uninstalled. I think this played a part in the DoJ's decision, but it sure up's the agrivation value. - Who cares what apple does anyway? They probably would have been sued by now if anyone could be bothered. Anyway maybe if anybody cared enough about it to sue apple's, then apple may have just decided to give in and give their customers more choice. -
>1. Linux has bugs, contrary to the FUD often >spread here on slashdot.
Are you honestly claiming that previous to this article, you believed that Linux had no bugs? What _other_ project has millions of lines of code, and yet has no bugs. The software that control billion dollar space shuttles, military planes etc? No actually these have bugs too. (Software problems caused a number of problems for the military, i.e. the smart bomb that self-destructed if it did a 180-degree turn, even if it had failed to depart the torpedo tube)
Open Source is quite good for somethings, but it does not perform *miricles*.
The only project this large which does not have any bugs is Windows NT, which even has a "Blue Screen Of Death" to prevent typist from suffering RSI.
I have found that, on the whole, Linux screws-up completely somewhat less often than Windows. If you have found NT reliable, then good for you.
Incidentally FUD means Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. It does not mean 'Over-Optimism'.
> 2. It sometimes takes a long time >to fix them, once again contrary to the FUD.
I believe *sometimes* is the key word here.
If a bug only produces error on rare circumstances, it can be difficult to find, even assuming it exists. These bugs ofcourse are much less important.
A serious bug in Linux may be fixed in a couple of days. An equivalent bug might take a month in NT. NT has it's advantages, I don't see speed of bug-fixing as being one of them.:(
_Again_ FUD means Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. It does not mean 'Over-Optimism'.
>3. No one really seems to care about points 1 and >2.
I don't care so much for my home computer, seeing as I never come across a bug in the Linux-kernel. 2.2.x is more than ok for my use (now if I could say the same for some of my linux apps:()
However on linux servers, people *do* care. Why do you think that Linus T. said that people should not upgrade unless that actually needed the new features in 2.2. He was pleased that many Linux users had resisted the temptation to upgrade!
Now I can just imagine Mr Gates. "As usual We have notified our customers that our new version of Windows may not be as stable as NT4. We are asking people not to pay for our new upgrade unless they really need our new features. We are looking forward to the lowest sales figures ever for Windows 2000."
I think that I can assure you that people who actually use Linux are more aware of the points 1,2 than your average Windows user, who mostly get their info from "Window XX makes every thing easier, faster, better" ads;)
N.B. I mean people who actually _USE_ linux, not just post about it on/. or who play with it on occasion, etc.
>Well, based on the same logic Linux must be DOS >because it also has a command line and I can use >some DOS commands (like `dir' and `echo') there.
Um, no, that is a UNIX-like command line. Now, pop up a GNOME-terminal and NT-cmd and lets see:
dir: Unlike dos/NT this just displays the directory, the closest Linux eqv. would be dir; df.
echo: yes this is similar
then try some dos commands in each like 'copy', 'move'. These will only work in NT/DoS.
And some unix commands: grep, fgrep, egrep, which, etc... these will only work in Linux/UNIX
I don't see any shame in Linux being UNIX based. UNIX is the close to being most powerful, flexible and mature OS in existance. It isn't really designed for end-users, but it could form a good basis for one.
There is also nothing wrong with NT being based on DOS. DOS is a little primative (no multi-tasking, no GUI, no security, 16-bit, etc.), but this also means that is simple. It is _very_ easy to admin a DOS box.
What is a little annoying is that MS tends to make such a noise about NT being more modern than UNIX, because it came later and because NT has now moved to 32-bit from 16-bit etc. The original UNIX's may have been 16-bit, but in the UNIX world 32-bits it considered a little behind the times. Every modern Unix (including Linux) supports 64-bits - even the Nintendo 64 (ahem) 'Enterprise Class Games Machine' is 64-bit.:)
OS's are not a static product, they are improved over time. So the 'newer' product is actually more primitive.
Also more bugs & holes will have been found and fixed, so... toast 'em linuxppc.:)
>From reading the copyright notice it appears that AOL did indeed release this under GPL. Unless somebody is just saying "copyright by AOL" which is unlikely. How, then, can AOL make changes to GPL stuff without releasing the changes?
To release a software product under the GPL it is not necessary to surrender rights to that product.
:. They can still release updates to their pre-GPL version.
"A Soviet Linux lies ahead, with successive five-year plans every three"
Now this one is funny. The article next door mentioned that Linus said that he had no particular 'road plan', that the direction of Linux is determined by what the users/consumers demand.
Now Microsoft is very much into X year plans, and is always harping on about the need for a strong central authority (i.e. MS) to tell users what they want to buy.
The key argument for "Commie Linux" is that Linux development is, to some extent, 'altruistic' - whereas MS makes a ton.
Remember however that ol' Joe Stalin made a huge profit when he found out the you could sell food from the peasants mouths at a profit... the food was worth more in finantual terms than the peasants were. Is Stalin a Capitalist?
JFK proclaimed "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". By this definition, is not JFK a Commie?
The sad thing is, although the west has won the cold war, the old captialist ideals that we fought for are still far from victory, at least in the computer industry.
What attracts me to the Linux ideology is its adherance to the 'original' interpretation of capitalism.
Capitalism is as much about the right of customers to get their moneys worth, than for companies to make money.
Competition thrives in Linux. KDE apps work in GNOME and visa versa. they can compete almost purely on their merits, whether they are stability, ease of use or what ever.
The problem with RMS is not so much that he is an extreme socialist, but that he is an extreme capitalist. He explicitly allows GPL'd code to be sold, the license merely prevents it from becoming proprietary.
Expecting all source code to be freely available forces heavy competition, perhaps too heavy because if a company spends X$ on a product then they will still have to compete with companies who spent none. It would be hard to fund all existing software if all software was non-proprietary.
What capitalism means to me is letting people use their own initiative. To me, Capitalism is where if someone sees that they can make a better mouse trap, they can put together their life savings and build the damn thing. They don't need to ask anybody's permission, it is their life savings and they bear the consequences whether they win or loss.
This is something that linux really promotes. Cobalt Qube for example could make their cute little boxes with out sending Linus so much as a by-your-leave.
RMS may be extreme. Linux et.al. has shown that it is possible to build good OSS products, but it may be hard to feed our programmers if all products were OSS.
It seems likely to me that under 10% of all software will be OSS - to me this is not a problem. Only 'core', everyday products like internet protocols and basic office suits need be open. People will spend over 90% of the time using less than 10% of the products, for example may machines have only MS-Office and Windows on, but how many of you have even heard of 'dbu'?
With frequently used products such as these it will be relatively easy to gain resources. For an office suit on every bodies desk there is good reason for a software company to contribute to the development, as it may well be the cheapest way of buying mindshare ( the biggest expense in setting up a company is often advertising ). With widespread utilities such as apache there is no end of techies with 'itches to scratch' - and as ms-trolls always mention companies do not want to use a non-standard utility, and so they have every reason to return the update.
This will still give independant people with initiative the ability to build products using the standard (OSS) base. They will not have to ask permission anymore than they have to pay for the air they breath. They can still make as much money from selling the extensions (e.g. special purpose applications) they produce, as they do now.
In short I think that a complete OSS system with proprietary extentions allows a much more healthy form of capitalism than either alone.
As for his comments on 'organic' food etc. I think that ideas evolve, and often become more moderate. We may not eat much organic food, but there certainly is still an awareness that pesticides & fertiliser can cause pollution. There have been some advancements in reducing this pollution.
I hope that Open Source as it stands does not 'win' in the sense that it becomes a doctrine. A idea, philosophy or culture that cannot change and adapt is a dead as surely as if it were a corpse frozen in ice.
I hope that open source wins in the sense that it is given a chance to trive, a chance to have it's failures remedied and a chance to have its successes lauded.
Just get a trained monkey to reboot your NT as soon as it goes down. A typical NT server will not go down more than once every 4 days. An NT email server fell over this often, because of a memory leak, usually NT is even more reliable than that.
So let see 24 hours * 60 Minutes * 4 days = 5760 minutes
At 99.9% uptime, this gives you over 5 minutes to reboot the system - should be OK if you have a fast trained monkey.
Lets face it, Linux cannot reach that level of reliability, unless you also hire a trained monkey to pull out the power cord at regular intervals.:)
> real problem here is not system files >anyways(sic). > its(sic) the loss of user data
Yes, but the point that was made that if the 'system' files are compromised then the entire system, including the data of _all_ users who use that system, is _instantly_ compromised. This is because the system files have special priviledges as they are responsible for maintaining the entire system - a virus that can infect these files can bypass all security restrictions on that system.
If a users data/exe's are compromised, then in a *NIX or secured NT box, that user will not have 'rights' to other users private files, settings, and exe's. Therefore even though one users account is compromised, the other users are not directly affected.
In many cases a user will have their account cleaned before they spread it to another user, especially if there is little sharing of executables between users. Even if the virus does spread, it will spread much slower, possibly giving admins time to eradicate it.
>Delphi for Linux - too tied to Win32 - not too >likely to happen. I'll eat a hat, tho, if they >prove me wrong, 'cos I'd LOVE to use it!!
_Most_ of the basic widgets that Delphi use seem to be handled ok-ish in winelib (a free win32 clone for x86 *nix, part of the www.winehq.com project).
Even if Delphi just officially supported WineLib, that would be cool. This would be more of a bug-stomping exercise than real porting, but it would give pseudo-support for all *nix including *BSD, so it wouldn't be all bad.
Nintendo Site:" "Can I Download a ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game? " blah blah blah... i.e. NO
The point is is that they are saying that there is no legal way to play a game under a emulator.
It is probably legal for a game vendor to do this...
_However_ There are many game vendors. As a customer I will buy from one produces good games and who cares for their customers. eg. www.lokigames.com?
As a paying customer (i.e. someone who has paid for a legal copy of the game), I am entitled to whinge if I feel I am not getting my money's worth. If Nintendo does not want me to play their games the way I may want to, that is fine, I just won't buy them. No skin off my nose.
>none of you will do this, since it's much easier >to leach off of others (and spend the remainder >of your time making up flawed justifications for >your illegal actions), then it is to create.
_I_ _do_ _not_ _intend_ _to_ _play_ _any_ _Nintendo_ _Games_, as long as they think they can treat their customers like this. I have bought Authentic software, and intend to buy Civ: CTP from www.lokigames.com. Lokigames seems to care about Customers, it is actively helping customers to use software on non-standard platforms.
Also due to free speech etc. etc. I am perfectly entitled to warn other potential customers that Nintendo does not seem to care about the wishes of paying customers.
From previous post: >. I have several legal ROMs, such as the pong >demo written for the n64, and several original >n64 and snes games available either as freeware >or public domain software. These ROMs are not >illegal.
This would seem to imply that contrary to Nintendo's claim, there are legal uses for the equipment.
>without providing solutions that will appease >both parties
Well the point is, is that claiming that equipment is illegal just because it is possible to use for some illegal purposes does not seem to be have any basis in the law.
Secondly, as I see it the point isn't what is fair, but who I would want to deal with. If Nintendo doesn't care about it's customers, their customers won't car about them.
This would be the same for someone who "wasn't such a big game vendor, but just a programmer somewhere who makes mighty good console games". If they were more interested in limiting my use of there games to a platform (N64) on which I did not wish to use, then I would not buy that game.
There are many vendors. It is there job to satisfy me. If they don't I won't buy their products.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubling lifespan that way requires that you only use half the disk capacity.
Actually, the amount of data that can be written is: the capacity of the device that is used × the number of times it can be written. For example, a CD-R and a DVD-R can both be written only once, but you can write at 10MB/s to a DVD much longer than you can to a CD-R. Using only half the capacity of the DVD-R wouldn't help, and would in fact halve the amount of time you could write 10MB/s to the DVD. A SSD is similar, except that it has multiple write cycles. The way wear leveling works is that writes are are distributed evenly across the medium, so you always use the full capacity of the device.
Sorry, needed to be said. The first thing I do is move the window controls to the right side of the screen.
Please mod this comment -5 : trying to hard to be funny. Thank you.
As I understand you are not meant to own a facebook account if you are under 13.
We need to heavily censor the Internet to protect predators from children like this. *sigh* I'd use a winking smily but I don't think it is appropriate here.
Caller:> I'd like a Family Size BBQ Pizza.
Techie:> ehh... (checks customer service manual... must do what ever caller wants...) OK, I guess we can handle that what address do you want it delivered to?
Caller:> (Address)
Techie:> OK, we will get it to you right away
Techie orders and collects pizza, delivers to address
Techie:> That'll be $13.95
Caller:> OK, (hands over fee)
Techie:> You are welcome, at newbie-tech-support we do everything we can to help our customers. In future you might as well cut out the middle man and go straight to pizza hut/ though to be honest Pizza Hut is probably more qualified for your pizza delivery needs. If you have any computer related needs we will be happy to provide qualified assistance.
IMHO In that case *nothing* is legal. After all it is a common practice to send a lawyers letter that is no more than an empty threat for just that reason.
For example, a company wanted us to forward a message to an anonymous person associated with our business. They threatened to sue us for interfering with the mail service (a serious offense). However the mail service *had* delivered the letter to its addressee (us), and had become our property which we could dispose of if we wish.
On the other hand a valid legal letter can be dressed up as a bluff so that the opponent will technically be legally notified, but will not realise the severity of the threat against them. An example of this is when a union send us a letter stating that they wanted our staff to be paid at least three times the national average, and that it should not be a condition of employment that our staff be required to work. Ever.
In this case this was a serious attempt to enter a legal state of "dispute" with us which would give them special legal powers over us. They were hoping that we would either write a letter back saying "ha, ha very funny" or simply not reply - either option would have put us in a state of "dispute". The correct solution in this case was to point out that we do not employ any employees covered by the award governed by the union we could not be in dispute because there is nobody to be in dispute about.
Then of-course there are all the people who claim to be tax office investigators/child welfare to try to spy/intimidate our company or our staff. Although it is illegal to be impersonate a police officer, there is no law that prevents impersonation in general. It may still be possible to prosecute them for things they did while impersonating.
In every case we have to decide whether it is worth bringing in the lawyers. Generally the answer is "Yes".
>requires the "gift" be given
Not really, there is no obligation to write GPL code, or to release your software if you do. It just means you can't *take* existing software out of the GPL pool.
In Baldurs Gate I played druid w. a Female skin and a male voice. Just seemed suitable for a druid somehow. :)
If someone wants to buy product X with their own money, they should not have to answer to anybody.
However they are purchasing on behalf of the U.S. govt. and thus they *do* have to answer to the govt.
Once one of our customers was in the situation that they were selling a product to the NZ govt. The product was at the same price as a foreign company, and the governments internal report found that our product was higher quality.
However the councillor responsible for the purchase decided to take the foreign product. He then took his family on a tax-payer funded business trip to inspect the manufacture.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that a government official should have to follow some purchasing guidelines. Not that it would necesarily mean that the decision would be different, but at least it would give the losing party a warm fuzzy feeling to know that they did not lose due to some under-the-counter deal.
>more willing to ignore it when their kid >downloads some warez, whereas they would be very >sad if said kid shoplifted. Because they >attribute some value to physical products.
There does seem to be some fantisim on both sides.
I don't have anything against companies using proprietary license's, in particular.
To critise someone for doing this without making a major contibution to OSS would be hypocritical.
However there is clearly a big difference between physical crime and copyright violations.
Say that a kid installs an illegal $10,000 dollar graphics package on their system. Is this the same as stealing a 10 grand car? In either case the kid could never have got the product legitimately they have not directly deprived the owner of income. However with a physical product the owner has lost the ability to sell the car to someone else.
I remember reading our newspaper someone moaning the laws which made aggraved robbery a more serious crime than piracy `despite the fact that more money is lost from piracy than aggravated robbery'. I believe the keyword in aggravated robbery is `aggravated'.
Hey, Get a life people!
(I mean both the cyber-hippies and the piracy-is-thought-crime-squad)
>I used to, as a matter of usability, have my >Linux shut down by powering it down on a regular >basis with no ill effect.
Yes, it is just like FAT, while a crash may in theory cause corruption it is highly unlikely to damage anything more important than temporary files that are rendered useless by a crash.
Linux and recent versions of windows will automatically check partitions if it suspects they have been corrupted.
The only place we use lfs' are on the servers where uptime is really important, and we don't want to have to check the partitions if a calamity forces a reboot.
One niggly thing about Linux2.2 is that by default it that it now wants user-interaction before it repairs a broken fs. This could be a pain for a new user.
>about the only other thing that users miss from a Windows system is a blue screen 8-)
;)
Actually this has been ported to Linux now. Infact it is implemented as a screensaver allowing other tasks to run at the same time as the BSOD.
The BSOD is now just another way in which Linux surpases NT
MS seems to always insist that the only reason they are in court is that they bundled Explorer with Windows. As is often pointed out bundling _is_ a good thing (usually by MS supporters). Technically MS may have been in violation simply because of their consent decree. However Netscape _agreed_ that MS should be allowed to bundle Explorer with windows. Note that: - Microsoft refuses to let Windows be bundled with Netscape. Since bundling is good this is bad. By allowing bundling with one browser but not the other clearly does not result in a level playing field. This is unlike e.g. Red Hat, where you can re-arrange the distro any way you feel like. - Other companies (e.g. apple) allow bundled software to be uninstalled. I think this played a part in the DoJ's decision, but it sure up's the agrivation value. - Who cares what apple does anyway? They probably would have been sued by now if anyone could be bothered. Anyway maybe if anybody cared enough about it to sue apple's, then apple may have just decided to give in and give their customers more choice. -
>1. Linux has bugs, contrary to the FUD often >spread here on slashdot.
:(
:()
;)
/. or who play with it on occasion, etc.
Are you honestly claiming that previous to this article, you believed that Linux had no bugs? What _other_ project has millions of lines of code, and yet has no bugs. The software that control billion dollar space shuttles, military planes etc? No actually these have bugs too.
(Software problems caused a number of problems for the military, i.e. the smart bomb that self-destructed if it did a 180-degree turn, even if it had failed to depart the torpedo tube)
Open Source is quite good for somethings, but it does not perform *miricles*.
The only project this large which does not have any bugs is Windows NT, which even has a "Blue Screen Of Death" to prevent typist from suffering RSI.
I have found that, on the whole, Linux screws-up completely somewhat less often than Windows. If you have found NT reliable, then good for you.
Incidentally FUD means Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. It does not mean 'Over-Optimism'.
> 2. It sometimes takes a long time >to fix them, once again contrary to the FUD.
I believe *sometimes* is the key word here.
If a bug only produces error on rare circumstances, it can be difficult to find, even assuming it exists. These bugs ofcourse are much less important.
A serious bug in Linux may be fixed in a couple of days. An equivalent bug might take a month in NT. NT has it's advantages, I don't see speed of bug-fixing as being one of them.
_Again_ FUD means Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt. It does not mean 'Over-Optimism'.
>3. No one really seems to care about points 1 and >2.
I don't care so much for my home computer, seeing as I never come across a bug in the Linux-kernel. 2.2.x is more than ok for my use (now if I could say the same for some of my linux apps
However on linux servers, people *do* care. Why do you think that Linus T. said that people should not upgrade unless that actually needed the new features in 2.2. He was pleased that many Linux users had resisted the temptation to upgrade!
Now I can just imagine Mr Gates. "As usual We have notified our customers that our new version of Windows may not be as stable as NT4. We are asking people not to pay for our new upgrade unless they really need our new features. We are looking forward to the lowest sales figures ever for Windows 2000."
I think that I can assure you that people who actually use Linux are more aware of the points 1,2 than your average Windows user, who mostly get their info from "Window XX makes every thing easier, faster, better" ads
N.B. I mean people who actually _USE_ linux, not just post about it on
(Sorry for this rambling post)
>Well, based on the same logic Linux must be DOS >because it also has a command line and I can use >some DOS commands (like `dir' and `echo') there.
:)
:)
Um, no, that is a UNIX-like command line.
Now, pop up a GNOME-terminal and NT-cmd and lets see:
dir: Unlike dos/NT this just displays the directory, the closest Linux eqv. would be dir; df.
echo: yes this is similar
then try some dos commands in each like 'copy', 'move'. These will only work in NT/DoS.
And some unix commands:
grep, fgrep, egrep, which, etc... these will only work in Linux/UNIX
I don't see any shame in Linux being UNIX based.
UNIX is the close to being most powerful, flexible and mature OS in existance. It isn't really designed for end-users, but it could form a good basis for one.
There is also nothing wrong with NT being based on DOS. DOS is a little primative (no multi-tasking, no GUI, no security, 16-bit, etc.), but this also means that is simple. It is _very_ easy to admin a DOS box.
What is a little annoying is that MS tends to make such a noise about NT being more modern than UNIX, because it came later and because NT has now moved to 32-bit from 16-bit etc. The original UNIX's may have been 16-bit, but in the UNIX world 32-bits it considered a little behind the times. Every modern Unix (including Linux) supports 64-bits - even the Nintendo 64 (ahem) 'Enterprise Class Games Machine' is 64-bit.
OS's are not a static product, they are improved over time. So the 'newer' product is actually more primitive.
Also more bugs & holes will have been found and fixed, so... toast 'em linuxppc.
>From reading the copyright notice it appears that AOL did indeed release this under GPL. Unless somebody is just saying "copyright by AOL" which is unlikely. How, then, can AOL make changes to GPL stuff without releasing the changes?
To release a software product under the GPL it is not necessary to surrender rights to that product.
:. They can still release updates to their pre-GPL version.
>Linux: written by the best programmers who can't find jobs.
From going to LUG's I have found that it is often programmed by those who had a job but are now retired, and now want to expirement on their own.
It is also written in conjuction with a job as a hobby... or as a job for that matter ( eg. @ RedHat or at a Hardware vendor for device drivers etc. )
"A Soviet Linux lies ahead, with successive five-year plans every three"
Now this one is funny. The article next door mentioned that Linus said that he had no particular 'road plan', that the direction of Linux is determined by what the users/consumers demand.
Now Microsoft is very much into X year plans, and is always harping on about the need for a strong central authority (i.e. MS) to tell users what they want to buy.
The key argument for "Commie Linux" is that Linux development is, to some extent, 'altruistic' - whereas MS makes a ton.
Remember however that ol' Joe Stalin made a huge profit when he found out the you could sell food from the peasants mouths at a profit... the food was worth more in finantual terms than the peasants were. Is Stalin a Capitalist?
JFK proclaimed "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". By this definition, is not JFK a Commie?
The sad thing is, although the west has won the cold war, the old captialist ideals that we fought for are still far from victory, at least in the computer industry.
What attracts me to the Linux ideology is its adherance to the 'original' interpretation of capitalism.
Capitalism is as much about the right of customers to get their moneys worth, than for companies to make money.
Competition thrives in Linux. KDE apps work in GNOME and visa versa. they can compete almost purely on their merits, whether they are stability, ease of use or what ever.
The problem with RMS is not so much that he is an extreme socialist, but that he is an extreme capitalist. He explicitly allows GPL'd code to be sold, the license merely prevents it from becoming proprietary.
Expecting all source code to be freely available forces heavy competition, perhaps too heavy because if a company spends X$ on a product then they will still have to compete with companies who spent none. It would be hard to fund all existing software if all software was non-proprietary.
What capitalism means to me is letting people use their own initiative. To me, Capitalism is where if someone sees that they can make a better mouse trap, they can put together their life savings and build the damn thing. They don't need to ask anybody's permission, it is their life savings and they bear the consequences whether they win or loss.
This is something that linux really promotes. Cobalt Qube for example could make their cute little boxes with out sending Linus so much as a by-your-leave.
RMS may be extreme. Linux et.al. has shown that it is possible to build good OSS products, but it may be hard to feed our programmers if all products were OSS.
It seems likely to me that under 10% of all software will be OSS - to me this is not a problem. Only 'core', everyday products like internet protocols and basic office suits need be open. People will spend over 90% of the time using less than 10% of the products, for example may machines have only MS-Office and Windows on, but how many of you have even heard of 'dbu'?
With frequently used products such as these it will be relatively easy to gain resources. For an office suit on every bodies desk there is good reason for a software company to contribute to the development, as it may well be the cheapest way of buying mindshare ( the biggest expense in setting up a company is often advertising ). With widespread utilities such as apache there is no end of techies with 'itches to scratch' - and as ms-trolls always mention companies do not want to use a non-standard utility, and so they have every reason to return the update.
This will still give independant people with initiative the ability to build products using the standard (OSS) base. They will not have to ask permission anymore than they have to pay for the air they breath. They can still make as much money from selling the extensions (e.g. special purpose applications) they produce, as they do now.
In short I think that a complete OSS system with proprietary extentions allows a much more healthy form of capitalism than either alone.
As for his comments on 'organic' food etc. I think that ideas evolve, and often become more moderate. We may not eat much organic food, but there certainly is still an awareness that pesticides & fertiliser can cause pollution. There have been some advancements in reducing this pollution.
I hope that Open Source as it stands does not 'win' in the sense that it becomes a doctrine. A idea, philosophy or culture that cannot change and adapt is a dead as surely as if it were a corpse frozen in ice.
I hope that open source wins in the sense that it is given a chance to trive, a chance to have it's failures remedied and a chance to have its successes lauded.
Just get a trained monkey to reboot your NT as soon as it goes down. A typical NT server will not go down more than once every 4 days. An NT email server fell over this often, because of a memory leak, usually NT is even more reliable than that.
:)
So let see 24 hours * 60 Minutes * 4 days
= 5760 minutes
At 99.9% uptime, this gives you over 5 minutes to reboot the system - should be OK if you have a fast trained monkey.
Lets face it, Linux cannot reach that level of reliability, unless you also hire a trained monkey to pull out the power cord at regular intervals.
> real problem here is not system files >anyways(sic).
> its(sic) the loss of user data
Yes, but the point that was made that if the 'system' files are compromised then the entire system, including the data of _all_ users who use that system, is _instantly_ compromised. This is because the system files have special priviledges as they are responsible for maintaining the entire system - a virus that can infect these files can bypass all security restrictions on that system.
If a users data/exe's are compromised, then in a *NIX or secured NT box, that user will not have 'rights' to other users private files, settings, and exe's. Therefore even though one users account is compromised, the other users are not directly affected.
In many cases a user will have their account cleaned before they spread it to another user, especially if there is little sharing of executables between users. Even if the virus does spread, it will spread much slower, possibly giving admins time to eradicate it.
>Delphi for Linux - too tied to Win32 - not too >likely to happen. I'll eat a hat, tho, if they >prove me wrong, 'cos I'd LOVE to use it!!
_Most_ of the basic widgets that Delphi use seem to be handled ok-ish in winelib (a free win32 clone for x86 *nix, part of the www.winehq.com project).
Even if Delphi just officially supported WineLib, that would be cool. This would be more of a bug-stomping exercise than real porting, but it would give pseudo-support for all *nix including *BSD, so it wouldn't be all bad.
Nintendo Site:" ... i.e. NO
"Can I Download a ROM from the Internet if I Already Own the Authentic Game? "
blah blah blah
The point is is that they are saying that there is no legal way to play a game under a emulator.
It is probably legal for a game vendor to do this...
_However_ There are many game vendors. As a customer I will buy from one produces good games and who cares for their customers. eg. www.lokigames.com?
As a paying customer (i.e. someone who has paid for a legal copy of the game), I am entitled to whinge if I feel I am not getting my money's worth. If Nintendo does not want me to play their games the way I may want to, that is fine, I just won't buy them. No skin off my nose.
>none of you will do this, since it's much easier >to leach off of others (and spend the remainder >of your time making up flawed justifications for >your illegal actions), then it is to create.
_I_ _do_ _not_ _intend_ _to_ _play_ _any_ _Nintendo_ _Games_, as long as they think they can treat their customers like this. I have bought Authentic software, and intend to buy Civ: CTP from www.lokigames.com. Lokigames seems to care about Customers, it is actively helping customers to use software on non-standard platforms.
Also due to free speech etc. etc. I am perfectly entitled to warn other potential customers that Nintendo does not seem to care about the wishes of paying customers.
From previous post:
>. I have several legal ROMs, such as the pong >demo written for the n64, and several original >n64 and snes games available either as freeware >or public domain software. These ROMs are not >illegal.
This would seem to imply that contrary to Nintendo's claim, there are legal uses for the equipment.
>without providing solutions that will appease >both parties
Well the point is, is that claiming that equipment is illegal just because it is possible to use for some illegal purposes does not seem to be have any basis in the law.
Secondly, as I see it the point isn't what is fair, but who I would want to deal with. If Nintendo doesn't care about it's customers, their customers won't car about them.
This would be the same for someone who "wasn't such a big game vendor, but just a programmer somewhere who makes mighty good console games". If they were more interested in limiting my use of there games to a platform (N64) on which I did not wish to use, then I would not buy that game.
There are many vendors. It is there job to satisfy me. If they don't I won't buy their products.
Fairly simple, really.
>Do not know what is the latest version of DOS.
v7.10, comes with '98, and still doesn't have full support for non 8.3 filenames.
I suppose in some ways even Slackware is modern.
see Wine/About ...is freely redistributable. (The licensing terms are similar to BSD.)"
:)
"Wine
>...Wine to run x86/NT programs would be cool, >but I rather doubt Compaq would want to release >their FX!32 technology.
If the licencse is BSD-like they should not have to release it.
Doesn't this remind you of one of those Halloween documents?
;)
Halloween IV: When Software Things Were Rotten
I had assumed it was just a joke, not a real 'leak'. Clearly I was wrong.