But certainly no leap of logic. And certainly not worth 1 and a half years of development. No matter what, this technology is probably not really that oog of an idea. Every file creastion, copy, will need to do this lookup, adding significant overhead to each of these operations. Then, when a slight modificiation is made to one of the links, for logical performance, the system would have to copy the data over again so it won't modify all links. they may have spent some time streamlining the process, but there is an unavoidable and noticcable overhead. For businesses (which windows 2000 is targetted at) hard drive pace is typically considered "cheap" but the added overhead to the process which consumes memory and CPU usage will not be appreciated. The processing time and RAM consumed by this "innovation" will likely outweigh, in all respects, the hard drive space saved.
I can't get through to the site to see if they address the most common 404 problem I have. The problem is that I sdo a search, find the page, never been then before, but now it has moved. How am I supposed to get this extended data about the page if the page moved before I ever saw it without webs earch engines storing this information too... Sure, Google can do it because of caching, but the others would be out of luck. In any case, 404 can never go away, things come up, things go down, things move. It may be possilbe to fix moving problems, but once a page goes down, it goes down:) Maybe forcing everyone to chmod directories so we get 403s instead, then 404s wouldn't be around so much:)
There are plenty of criticisms that are valid against netscape, and the shop button seems silly to me too, but your criticisms are a bit unjust. If your resolution makes things unreadable, why use it? it seems counterproductive.
Be gald that the buttons can be disbaled. Since no one has posted how in this thread, here it is, straight from my.Xdefaults: Netscape*toolBar.myshopping.isEnabled: false
That's it. To disable the search/my netscape, and add a Find button: Netscape*toolBar.destinations.isEnabled: false Netscape*toolBar.numUserCommands: 1 Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.commandName: findInObject Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.labelString: Find Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.commandIcon: Find Netscape*toolBar.search.isEnabled: false
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that they are announcing this as the final pre-release? I would think that if it is not yet prepared for general use, that it shouldn't be stated that this will be the last release that won't be ready. I would think the determination on whether it would be last or not should occur after the effects are seen among the general development users. If some huge ugly bugs pop up that require pretty decent sized-changes, I would want those changes to be throughly tested before a 4.0 release.
Then again, XFree 4.0 will be VERY welcome whenever it's ready.
They probably should update their pages, but at the time they had written that stuff, most distributions would have,, at most O2 optimizations with vanilla gcc (and most even had the -g option to make things bigger slower, but debugger friendly). They switched to pgcc, took out the debugging, and cranked up the optimizations before it really became the practice elsewhere. Stampede has been around longer than you realize, and it's true that NOW the points are superceded by others, but at the time they weren't. And the secuirty issues are a bit more complex than you say. When they talk about secuirty, I think they are saying they want to be the OpenBSD of the linux world, but I was never too interested in the secuirty anyway. At home I have nothing interesting enough to worry, and at work we slap a firewall on everything.
When they say power users, they mean people who want to squeeze every last drop of performance they can out of the system. Stampede was among the first distributions to bust out the pgcc compiler and compile as much as possible with it using the best optimizations. I've grown to distrust pgcc though, as it breaks certain programs still, and you are made to think the program does not work when it would when compiled with normal gcc.
The fdisk option is still there, if you request "expert" mode. If you want to use fdisk, you probably qualify as an "expert" and should be using that anyway, no need to confuse new people with an "fdisk" option unneccesarily.
Fascinating idea, but no sane theme would require such a trick or in any way rely on it. There are just too many people without constant connections and besides, anything such as a windowmanger, imho, should never depend on network availability or another particular machine (I don't even run wms stored on nfs, I copy them first, then use em:)
I dunno, I personally like coding in straight C, but OO approaches do have merits. Object Oriented approaches are often quicker to implement, especially on larger projects with teams of programmers.I've worked with both, use C when I can, but the times I've had to use C++, I've found it easier for development and maintenance *particularly* maintenance. Inheritance/Polymorphism does make it easier to extend functionality of existing libraries, and perhaps this is the biggest strength of C++ in commercial environments, making it easier to throw something together and get it to market, wheter it be an initial release or an upgrade. In Open Software, deadlines are often not critical, so people chose C because it is a bit less overhead, and they feel no need to push it out to market and will do it the most efficient way they can.
Heh, I went quickly for RPMs to tarballs. Then after a while, I ran into problems. I wanted to remove applications, but not sure if I get rid of everything that was there. Changed the prefix to various directories to keep it separate, and worked well, except library search paths and execute paths got too long and some programs felt sufficiently "priviledged" to put files wherever they damn well want, regardless of prefix. I found stow which solved ONE of those problems, namely keeping paths shorter. Works well, but still packages wanted to throw various files where I didn'y want them. I tried another program which basically did a find for all files modified since the beginning of the install, which was kinda cool except files that had nothing to do with the isntallation happened to be caught because of new timestamps, so that went out. I finally resigned myself to source RPMS:) seems the best way to go when you may wish to uninstall things one day:)
You evidently misunderstand the nature of moderation. It's not that certain people are nominated to be moderators, it is that points are dsitributed among people with accounts that read commetns, influenced by karma, etc.. The reason why so many stay at zero is simply the volume of posts that need moderation down and the lack of points to do it with.
Ah, but from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
... It makes individuals, amateurs, and good samaritans liable, but not big companies.
You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.
What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not work.
End quote. This was written by Richard Stallman and I assume he has made himself well-versed in the nature of the law and what it defines "shrink-wrap" licenses as. Evidently, at least if I interpret what he is saying correctly, is that the GPL will be, in effect, officially unenforceable, as it is not a shrink wrap license by the UCITA. Seems contradictory to me too, but it seems to be interpreted in that way.
I'd say it could be flawed:) The GPL would *not* be considered a 'shrinkwrap' license (at least according to the information on www.gnu.org, and I would think they would know). Basically, the Bill is, as GNU points out, trying to make it so that makers of freely distributed software more and more liabel and within reach of being sued, while leaving the big, commercial companies a way to weasel out of this liability. At least that is the way It's been explained to me.
why would you need to decrypt for a disk to disk copy? Already it has been explained how the media is too expensive, making copying infeasiblle anyway, but why couldn't the original, encrypted data be copied too? Is the key stored someplace where DVD burners can't burn (like the hub). I can see encryption standing in the way of ripping video and posting it on the internet, but that is even more ludicrous than copying onto blank media. I don't think any company anywhere has a internet setup that could handle "6 billion" people hammering them to get several gigs of clips. I would think the only way to impede piracy would be to use GOOD encryption and not have any possible way for software to access it (like having the private key on the hub, read by a separate laser which can ONLY hook into a hardware DVD decoder that does the decryption and decoding on board. Of course I'm no expert, but it seems kind of like what Sony has done with the Playstation, which makes priacy of the games much more tricky.
I visited the page and it makes me VERY happy. Here I was thinking that the little clear discs on my spindles were just packing material, but now I know the TRUTH. Wow, 140 gigs on what I had thought were just protecting the other CDs, glad I didn't throw those away! Doesn't seem to work in normal CD drvies, so I guess I'll have to pay a lot of money for the drives to read them. Hope the people packing those spindles of blank don't find this out, or else tehy'll start chargiung a lot more!
They didn't do it. One of the ACs sneaked a tag in the comment to force a popup. Note how it would only come up on THIS story?
Re:Oh no. if Apple adopts Crusoe, they'll kill it!
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 1
I might be able to see FrieWire (though it's getting some more attention). But if you think SCSI is dead, that is an insane statement. And Motorola 680x0 chips are hardly obsucre, and can even still be seen in many embedded applications. Being adopted by Apple is not necessarily a kiss of death, just sometimes:)
There is nothing inherently wrong with linux for game support. It is more driver issues. Even if you get the only hardware acceleration for 3D for Riva TNT, it is new and a development version with no optimization because they are waiting on XFree4.0 and the DRI to achieve better performance and not waste effort on a product that will relatively soon be obsolete. Voodoo graphics do well under linux now, and TNT2 will reach that point too. The infrastructure is great, it is just the drivers are either not there yet/not fully matured. Hopefully XFree4.0 will make companies less reluctant to develop for linux, *BSD, etc..
I've interviewed with several companies, wokring with FreeBSD Solaris and AIX lately. They noted and immediately recognized linux and that had them interested. However, when they saw GTK+, they asked if it was some specific version of Tk or something. These are relatively knowledgeable people, and among the people I work with few even know what GTK+ is, they just do Java and Motif and Win32 and a little Tcl/Tk, but never hear of Qt and GTK+. I find it a shame in any case.
GTK is more object oriented than Qt? That seems weird. GTK is a pain to program in at all. It is my preferred choice because of the resulting look of the applications, but Qt is a bit easier. However, the best GUI I've ever programmed in would have to be Swing (Java) Whatever people may say about Java, they got the arguably best API for GUI programming.
It would be good, if it works, I have asf files I need to play, and netshow did nothing...
But then again, if you poke around Microsoft's web site, you can find a place that says a Unix version of media player will be out in a couple of weeks! Of course, it's said this since early '98. So I wouldn't get your hopes up that they are working hard on this, they may be doing what they did in another FAQ, telling people to use microsoft servers because soon every OS will be able to play asf, because the ports are 'coming soon'.
All this said, if they do release it and it is passably ok, I won't have much use for windows anymore, and I would be happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry about all the typos, It's kinda early for me. You get the idea (oog was supposed to be good, since that was a really weird typo)
But certainly no leap of logic. And certainly not worth 1 and a half years of development. No matter what, this technology is probably not really that oog of an idea. Every file creastion, copy, will need to do this lookup, adding significant overhead to each of these operations. Then, when a slight modificiation is made to one of the links, for logical performance, the system would have to copy the data over again so it won't modify all links. they may have spent some time streamlining the process, but there is an unavoidable and noticcable overhead. For businesses (which windows 2000 is targetted at) hard drive pace is typically considered "cheap" but the added overhead to the process which consumes memory and CPU usage will not be appreciated. The processing time and RAM consumed by this "innovation" will likely outweigh, in all respects, the hard drive space saved.
I can't get through to the site to see if they address the most common 404 problem I have. The problem is that I sdo a search, find the page, never been then before, but now it has moved. How am I supposed to get this extended data about the page if the page moved before I ever saw it without webs earch engines storing this information too... Sure, Google can do it because of caching, but the others would be out of luck. In any case, 404 can never go away, things come up, things go down, things move. It may be possilbe to fix moving problems, but once a page goes down, it goes down :) Maybe forcing everyone to chmod directories so we get 403s instead, then 404s wouldn't be around so much :)
There are plenty of criticisms that are valid against netscape, and the shop button seems silly to me too, but your criticisms are a bit unjust. If your resolution makes things unreadable, why use it? it seems counterproductive.
.Xdefaults:
Be gald that the buttons can be disbaled. Since no one has posted how in this thread, here it is, straight from my
Netscape*toolBar.myshopping.isEnabled: false
That's it.
To disable the search/my netscape, and add a Find button:
Netscape*toolBar.destinations.isEnabled: false
Netscape*toolBar.numUserCommands: 1
Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.commandName: findInObject
Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.labelString: Find
Netscape*toolBar.userCommand1.commandIcon: Find
Netscape*toolBar.search.isEnabled: false
Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that they are announcing this as the final pre-release? I would think that if it is not yet prepared for general use, that it shouldn't be stated that this will be the last release that won't be ready. I would think the determination on whether it would be last or not should occur after the effects are seen among the general development users. If some huge ugly bugs pop up that require pretty decent sized-changes, I would want those changes to be throughly tested before a 4.0 release.
Then again, XFree 4.0 will be VERY welcome whenever it's ready.
They probably should update their pages, but at the time they had written that stuff, most distributions would have,, at most O2 optimizations with vanilla gcc (and most even had the -g option to make things bigger slower, but debugger friendly). They switched to pgcc, took out the debugging, and cranked up the optimizations before it really became the practice elsewhere. Stampede has been around longer than you realize, and it's true that NOW the points are superceded by others, but at the time they weren't. And the secuirty issues are a bit more complex than you say. When they talk about secuirty, I think they are saying they want to be the OpenBSD of the linux world, but I was never too interested in the secuirty anyway. At home I have nothing interesting enough to worry, and at work we slap a firewall on everything.
When they say power users, they mean people who want to squeeze every last drop of performance they can out of the system. Stampede was among the first distributions to bust out the pgcc compiler and compile as much as possible with it using the best optimizations. I've grown to distrust pgcc though, as it breaks certain programs still, and you are made to think the program does not work when it would when compiled with normal gcc.
The fdisk option is still there, if you request "expert" mode. If you want to use fdisk, you probably qualify as an "expert" and should be using that anyway, no need to confuse new people with an "fdisk" option unneccesarily.
Fascinating idea, but no sane theme would require such a trick or in any way rely on it. There are just too many people without constant connections and besides, anything such as a windowmanger, imho, should never depend on network availability or another particular machine (I don't even run wms stored on nfs, I copy them first, then use em :)
What do you mean, they already did (Java 2 and Java 1.2 are synonymous...)
I dunno, I personally like coding in straight C, but OO approaches do have merits. Object Oriented approaches are often quicker to implement, especially on larger projects with teams of programmers.I've worked with both, use C when I can, but the times I've had to use C++, I've found it easier for development and maintenance *particularly* maintenance. Inheritance/Polymorphism does make it easier to extend functionality of existing libraries, and perhaps this is the biggest strength of C++ in commercial environments, making it easier to throw something together and get it to market, wheter it be an initial release or an upgrade.
In Open Software, deadlines are often not critical, so people chose C because it is a bit less overhead, and they feel no need to push it out to market and will do it the most efficient way they can.
Heh, I went quickly for RPMs to tarballs. Then after a while, I ran into problems. I wanted to remove applications, but not sure if I get rid of everything that was there. Changed the prefix to various directories to keep it separate, and worked well, except library search paths and execute paths got too long and some programs felt sufficiently "priviledged" to put files wherever they damn well want, regardless of prefix. I found stow which solved ONE of those problems, namely keeping paths shorter. Works well, but still packages wanted to throw various files where I didn'y want them. I tried another program which basically did a find for all files modified since the beginning of the install, which was kinda cool except files that had nothing to do with the isntallation happened to be caught because of new timestamps, so that went out. I finally resigned myself to source RPMS :) seems the best way to go when you may wish to uninstall things one day :)
You evidently misunderstand the nature of moderation. It's not that certain people are nominated to be moderators, it is that points are dsitributed among people with accounts that read commetns, influenced by karma, etc.. The reason why so many stay at zero is simply the volume of posts that need moderation down and the lack of points to do it with.
Ah, but from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html
... It makes individuals, amateurs, and good samaritans liable, but not big companies.
You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed contractors who develop software for others, will be often be shafted because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.
What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem--for the software we release in the future. But we can't do this retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them in these states--and when they do so, under UCITA, they would make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that may or may not work.
End quote. This was written by Richard Stallman and I assume he has made himself well-versed in the nature of the law and what it defines "shrink-wrap" licenses as. Evidently, at least if I interpret what he is saying correctly, is that the GPL will be, in effect, officially unenforceable, as it is not a shrink wrap license by the UCITA. Seems contradictory to me too, but it seems to be interpreted in that way.
I'd say it could be flawed :) The GPL would *not* be considered a 'shrinkwrap' license (at least according to the information on www.gnu.org, and I would think they would know). Basically, the Bill is, as GNU points out, trying to make it so that makers of freely distributed software more and more liabel and within reach of being sued, while leaving the big, commercial companies a way to weasel out of this liability. At least that is the way It's been explained to me.
why would you need to decrypt for a disk to disk copy? Already it has been explained how the media is too expensive, making copying infeasiblle anyway, but why couldn't the original, encrypted data be copied too? Is the key stored someplace where DVD burners can't burn (like the hub). I can see encryption standing in the way of ripping video and posting it on the internet, but that is even more ludicrous than copying onto blank media. I don't think any company anywhere has a internet setup that could handle "6 billion" people hammering them to get several gigs of clips. I would think the only way to impede piracy would be to use GOOD encryption and not have any possible way for software to access it (like having the private key on the hub, read by a separate laser which can ONLY hook into a hardware DVD decoder that does the decryption and decoding on board. Of course I'm no expert, but it seems kind of like what Sony has done with the Playstation, which makes priacy of the games much more tricky.
I visited the page and it makes me VERY happy. Here I was thinking that the little clear discs on my spindles were just packing material, but now I know the TRUTH. Wow, 140 gigs on what I had thought were just protecting the other CDs, glad I didn't throw those away! Doesn't seem to work in normal CD drvies, so I guess I'll have to pay a lot of money for the drives to read them. Hope the people packing those spindles of blank don't find this out, or else tehy'll start chargiung a lot more!
Wasn't Redhat planning to buy Corel? Along with VA/Andover and Pokemon of course.... :)
They didn't do it. One of the ACs sneaked a tag in the comment to force a popup. Note how it would only come up on THIS story?
I might be able to see FrieWire (though it's getting some more attention). But if you think SCSI is dead, that is an insane statement. And Motorola 680x0 chips are hardly obsucre, and can even still be seen in many embedded applications. Being adopted by Apple is not necessarily a kiss of death, just sometimes :)
There is nothing inherently wrong with linux for game support. It is more driver issues. Even if you get the only hardware acceleration for 3D for Riva TNT, it is new and a development version with no optimization because they are waiting on XFree4.0 and the DRI to achieve better performance and not waste effort on a product that will relatively soon be obsolete. Voodoo graphics do well under linux now, and TNT2 will reach that point too. The infrastructure is great, it is just the drivers are either not there yet/not fully matured. Hopefully XFree4.0 will make companies less reluctant to develop for linux, *BSD, etc..
I've interviewed with several companies, wokring with FreeBSD Solaris and AIX lately. They noted and immediately recognized linux and that had them interested. However, when they saw GTK+, they asked if it was some specific version of Tk or something. These are relatively knowledgeable people, and among the people I work with few even know what GTK+ is, they just do Java and Motif and Win32 and a little Tcl/Tk, but never hear of Qt and GTK+. I find it a shame in any case.
GTK is more object oriented than Qt? That seems weird. GTK is a pain to program in at all. It is my preferred choice because of the resulting look of the applications, but Qt is a bit easier. However, the best GUI I've ever programmed in would have to be Swing (Java) Whatever people may say about Java, they got the arguably best API for GUI programming.
It would be good, if it works, I have asf files I need to play, and netshow did nothing...
But then again, if you poke around Microsoft's web site, you can find a place that says a Unix version of media player will be out in a couple of weeks! Of course, it's said this since early '98. So I wouldn't get your hopes up that they are working hard on this, they may be doing what they did in another FAQ, telling people to use microsoft servers because soon every OS will be able to play asf, because the ports are 'coming soon'.
All this said, if they do release it and it is passably ok, I won't have much use for windows anymore, and I would be happy.
Wow, I write assembler as crappy as a compiler.. :) Oh well, guess there aren't too many ways to handle a statement that simple..