Haha, you're kidding, right? No *good* developers want to do OSS? I'm sure that guys like Alan Cox, Remy Card, and a host of others would laugh in your face...
I guess you haven't been around very long. I was a frequent poster to alt.sources back before the web - there's lots and lots of folks around the world who chose to give their stuff away for free.
Currently, there's sourceforge and freshmeat, just to name two, where you can browse hundreds of software projects with source - all for free.
So, where does that fit into your idea of "few people want to give away their labor for free"?
Doesn't sound like he needs all that stuff. Just stick Project 2003 on a desktop and be done with it.
Why do technical people consistently vastly over-engineer their technical solutions? The customer wants a moped, technical people try to sell them a 747...
Is that because when your 3Mpx model is replaced with a 6Mpx model in the makers line-up it will suddenly stop taking good photos?
No, it's because with film, you get what you get. You can't upgrade that film camera for higher resolution or more low-end sensitivity, but you can with a digital, and it's almost seductive to buy that 6MP when you've got a 2MP.
The other thing with digital is that the tonal range is compressed, the highs block badly, and you quickly lose definition in the lows. Take a picture of a test card with film and with a digital and you'll see what I mean.
No they don't. The way you "solve" it is understand what the light meter is actually measuring, instead of showing your ignorance.
All light meters are set up to produce a proper exposure of an 18% gray card. Any professional photographer knows this and either uses an 18% gray card, an incident light meter, or adjusts his camera accordingly. No need to bracket for normal subjects.
As opposed to my 30-year-old Canon FTb and my 20+-year-old Canon T70. I still use the FTb, and expect to still use it until I die. Hey, even my Nikon N80 should outlast most of the all-digital cameras.
The other thing about digital vs. film is that when I buy a film camera, I can expect to use it happily for years. When I get a digital, not only has it lost 50% or more of its value before it gets to my door, it will have to be replaced with something that is newer/better/faster in a couple of years. That 3MP will have to be replaced with a 6MP with a better tonal range, etc.
I also have never seen a digital camera that had the tonal range of film, not even at twice the price. When I can buy a digital camera that is the equal of any of my film cameras at even twice what I paid, I'll switch. Until then, digital cameras are for the point-and-shoot crowd, and digital SLRs are for the newsies and folks with a whole lot more money that I'm willing to part with.
What can be done to protect consumers without stifling the technological innovation that we all know is so important?
Excuse me? That's stated like they are mutually exclusive goals... the de facto state of affairs to protect consumers is *not* to stifle innovation! If you had said "big business" instead of "consumers" that would've made a lot more sense...
Technological innovation *is* good for consumers, but bad for big business, who is used to milking a technological development for as long as they can. People don't understand - corporations don't exist to be good to the environment, the consumer, or their employees, they don't even care about the law per se; the sole point of a corporation's existence is to make as much profit as possible, period. The sooner people recognize and understand this, the better off they will be able to deal with the problem.
And what makes anyone think that this is her personal opinion? She's paid by the company to litigate in their favor, period. Her personal feelings or beliefs are irrelevent. People are so stupid as to believe this sort of nonsense. She, like you, are paid to do a job, regardless of how she, or you, feel about it.
On the other hand, she is completely and totally unqualified to be on *any* court at the appellate level - she has no experience as a judge whatsoever. What is amazing to me is that the appointment will probably sail through, just like everything else that the Bush administration has wanted, regardless of (1) how illegal or unconstitutional it is, or (2) how little sense it makes.
I never could decide who I wanted to enter a kissing contest with more - Jeri or Roxanne.:)
the article is full of errors
on
Basics of RAID
·
· Score: 2, Informative
One glaring error:
RAID can be run on any modern operating system provided that the appropriate drivers are available from the RAID controller's manufacturer. A computer with the operating system and all of the software already installed on one drive can be easily be cloned to another single drive by using software like Norton Ghost. But it is not as easy when going to RAID, as a user who wants to have their existing system with a single bootable hard drive upgraded to RAID must start from the beginning. This implies that the operating system and all software needs to be re-installed from scratch, and all key data must be backed up to be restored on the new RAID array.
Again, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are hardware RAID 1 controllers that require no drivers and you don't have to do squat - just power down the server, install the RAID 1 on your IDE interface, plug in the new drive, hit the power, and away you go. The controller is smart enough to automatically sync up the two drives in the background.
Big deal. We were doing this 30 years ago. The Navy had a similar rebreather they were testing about 1974 or so. It used a small pump to run sea water over a thin gas permeable membrane that would allow oxygen to pass through one way while allowing carbon dioxide to pass the other. The gas permeable membrane material was made by General Electric, if memory serves.
Now that Linus has apparently lost what little sanity he seems to have had, is this going to spook folks away from Linux and towards other "freer" operating systems, like the BSD variants?
Because of the size of Linux distros, and the time spent in paring them down to a reasonable size, plus the fact that FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has traditionally been faster than anyone else's, we've been slowly migrating our production servers away from Linux and towards FreeBSD. This is just another reason to start moving away from Linux - first, Linus saddles the kernel development community with a proprietary product in deference to another person's business and against common sense - then he attacks Andrew in public - a person who has done an enormous amount for the open source community - over what is simple re-engineering, something that almost everyone has done over the entire course of Linux development. In fact, Linus himself used Minix to build the first Linux kernel, so Linus can be considered the father of re-engineering in Linux. I find it more than a bit hypocritical that Linus is viciously attacking someone else for doing what he himself has done in the past, all because his friend wants to try and protect his business model.
Making business decisions based on personal feelings gives us a very bad feeling, especially when those bad decisions, followed by even more bad decisions, are being made by someone who has sole and exclusive control over a large part of *our* core business. Better, we think, to move away from an autocratic and arbitrary style of management and towards something a bit more democratic. Linux has slowly moved towards the William Jolitz autocratic style of management that characterized 386BSD, and which ultimately spelled its downfall. Linux is bigger, so it will fall much more slowly, but I think it *will* fall eventually, and for the same reasons that Linux initially overtook 386BSD.
I had a similar problem until I figured out that pressing and holding the pushbutton on the front of the unit for about 10 seconds or so did some sort of reset. Everything worked just fine after that. I have no idea why I had to do the reset thing, and I couldn't find any mention of it in the manual. Maybe I missed it.
Get rid of Windows wherever possible. Servers can run Linux or FreeBSD, MySQL, sendmail, etc. instead of Windows Server, SQL Server, and Exchange - that one simple move can save you thousands of dollars *per server*. Even desktops can be selectively replaced - for simple office applications, Evolution or Thunderbird work just as good, if not better, than Outlook, and since installing Firefox, I haven't touched IE in months.
With all due respect, the argument is flawed. In practice, it goes something like this:
1. User A uses Windows because "that's all there is". 2. Open Source guru B introduces A to Linux/*BSD/whater open source platform. 3. A complains "but there's no apps that do email like Outlook Express!" (for example) 4. B introduces A to Thunderbird, which is an absolutely *awesome* email program, and runs everywhere, including Windows. 5. While A drools over all the cool stuff that Thunderbird does, B quietly mentions that Linux/*BSD/whatever (1) doesn't need virus protection software or anti-spyware/adware programs, and (2) never crashes. 6. While A has fun with Thunderbird, noting how much faster and easier it is to work with, even on Windows, she quietly thinks about how many times he or she has to reboot Windows because it's locked up her machine or just gotten flaky and she's lost just time, or even data because she hadn't saved that document or spreadsheet she'd been working on before Windows crashed on her. 7. About a week later, B gets a call from A, asking how easy it would be to install (insert O/S of choice here) and move her data and documents over. B explains that since there are applications that run on both Windows and Linux/*BSD, it's a snap to move the data between Windows and the new operating system. 8. Two or three hours after B shows up at A's office with a hard drive in a USB enclosure to backup her data and a set of CDs to install Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE/his favorite distro, the job is done. Another very happy client.:)
Remember, the applications may drive the desktop market, but the applications are merely a wrapping for the gift within - the more robust open source operating system - which the user never sees, but gets mightly angry when it doesn't work like it should.
I've been writing software for over 25 years, been involved in working on Linux for 13 years, and I'm here to tell you - Linux and the *BSD variants "just work". No rebooting because an app screwed something up, no cold boots, no lockups, "it just works". Applications that work on both platforms meanss that it will be easier to make the switch away from Windows when the use gets tired of putting up with its instability and bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, you're kidding, right? No *good* developers want to do OSS? I'm sure that guys like Alan Cox, Remy Card, and a host of others would laugh in your face...
I guess you haven't been around very long. I was a frequent poster to alt.sources back before the web - there's lots and lots of folks around the world who chose to give their stuff away for free.
Currently, there's sourceforge and freshmeat, just to name two, where you can browse hundreds of software projects with source - all for free.
So, where does that fit into your idea of "few people want to give away their labor for free"?
You mean, rarely can *afford* to work for free. There's a difference.
Doesn't sound like he needs all that stuff. Just stick Project 2003 on a desktop and be done with it.
Why do technical people consistently vastly over-engineer their technical solutions? The customer wants a moped, technical people try to sell them a 747...
Is that because when your 3Mpx model is replaced with a 6Mpx model in the makers line-up it will suddenly stop taking good photos?
No, it's because with film, you get what you get. You can't upgrade that film camera for higher resolution or more low-end sensitivity, but you can with a digital, and it's almost seductive to buy that 6MP when you've got a 2MP.
The other thing with digital is that the tonal range is compressed, the highs block badly, and you quickly lose definition in the lows. Take a picture of a test card with film and with a digital and you'll see what I mean.
I guess National Geographic photographers aren't professional enough for you.
No they don't. The way you "solve" it is understand what the light meter is actually measuring, instead of showing your ignorance.
All light meters are set up to produce a proper exposure of an 18% gray card. Any professional photographer knows this and either uses an 18% gray card, an incident light meter, or adjusts his camera accordingly. No need to bracket for normal subjects.
As opposed to my 30-year-old Canon FTb and my 20+-year-old Canon T70. I still use the FTb, and expect to still use it until I die. Hey, even my Nikon N80 should outlast most of the all-digital cameras.
The other thing about digital vs. film is that when I buy a film camera, I can expect to use it happily for years. When I get a digital, not only has it lost 50% or more of its value before it gets to my door, it will have to be replaced with something that is newer/better/faster in a couple of years. That 3MP will have to be replaced with a 6MP with a better tonal range, etc.
I also have never seen a digital camera that had the tonal range of film, not even at twice the price. When I can buy a digital camera that is the equal of any of my film cameras at even twice what I paid, I'll switch. Until then, digital cameras are for the point-and-shoot crowd, and digital SLRs are for the newsies and folks with a whole lot more money that I'm willing to part with.
What can be done to protect consumers without stifling the technological innovation that we all know is so important?
... the de facto state of affairs to protect consumers is *not* to stifle innovation! If you had said "big business" instead of "consumers" that would've made a lot more sense...
Excuse me? That's stated like they are mutually exclusive goals
Technological innovation *is* good for consumers, but bad for big business, who is used to milking a technological development for as long as they can. People don't understand - corporations don't exist to be good to the environment, the consumer, or their employees, they don't even care about the law per se; the sole point of a corporation's existence is to make as much profit as possible, period. The sooner people recognize and understand this, the better off they will be able to deal with the problem.
And what makes anyone think that this is her personal opinion? She's paid by the company to litigate in their favor, period. Her personal feelings or beliefs are irrelevent. People are so stupid as to believe this sort of nonsense. She, like you, are paid to do a job, regardless of how she, or you, feel about it.
On the other hand, she is completely and totally unqualified to be on *any* court at the appellate level - she has no experience as a judge whatsoever. What is amazing to me is that the appointment will probably sail through, just like everything else that the Bush administration has wanted, regardless of (1) how illegal or unconstitutional it is, or (2) how little sense it makes.
I never could decide who I wanted to enter a kissing contest with more - Jeri or Roxanne. :)
One glaring error:
RAID can be run on any modern operating system provided that the appropriate drivers are available from the RAID controller's manufacturer. A computer with the operating system and all of the software already installed on one drive can be easily be cloned to another single drive by using software like Norton Ghost. But it is not as easy when going to RAID, as a user who wants to have their existing system with a single bootable hard drive upgraded to RAID must start from the beginning. This implies that the operating system and all software needs to be re-installed from scratch, and all key data must be backed up to be restored on the new RAID array.
Again, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are hardware RAID 1 controllers that require no drivers and you don't have to do squat - just power down the server, install the RAID 1 on your IDE interface, plug in the new drive, hit the power, and away you go. The controller is smart enough to automatically sync up the two drives in the background.
RMFP, what I described extracts oxygen directly from the water, too.
Big deal. We were doing this 30 years ago. The Navy had a similar rebreather they were testing about 1974 or so. It used a small pump to run sea water over a thin gas permeable membrane that would allow oxygen to pass through one way while allowing carbon dioxide to pass the other. The gas permeable membrane material was made by General Electric, if memory serves.
Now that Linus has apparently lost what little sanity he seems to have had, is this going to spook folks away from Linux and towards other "freer" operating systems, like the BSD variants?
Because of the size of Linux distros, and the time spent in paring them down to a reasonable size, plus the fact that FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has traditionally been faster than anyone else's, we've been slowly migrating our production servers away from Linux and towards FreeBSD. This is just another reason to start moving away from Linux - first, Linus saddles the kernel development community with a proprietary product in deference to another person's business and against common sense - then he attacks Andrew in public - a person who has done an enormous amount for the open source community - over what is simple re-engineering, something that almost everyone has done over the entire course of Linux development. In fact, Linus himself used Minix to build the first Linux kernel, so Linus can be considered the father of re-engineering in Linux. I find it more than a bit hypocritical that Linus is viciously attacking someone else for doing what he himself has done in the past, all because his friend wants to try and protect his business model.
Making business decisions based on personal feelings gives us a very bad feeling, especially when those bad decisions, followed by even more bad decisions, are being made by someone who has sole and exclusive control over a large part of *our* core business. Better, we think, to move away from an autocratic and arbitrary style of management and towards something a bit more democratic. Linux has slowly moved towards the William Jolitz autocratic style of management that characterized 386BSD, and which ultimately spelled its downfall. Linux is bigger, so it will fall much more slowly, but I think it *will* fall eventually, and for the same reasons that Linux initially overtook 386BSD.
Or maybe their quality control just sucks :(
I had a similar problem until I figured out that pressing and holding the pushbutton on the front of the unit for about 10 seconds or so did some sort of reset. Everything worked just fine after that. I have no idea why I had to do the reset thing, and I couldn't find any mention of it in the manual. Maybe I missed it.
If you sex drive is that low, maybe she needs to get a new boyfriend.
Borland had a badass compiler with the old venerable Turbo C 3.0
I remember that compiler - compared to Microsoft's C compiler, Borland's screamed.
Get rid of Windows wherever possible. Servers can run Linux or FreeBSD, MySQL, sendmail, etc. instead of Windows Server, SQL Server, and Exchange - that one simple move can save you thousands of dollars *per server*. Even desktops can be selectively replaced - for simple office applications, Evolution or Thunderbird work just as good, if not better, than Outlook, and since installing Firefox, I haven't touched IE in months.
I actually looked. Pathetic.
Lightning in space ... now that would be a trick...
Hmmm, I guess you've never heard of Publius...
With all due respect, the argument is flawed. In practice, it goes something like this:
:)
1. User A uses Windows because "that's all there is".
2. Open Source guru B introduces A to Linux/*BSD/whater open source platform.
3. A complains "but there's no apps that do email like Outlook Express!" (for example)
4. B introduces A to Thunderbird, which is an absolutely *awesome* email program, and runs everywhere, including Windows.
5. While A drools over all the cool stuff that Thunderbird does, B quietly mentions that Linux/*BSD/whatever (1) doesn't need virus protection software or anti-spyware/adware programs, and (2) never crashes.
6. While A has fun with Thunderbird, noting how much faster and easier it is to work with, even on Windows, she quietly thinks about how many times he or she has to reboot Windows because it's locked up her machine or just gotten flaky and she's lost just time, or even data because she hadn't saved that document or spreadsheet she'd been working on before Windows crashed on her.
7. About a week later, B gets a call from A, asking how easy it would be to install (insert O/S of choice here) and move her data and documents over. B explains that since there are applications that run on both Windows and Linux/*BSD, it's a snap to move the data between Windows and the new operating system.
8. Two or three hours after B shows up at A's office with a hard drive in a USB enclosure to backup her data and a set of CDs to install Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE/his favorite distro, the job is done. Another very happy client.
Remember, the applications may drive the desktop market, but the applications are merely a wrapping for the gift within - the more robust open source operating system - which the user never sees, but gets mightly angry when it doesn't work like it should.
I've been writing software for over 25 years, been involved in working on Linux for 13 years, and I'm here to tell you - Linux and the *BSD variants "just work". No rebooting because an app screwed something up, no cold boots, no lockups, "it just works". Applications that work on both platforms meanss that it will be easier to make the switch away from Windows when the use gets tired of putting up with its instability and bugs.
That's good enough for me - and my clients.
If all you're going to do is copy files, why not just get a 256MB USB flash drive? A *lot* cheaper solution!