George would be cutting his best propaganda vehicle for millions of gun-toting catholics. They all might start getting more sleep and realize that they don't have a personal stake in Iraq.
Those stories about explorers dying while crossing the Atlantic are all ploys to keep real-estate values high in Conneticut. If people found out that they could commute to Manhattan faster from France than from New Jersey, the friends of countless politicians would lose their shirts in the market collapse.
Since Nikon doesn't own the copyright on your photo, wouldn't they be in violation of the DMCA for producing software which would let others circumvent the author's controls on your photo?
I'm sure the fine print of the DMCA has covered this stuff:-)
Re:Throw all the PR people and lawyers in the ocea
on
Paul Graham on PR
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Fox just takes Reuters feeds and sets up expert panels to discuss them. It's very cheap to produce.
Isn't hosting the Linux kernel project like a celebrity endorsement? Many of us would have never heard of Bitkeeper if it were not for the Linux kernel project.
Dropping it because of support contract changes while resorting to developing your own system in-house doesn't speak well for the security of relying upon Bitkeeper.
This has been promised for over a decade. Citrix has been making terminal-services like machines for that long. Citrix screwed up by charging too much (a thin client with licensing and hardware cost 3x that of a PC), and Microsoft's OSes and software packages didn't deal well with multiuser environments.
Yeah, the software is getting better, and I sincerely hope they charge less than $2k in licensing per workstation.
The argument back then for the $3k thin client and the $2k licensing (then your $20k server) was that it made backup of data trivial, local workstation security trivial, upgrades of software trivial... and like you say, it cuts TCO dramatically. In my experience, the stickershock kept people from trying it and the permissions issues made the TCO arguments a little less compelling.
If MS is trying to target Linux thin clients, they might set the pricepoint more reasonably.
It's a shame for Linux, but if MS gets it right, it will be a very nice system. RDP works better than X11 anyways.
But BT can't tell they're corrupt, they match the hash that BT uses to determine if hte file is corrupt.
Also everyone downloading would be seeding the corrupt data. They don't need millions of fake uploads... they just need a few here and there, and before you know it everyone will be getting and sending chunks of bad files.
It's a good short term blast on BT, changing the hash will fix it. BT is still vulnerable though because of tracker websites being trivial to take down, and anonymity being nonexistant.
BT is an excellent legitimate distribution channel. It also makes watermarking impractical.
If you really did Windows programming in 1995, try using dev-cpp from http://www.bloodshed.net/. It operates on a subset of the Win32 api and has reasonable default templates.
Yeah, a moving platform. With countless widget sets, multiple clipboards, different directory structures, an infinite number of combinations and permutations of shared libraries, and just as many sources of outdated, incorrect, misleading or utterly superb documentation, and crap vendors like Redhat which drop version support in a third the time of Microsoft.
One place where GNU/Linux is relatively stable is in POSIX and a vague semblence of commonly accepted extensions to the standard. That makes it a nice platform for server software, but does nothing on the desktop.
Windows was never an OS. It contains an OS, they changed OSes in the product lifetime, but the product has always been a desktop environment and a consistent, well documented, and long-supported API.
I for one am glad of the security I can place in trusting my fellow national. Ever since foreigners started bombing federal buildings, sending bombs to universities, sniping people randomly in Washington, and god knows what else, it's good to know that we can draw a clear line between "us" and "them"
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
The GPL clause which forbids distribution of code with additional restrictions, including patents, makes it utterly worthless for most companies to persue GPL'd software for patents.
If Microsoft wanted to anihilate Linux, I think they could very well do this. But... much of the rest of the industry would unload their patent arsenals on Microsoft until they relented...
"Route" is a special term which applies only to layer 3 protocols.
Software/hardware doesn't matter.
A bridge was an older peice of hardware designed to connect two broadcast domains, useful for nasty protocols like NetBEUI.
A switch was a multiport bridge. the MAC tables in modern switches are quite capable of bridging. I've been told that older switches had very limited MAC tables so the distinction between a bridge with two ports and a huge MAC table v.s. a switch with a huge number of ports and a small MAC table was meaningful for a brief period of time. I haven't heard of anyone speak of bridges in years.
A switch operates at layer2. A layer3 switch operates at layer 2 and 3. A router operates at layer 3.
So a switch can do stuff like mask people's frames from one another, create VLANs to restrict broadcast domains. Layer 2 decisions based on Layer 2 information.
A router can do stuff like forward packets to its various interfaces based on rules in routing tables (built statically or with various routing protocols). Nothing special, just routing.
A layer 3 switch can do stuff like spot a BOOTP offer (layer 3) and block the machine based on its MAC (layer 2), spot a duplicate IP and do the same. Layer 2 decisions based on layer 3 information.
I'm not sure what additonal stuff L3 switches can do thsese days.
L4 & L7 switches (isn't TCP/IP DoD, not OSI?) can make decisions and modify information higher in the protocol stack.
But a L3 switch is certainly not a router. It can route, but then you're not using it as an L3 switch, you're using it as a router.
Enterprises have problems where developers need to operate in the same offices as finance or sales. The needs of the groups are very different (e.g. developers need simulated development environments which won't take out accounting, accounting needs very limited and controlled access to very special systems... ) and any one of the employees may be operating off-site through a VPN or shifting sites daily.
Moving the employees around the network hardware isn't acceptable anymore. The network needs to be flexible enough to contain one team's disaster.
Problems with one boob plugging in a machine with a static IP of a router or accidentally firing up a DHCP server are also unacceptable these days.
In exchange for a HELL of a LOT of publicity, they got to use BitKeeper for free. Sponsoring a major charitable event at a loss is pretty normal for a company to get its name in the lights.
It's a stupid decision for Bitkeeper. Or maybe they're banking on it being cheaper for Linus et al. to pay for it rather than migrate. But they would almost certainly be underestimating the effect of dealing in bad-faith with OSS.
I'm sure it costs them nearly nothing to keep supporting the kernel development efforts and it is one of the most astounding projects on earth. They should be paying Linus for his celebrity endorsement of their product!
Ditto here. I tend to use large monitors about 2' away from my eyes. Now that I have two displays, I have them at different distances. A window would work better, but I can't have it all.
Anyone I know who was using a T.V. set
as a monitor (C=64 monitors included) for extended periods of time back in the day has HORRIBLE eyesight.
Odd with some people how bad eyesight is a point of pride. Added geek points I suppose.
The crash should occur when the CPU hits a nonsense instruction in a priviliged mode. So, for example if the kernel gets a hardware interrupt from some device with a bad driver, the kernel executes the instructions at the hardware interrupt vector table. That calls the code in the driver, which does whatever it needs to do. Now say something dumb happens like a bad ethernet driver overwrites a jump instruction address with something out of range for the address space... then poof. The CPU's memory protection kicks in, a software interrupt for a memory protection fault is triggered, and executes code found at the software interrupt vector table. It could say anything from "yeah, whatever, return from interrupt", to... "show this message, dump your memory, something is terribly wrong". That code of course is programmed into the interrupt tables at startup time, along with information about how to display the error, where to dump the RAM and how (so FS drivers aren't necessary).
At least that's what I remember.
I mean, read the Tanenbaum book. Then you can forget everything it says like I did.
The hardware was more expensive and more robust back then. There was less of a disposable computer attitude. The OS was also easily hand-cleaned or hand-installed file by file, line by line.
Any one of those old machines which have been powered on and off have a problem with chip creep, any one operated in a dusty area probably experienced PS fan failure then PS failure, and any one exposed to humidity probably died from various corrosion problems years ago.
Yeah, the manuals were better, and you had to read them to be able to do anything. The tech support was also better. A good Microsoft tech would give you a three hour tutorial about the merits and faults of DOS just by calling them up and asking.
The systems today are more complex. The documentation is poor and mixed with sales hype. The technical support is high price and has a time limit. The technical support technicians are less highschool computer nerds and more crash-course temp placements reading scripts written by highschool computer nerds. Maybe it is information overload.
I agree that people should be doing more preventative maintinance on their computers, but the real problem is sales people selling "easy to use computers" for people who can't be bothered to learn such techniques. If sales people were honest, they would recognise a need to offer more robust systems...
But then again we can't forget that the sales people are the people who didn't qualify to work the telephone support.
Slashdot Mirror
George would be cutting his best propaganda vehicle for millions of gun-toting catholics. They all might start getting more sleep and realize that they don't have a personal stake in Iraq.
Not at all.
Those stories about explorers dying while crossing the Atlantic are all ploys to keep real-estate values high in Conneticut. If people found out that they could commute to Manhattan faster from France than from New Jersey, the friends of countless politicians would lose their shirts in the market collapse.
Hmm...
Since Nikon doesn't own the copyright on your photo, wouldn't they be in violation of the DMCA for producing software which would let others circumvent the author's controls on your photo?
I'm sure the fine print of the DMCA has covered this stuff :-)
Fox just takes Reuters feeds and sets up expert panels to discuss them. It's very cheap to produce.
You can run X under Cygwin in rootless mode so that it will blend in with your Windows environment and use your Windows fonts.
Isn't hosting the Linux kernel project like a celebrity endorsement? Many of us would have never heard of Bitkeeper if it were not for the Linux kernel project.
Dropping it because of support contract changes while resorting to developing your own system in-house doesn't speak well for the security of relying upon Bitkeeper.
For their tactics regarding MS Office?
It's debatable as to whether or not MS broke the law.
It was unethical, but it just barely may have been legal.
This has been promised for over a decade. Citrix has been making terminal-services like machines for that long. Citrix screwed up by charging too much (a thin client with licensing and hardware cost 3x that of a PC), and Microsoft's OSes and software packages didn't deal well with multiuser environments.
Yeah, the software is getting better, and I sincerely hope they charge less than $2k in licensing per workstation.
The argument back then for the $3k thin client and the $2k licensing (then your $20k server) was that it made backup of data trivial, local workstation security trivial, upgrades of software trivial... and like you say, it cuts TCO dramatically. In my experience, the stickershock kept people from trying it and the permissions issues made the TCO arguments a little less compelling.
If MS is trying to target Linux thin clients, they might set the pricepoint more reasonably.
It's a shame for Linux, but if MS gets it right, it will be a very nice system. RDP works better than X11 anyways.
But BT can't tell they're corrupt, they match the hash that BT uses to determine if hte file is corrupt.
Also everyone downloading would be seeding the corrupt data. They don't need millions of fake uploads... they just need a few here and there, and before you know it everyone will be getting and sending chunks of bad files.
It's a good short term blast on BT, changing the hash will fix it. BT is still vulnerable though because of tracker websites being trivial to take down, and anonymity being nonexistant.
BT is an excellent legitimate distribution channel. It also makes watermarking impractical.
Science is just as much a leap of faith as religion.
A root premise of science is that logic works.
A root premise of religion is that life has divine purpose.
Analyzing religion with logic or vice-versa is applying one leap of faith to another :-)
If you really did Windows programming in 1995, try using dev-cpp from http://www.bloodshed.net/. It operates on a subset of the Win32 api and has reasonable default templates.
Widgets have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, a moving platform. With countless widget sets, multiple clipboards, different directory structures, an infinite number of combinations and permutations of shared libraries, and just as many sources of outdated, incorrect, misleading or utterly superb documentation, and crap vendors like Redhat which drop version support in a third the time of Microsoft.
One place where GNU/Linux is relatively stable is in POSIX and a vague semblence of commonly accepted extensions to the standard. That makes it a nice platform for server software, but does nothing on the desktop.
Windows was never an OS. It contains an OS, they changed OSes in the product lifetime, but the product has always been a desktop environment and a consistent, well documented, and long-supported API.
I for one am glad of the security I can place in trusting my fellow national. Ever since foreigners started bombing federal buildings, sending bombs to universities, sniping people randomly in Washington, and god knows what else, it's good to know that we can draw a clear line between "us" and "them"
One stitch of GPL'd code and it is forbidden.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Section 7:... "... For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
You can enforce patents selectively.
The GPL clause which forbids distribution of code with additional restrictions, including patents, makes it utterly worthless for most companies to persue GPL'd software for patents.
If Microsoft wanted to anihilate Linux, I think they could very well do this. But... much of the rest of the industry would unload their patent arsenals on Microsoft until they relented...
"Route" is a special term which applies only to layer 3 protocols.
Software/hardware doesn't matter.
A bridge was an older peice of hardware designed to connect two broadcast domains, useful for nasty protocols like NetBEUI.
A switch was a multiport bridge. the MAC tables in modern switches are quite capable of bridging. I've been told that older switches had very limited MAC tables so the distinction between a bridge with two ports and a huge MAC table v.s. a switch with a huge number of ports and a small MAC table was meaningful for a brief period of time. I haven't heard of anyone speak of bridges in years.
A switch operates at layer2. A layer3 switch operates at layer 2 and 3. A router operates at layer 3.
So a switch can do stuff like mask people's frames from one another, create VLANs to restrict broadcast domains. Layer 2 decisions based on Layer 2 information.
A router can do stuff like forward packets to its various interfaces based on rules in routing tables (built statically or with various routing protocols). Nothing special, just routing.
A layer 3 switch can do stuff like spot a BOOTP offer (layer 3) and block the machine based on its MAC (layer 2), spot a duplicate IP and do the same. Layer 2 decisions based on layer 3 information.
I'm not sure what additonal stuff L3 switches can do thsese days.
L4 & L7 switches (isn't TCP/IP DoD, not OSI?) can make decisions and modify information higher in the protocol stack.
But a L3 switch is certainly not a router. It can route, but then you're not using it as an L3 switch, you're using it as a router.
Enterprises have problems where developers need to operate in the same offices as finance or sales. The needs of the groups are very different (e.g. developers need simulated development environments which won't take out accounting, accounting needs very limited and controlled access to very special systems... ) and any one of the employees may be operating off-site through a VPN or shifting sites daily.
Moving the employees around the network hardware isn't acceptable anymore. The network needs to be flexible enough to contain one team's disaster.
Problems with one boob plugging in a machine with a static IP of a router or accidentally firing up a DHCP server are also unacceptable these days.
In exchange for a HELL of a LOT of publicity, they got to use BitKeeper for free. Sponsoring a major charitable event at a loss is pretty normal for a company to get its name in the lights.
It's a stupid decision for Bitkeeper. Or maybe they're banking on it being cheaper for Linus et al. to pay for it rather than migrate. But they would almost certainly be underestimating the effect of dealing in bad-faith with OSS.
I'm sure it costs them nearly nothing to keep supporting the kernel development efforts and it is one of the most astounding projects on earth. They should be paying Linus for his celebrity endorsement of their product!
Establishing plausible deniability for an upcoming information leak scandal.
Ditto here. I tend to use large monitors about 2' away from my eyes. Now that I have two displays, I have them at different distances. A window would work better, but I can't have it all.
Anyone I know who was using a T.V. set as a monitor (C=64 monitors included) for extended periods of time back in the day has HORRIBLE eyesight.
Odd with some people how bad eyesight is a point of pride. Added geek points I suppose.
It's not dead?
What?
The evil bit was cool because people implemented it. I particularly loved the diagram of the bit :-)
The crash should occur when the CPU hits a nonsense instruction in a priviliged mode. So, for example if the kernel gets a hardware interrupt from some device with a bad driver, the kernel executes the instructions at the hardware interrupt vector table. That calls the code in the driver, which does whatever it needs to do. Now say something dumb happens like a bad ethernet driver overwrites a jump instruction address with something out of range for the address space... then poof. The CPU's memory protection kicks in, a software interrupt for a memory protection fault is triggered, and executes code found at the software interrupt vector table. It could say anything from "yeah, whatever, return from interrupt", to ... "show this message, dump your memory, something is terribly wrong". That code of course is programmed into the interrupt tables at startup time, along with information about how to display the error, where to dump the RAM and how (so FS drivers aren't necessary).
At least that's what I remember.
I mean, read the Tanenbaum book. Then you can forget everything it says like I did.
The hardware was more expensive and more robust back then. There was less of a disposable computer attitude. The OS was also easily hand-cleaned or hand-installed file by file, line by line.
Any one of those old machines which have been powered on and off have a problem with chip creep, any one operated in a dusty area probably experienced PS fan failure then PS failure, and any one exposed to humidity probably died from various corrosion problems years ago.
Yeah, the manuals were better, and you had to read them to be able to do anything. The tech support was also better. A good Microsoft tech would give you a three hour tutorial about the merits and faults of DOS just by calling them up and asking.
The systems today are more complex. The documentation is poor and mixed with sales hype. The technical support is high price and has a time limit. The technical support technicians are less highschool computer nerds and more crash-course temp placements reading scripts written by highschool computer nerds. Maybe it is information overload.
I agree that people should be doing more preventative maintinance on their computers, but the real problem is sales people selling "easy to use computers" for people who can't be bothered to learn such techniques. If sales people were honest, they would recognise a need to offer more robust systems...
But then again we can't forget that the sales people are the people who didn't qualify to work the telephone support.