How do you propose to sniff a remote collision domain?
If you can manage to sniff a remote collision domain which probably has two entities in it (the server in question and the switch port it is attached to), your idea is plausible. That or some remote hack to forward a tap port configuration across the internet or something...
Being that you would probably need a compromise in order to use your suggested method of attack, why bother?
I expect this type of reaction from school boards. Let's think about it...
What competent person capable of landing a decent job programing or in IT would settle for teaching computer courses at the middle school level.
Sure, I might find the odd kid who is geeky enough to be enjoyable teaching, but I don't think it would be enough to keep anyone challenged.
A computer teacher is still a teacher, with teacher's credentials and training. I doubt you can find truly competent people (competent in real IT/development fields) who would teach grade 8 students to use Microsoft Paint.
At the board's "liaison" level, I would expect more perhaps, but we can see that this is not the case, at least not within the board mentioned.
This is a case of someone placed into a position at a board level who SHOULD know a deal more about IT and "hacking", but they do not. This woman reacted on fear and ignorance. And in her ignorance, she fails to be an educator at all, with a nice healthy dose of arrogance towards questoins, with another big ignorant cherry on top by falsely claiming that the right decision was made.
She doesn't even realize that she's ignorant in the first place.
This letter assumes the guilt of all its licencees until proven otherwise. SCO is demanding corporate HR documents (non-disclosure) for each employee who might come in contact with their software stating that they will follow the licence and letter provisions to the T. The letter also seems to suggest that users of SCO software must swear under threat of legal action never to use Linux, and never to develop GPL software. Unbelievable.
If there was any doubt before, there is none now. This letter can't possibly be seen as anything but insulting, even by historically staunch SCO supporters. I've never seen such arrogance. I feel like I'm reading Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
DIE SCO. I can't wait to read that SCO has finally died, and that its officials and officers are being brought up on criminal charges. What a bunch of fucking crooks.
I guess it depends on what your bag of tea is. I don't see why it wouldn't work though.
I think it would make for great cooperative multi-play where each player controls up to a few party characters. Considering how tactical combat in ToEE can be, it would make for some good strategic conversation, and I'd bet a lot of fun.
I see where you're going though I think... it wouldn't work in the way NWN multi-player is set up right now.... I think it would have to be more along the lines of Baldur's gate or Diablo type multi-player gameplay (2-8 players, all on one party), but with the excellent tactical combat.
Don't get me wrong, I likes NWN, and even spent some time creating a module, but I find the combat uninspiring.
Bioware took lots of liberties in the combat and game mechanics. It's not even close to following the D&D v3.x ruleset.
If you like proper D&D tactical combat, you owe it to yourself to check out Temple of Elemental Evil. The game, as a whole is great, although there are a few bugs which are supposed to be addressed in an upcoming patch. It has THE BEST tactical turn-based combat engine I have seen, and it follows as closely to the letter of D&D 3.5 as you can get. As a matter of fact, the developers list (in the maual) the rare circumstances where the D&D ruleset is abandoned, why, and how it effects gameplay.
This guy's article is self congratulatory and self seeking. I don't care what run-ins he's had with the developers in the past.
A terrible review where he actually admits to not really checking it out fully, but still manages to come to the self-affirming conclusion that he was right all along, and takes the opportunity to take a personal jab at the project.
The only thing I learnt from this article is that the writer is bitter, and lacks tact.
I don't argue your GL points above, but I'll argue your last statement there...
ATI has been actively supporting linux driver development (either through development, or release of technical specs of their cards) for more than 10 years.
I was involved in the testing process for this technology, and I have deployed some of the world's first exclusively VoIP switches. I tested and tweaked this stuff for over two years.
Firstly, there are reasons why it is taking this long for telcos to adopt VoIP. It simply doesn't work as reliably as traditional telco equipment. Some of the main reasons for its failure are more fundamental than some would think.
First, a building could be half exploded and on fire, and most people could reasonably assume that picking up a phone on the opposite side of the building would produce a dialtone. This is an extreme example, but the idea is that telecom services have been so reliable for so long, that any failure at all is unacceptable.
Cell phones are a different story because the tradeoff for shoddy service levels is mobility and convenience.
When you get anything less that stellar performance out of a desktop phone, people will not be satisfied. I have learned this first hand.
Switched circuit equipment is designed to deliver small chunks of data in a time sensitive fashion. Ok, read that again now. Small amounts of data in a time sensitive fashion.
Now look at traditional "Internet" routing gear and circuits. The problem becomes clear.
Data-centric gear and protocols are designed to deliver as much data as possible in gulps. This is because it is assumes that one wants to get N bytes of data from here to there. These devices are designed to deliver large amounts of data, in a NON-TIME-SENSSITIVE fashion. By time sensitive, I mean size-predictable chunks of data, delivered at predictable and stable intervals.
When data is lost in a switched circuit, the result is a miniscule dropout in a largely stable and predictable service level. The technology is designed in such a way so that loss of a small bit of data is not a big deal, as it results in a tiny "tick" in the conversation.
There are several other reasons why this will fail, but here's one more:
During times of non-talk, the connection appears to go dead in that the line goes silent. This conserves bandwidth which is good, but it provides the user with an odd experience.
It's similar to using a single-duplex speakerphone, only worse, because not only can you not hear the person you're conversing with, you can't hear yourself. You can literally watch someone having a conversation on one of these phones and watch them get confused. If there is someone technical in the area, they WILL ask wtf is going on with the phone.
You end up with situations where both people are like "can you hear me now?" And they trip over eachother as they both try to speak at the same time and stop short, and jerk back in.
VoIP technology (at this point) completely removes the "connection" made between two people when they converse on the phone.
We played with gain controls and squelch and inserting white noise, and playing with the sensitivity. All that. The botton line is that it is nowhere near the same experience, and I suspect that many people will reject the experience until this problem is sorted out.
192.168.0.0/255.255.254.0 would give you one subnet of 508 usable addresses, with th network number being 192.160.0.0 and the broadcast address being 192.168.1.255. The mask is 255.255.254.0
the 10.0.0.0/8 is a class A
172.22.16.0/255.254.0.0 is 15 concatenated class Bs
The idea is good, but I can see where this would get very cumbersome on switched networks. By definition, switched networks hamper one's ability to monitor unicast frames. Most layer two bridges use 802.1d (Spanning tree Protocol and Algorithm), which directs unicast frames only through ports required to form a single path A B connectivity. This raises issues with monitoring unicast traffic, as frames not destined for the monitor are not forwarded to the port that the monitor resides on. There's a few things you can do to overcome this:
1. Place multiple hosts into a single collision domain for monitoring of unicast traffic. This has serious performance ramifications.
2. Use an inline monitor in each collision domain where you want to monitor unicast frames.
This can be very expensive, and would get cumbersome to maintain if you have a dozen or more servers to watch.
3. Use Tap ports (available on some switches) to direct all unicast frames to a designated switch monitoring port.
This also has issues, as the tap ports are generally a low priority process in the swithcing engine, and often a simple DOS can cause the switching engine to drop packets rather than forward them to the tap port. I have also done some testing and have found that many (most) tap port services on switches are broken or selective in what traffic they forward to the tap. I can't speak for them all, but I have tested several top vendor products.
I ahve a multi-homed (8) interface box that I have designed and abandoned in developing (no time) which runs linux. It's basically an 8 interface sniffer so that I can sniff up to 8 segments at a time. Even this sort of approach is really limited.
Maybe they should look at a way to piggy-back patch panels in the comms room, and run a split back to an agregator so they can sniff 'everything at once' without having to deploy many, many monitors.
Hey, that's a cool idea.
While near the end of your response, you go completely off topic and spew insane drivel, I'll answer anyways because I'm bored, and you amuse me.
However if that "stray application" interacts with a system `feature' in a way that exploits a flaw that exists in system code then it can take the system down JUST LIKE IT CAN IN ANY MAINSTREAM OPERATING SYSTEM
Well, aren't we the master of the obvious. This is entirely the point, but thank you for re-iterating mine. A good example would be....let's say..... a virus? Doesn't seem to matter whether you're running as administrator or not, does it?
Your moronic perspective that this simply shouldn't be possible is absurd...
We're getting defensive now, and you're starting to get hot under the collar, I can see you typing frantically. This is too easy.
There are a lot of numbnuts dumbfucks that don't understand the difference between a system failure and an application failure. My point was that if a game APP fails on the X-Box there will be countless drones clamoring over how unstable the X-Box is. On Windows 2000 in some configurations Explorer.exe crashes on occasion.
The knowledgable user restarts Explorer.exe. The dumbfuck runs to Slashdot to yabber over how their machine "BSOD"d.
You have just defeated yourself. The fact remains that Windows BSODs, period. A hard crash on a blue screen is exactly that. Don't mistake a hard crash for an application failure. Let's see you simply restart explorer.exe when you can't even make use of the keyboard.
Many apps have been known to substantially degrade the OS' stability by replacing system DLLs will custom DLLs, old versions, etc. This is the reality of a mainstream system where development tools are easily accessible. This has been fixed in Windows 2000.
Oh? Please enlighten us. Really, I'd like to hear it. It is the reality of a poor design.
Let me give you a little piece of advice : You don't have to run DirectX games on your [mother's] server system(s). Oh, what's that? You're running your machine as a game machine?
The topic is gaming, and the xbox, moron. This is a discussion about gaming. What was that statement even meant to say? What does my mother have to do with this? I think you're going insane.
Nvidia, 3dfx, ATI... these are the cards I'm talking about, not some whiz-bang job.
You end your post by trying to belittle me because I'm talking about running games on one of my boxes, as if that makes someone less credible. This is a discussion about gaming. You just spoke volumes, thanks.
A stray application should never, never never have priviledge to take a machine down, period. If the system does go down, then it is weakness in the OS (unless harware locks up of its own volition).
Let me ask you somehting. Have you ever _looked_ at MS code? And I'm not talking about he Hello World! type stuff that you'll get in books. I mean real, production code.
I know I haven't and I doubt you have unless you work for them, in which case, your meal-ticket slant nullifies your arguments in the first place.
Given that we can't see the code, all we have to go on is how well it performs. Windows Operating systems are easily lockable. If you never have, then keep feeding the unicorns that live in your arse along with your head. I can crash W2k in under one minute AS A REGULAR USER. Try running anything that requires directx, and Microsoft-deemed "deprecated directx calls". It will hang instantly, that is if you can even manage to beg your hardware manufacturer into releasing stable drivers for win2k.
Microsoft created their own ratsnest when they decided that the operating system should provide everything for everybody instead of clean, tightly controlled access to hardware, and the ability to say no if an application or driver tries to do something stupid.
Blaming the application developer for crashing an operating system when their app goes astray is classic schoolyard psychology. It doesn't wash. the responsibility lies with the OS.
Linux is not newbie friendly, agreed, but you need to chill and take some of your own medecine.
The reasons you give for not liking Linux are false (except the word and outlook thing If you like word so much, why would you even bother trying Linux? Or better yet, use vmware).
There are hundreds upon hundreds of fonts available in Linux.
Check Loki's site www.lokigames.com for some very cool games available under Linux. There are more too.
Drive support? You are clearly not qualified to give an opinion on matters of 'drive support'.
Anyways, you are right in one thing... Linux can be difficult, and it's not for those who are not technically inclined, except under very controlled circumstances.
If you are interested in *how* an operating system or the software you use works stick with Linux. If you could care less about how it all works, and you never want to have to do things manually (or learn how to automate them), then run from linux while you still can.
I won't bash your reasons for disliking Linux, because to you they are reality and valid.
Don't bash my reasons for loving Linux, and dismiss the OS as 'not ready for prime time'.
If Operating Systems were judged strictly by their ease of use, the little thing called the Internet would never have existed, and you would would not have had the opportunity to exercise your hipocricy.
No need to thanks us users of the 'not ready for prime time' Operating Systems.
Corel has no vision. It has been in downward spiral ever since it decided it could do more than create a good graphics package.
It chose the wrong markets. By the time they picked up Wordperfect, Office had already won the war and they failed to see it. Scrambling, and with nowhere to turn, they decide to adpot Linux and once again battle the giant. Subsequently, they decide to port their deprecated Wordperfect stuff to Linux, but do it with an ugly, ugly hack using Wine. WP over Wine is a pig and buggy, so it's generally seen as inferior to other, *free* office suites for Linux.
Now they can't beat the giant *or* please their newly adpoted user-base.
Meanwhile, Photoshop surpasses Draw and becomes the defacto standard for Windows graphics editing and creation.
Michael is charged with insider trading, and nothing is heard of the charges afterwards, but he does step down. In comes the newbie who decides that maybe Linux isn't the right way to go.
~Maybe we should just give up and jump in bed with Microsoft~, and ~Maybe we should just aquire a company that has a clue about Linux~
Maybe you should give your head a shake.
Now the newbie stands in the lookout atop the mast of a 4/5 sunken ship, attempting to sail this ship out of trouble. And still now, he wonders publically how he should approach sailing it. ~Hmm, maybe we should buy someone who knows how to sail~.
Maybe you should.
Forgive me, but I have to pick this apart bit-by-bit.
RH7 is, for lack of a better description, a stinky pile of horse doo-doo.
heh
The inclusion of heavily patched, alpha, non-standard components in RH7 was, in my humble opinion, a tragic mistake.
OK, please tell me which parts of RH 7.0 are alpha quality , heavily patched. I'd especially like your insight on which parts are non-standard.
Hard-core linux users have been turning
away from RH for years because in an effort to make your products easier to use, you have strayed far from the path that is Linux's purpose... stability and accessability.
Yes, we all know that people are swarming to Slackware because it is bare, raw linux. Sure a distribution with no configuration tools which forces the user to dig in via the console is far more likely to seem accessible to users.
Making your products accessable to Joe every day windows user by making it easier to use is great, but serves little use when it is done at the expense of those that brought your company to
where it is today, the hard-core hackers.
How are these changes at the expense of hard-core hackers? I have never come upon a task or function that I couldn't make ANY linux distribution do for me. I think you're just being willful, or you are not one of the hackers you mention --in which case, why champion someone's else's gripes?
You claim that you publish the source that your company creates; where is it? I know it's on RH's site, but finding a patch on your site is next to impossible, even for the advanced user.
Yes, even hard-core hackers have trouble finding patches, especially on a site as complex as Red Hat's.
As I write this, I'm downloading the latest revision of Debian to install on the remainder of my redhat servers. Until RH releases another product that conforms more to the spirit of
open source, I cannot use its shoddy distributions.
Why don't you wait until the latest revision of ANY distribution has undergone some tire-kicking by experimenters, and refining by the developers before you go placing it on your production servers. Or why don't you just HACK a distribution together yourself, seeing as hard-core hackers like yourself are what basically gave RedHat what they have today, right?
As a disclaimer, I don't use redhat. I did for a while back in the 2.x --> 4.x days. I tried all of the distributions available at the time and settled on Slackware. That is my personal preference. Still, I won't let someone spout uninformed garbage when I see it, regardless of who it's aimed at.
Moderate down as needed.;)
Slashdot Mirror
How do you propose to sniff a remote collision domain?
If you can manage to sniff a remote collision domain which probably has two entities in it (the server in question and the switch port it is attached to), your idea is plausible. That or some remote hack to forward a tap port configuration across the internet or something...
Being that you would probably need a compromise in order to use your suggested method of attack, why bother?
I expect this type of reaction from school boards. Let's think about it...
What competent person capable of landing a decent job programing or in IT would settle for teaching computer courses at the middle school level.
Sure, I might find the odd kid who is geeky enough to be enjoyable teaching, but I don't think it would be enough to keep anyone challenged.
A computer teacher is still a teacher, with teacher's credentials and training. I doubt you can find truly competent people (competent in real IT/development fields) who would teach grade 8 students to use Microsoft Paint.
At the board's "liaison" level, I would expect more perhaps, but we can see that this is not the case, at least not within the board mentioned.
This is a case of someone placed into a position at a board level who SHOULD know a deal more about IT and "hacking", but they do not. This woman reacted on fear and ignorance. And in her ignorance, she fails to be an educator at all, with a nice healthy dose of arrogance towards questoins, with another big ignorant cherry on top by falsely claiming that the right decision was made.
She doesn't even realize that she's ignorant in the first place.
I read the PDF of the letter.
This letter assumes the guilt of all its licencees until proven otherwise. SCO is demanding corporate HR documents (non-disclosure) for each employee who might come in contact with their software stating that they will follow the licence and letter provisions to the T. The letter also seems to suggest that users of SCO software must swear under threat of legal action never to use Linux, and never to develop GPL software. Unbelievable.
If there was any doubt before, there is none now. This letter can't possibly be seen as anything but insulting, even by historically staunch SCO supporters. I've never seen such arrogance. I feel like I'm reading Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
DIE SCO. I can't wait to read that SCO has finally died, and that its officials and officers are being brought up on criminal charges. What a bunch of fucking crooks.
Point taken, however, I didn't claim that they conformed to v3 rules. They did.
I think it would make for great cooperative multi-play where each player controls up to a few party characters. Considering how tactical combat in ToEE can be, it would make for some good strategic conversation, and I'd bet a lot of fun.
I see where you're going though I think... it wouldn't work in the way NWN multi-player is set up right now.... I think it would have to be more along the lines of Baldur's gate or Diablo type multi-player gameplay (2-8 players, all on one party), but with the excellent tactical combat.
Bioware took lots of liberties in the combat and game mechanics. It's not even close to following the D&D v3.x ruleset.
If you like proper D&D tactical combat, you owe it to yourself to check out Temple of Elemental Evil. The game, as a whole is great, although there are a few bugs which are supposed to be addressed in an upcoming patch. It has THE BEST tactical turn-based combat engine I have seen, and it follows as closely to the letter of D&D 3.5 as you can get. As a matter of fact, the developers list (in the maual) the rare circumstances where the D&D ruleset is abandoned, why, and how it effects gameplay.
The combat in ToEE is D&D combat bliss.
This guy's article is self congratulatory and self seeking. I don't care what run-ins he's had with the developers in the past.
A terrible review where he actually admits to not really checking it out fully, but still manages to come to the self-affirming conclusion that he was right all along, and takes the opportunity to take a personal jab at the project.
The only thing I learnt from this article is that the writer is bitter, and lacks tact.
I don't argue your GL points above, but I'll argue your last statement there...
ATI has been actively supporting linux driver development (either through development, or release of technical specs of their cards) for more than 10 years.
By comparison, Nvidia is the neophyte.
I was involved in the testing process for this technology, and I have deployed some of the world's first exclusively VoIP switches. I tested and tweaked this stuff for over two years.
Firstly, there are reasons why it is taking this long for telcos to adopt VoIP. It simply doesn't work as reliably as traditional telco equipment. Some of the main reasons for its failure are more fundamental than some would think.
First, a building could be half exploded and on fire, and most people could reasonably assume that picking up a phone on the opposite side of the building would produce a dialtone. This is an extreme example, but the idea is that telecom services have been so reliable for so long, that any failure at all is unacceptable.
Cell phones are a different story because the tradeoff for shoddy service levels is mobility and convenience.
When you get anything less that stellar performance out of a desktop phone, people will not be satisfied. I have learned this first hand.
Switched circuit equipment is designed to deliver small chunks of data in a time sensitive fashion. Ok, read that again now. Small amounts of data in a time sensitive fashion.
Now look at traditional "Internet" routing gear and circuits. The problem becomes clear.
Data-centric gear and protocols are designed to deliver as much data as possible in gulps. This is because it is assumes that one wants to get N bytes of data from here to there. These devices are designed to deliver large amounts of data, in a NON-TIME-SENSSITIVE fashion. By time sensitive, I mean size-predictable chunks of data, delivered at predictable and stable intervals.
When data is lost in a switched circuit, the result is a miniscule dropout in a largely stable and predictable service level. The technology is designed in such a way so that loss of a small bit of data is not a big deal, as it results in a tiny "tick" in the conversation.
There are several other reasons why this will fail, but here's one more:
During times of non-talk, the connection appears to go dead in that the line goes silent. This conserves bandwidth which is good, but it provides the user with an odd experience.
It's similar to using a single-duplex speakerphone, only worse, because not only can you not hear the person you're conversing with, you can't hear yourself. You can literally watch someone having a conversation on one of these phones and watch them get confused. If there is someone technical in the area, they WILL ask wtf is going on with the phone.
You end up with situations where both people are like "can you hear me now?" And they trip over eachother as they both try to speak at the same time and stop short, and jerk back in.
VoIP technology (at this point) completely removes the "connection" made between two people when they converse on the phone.
We played with gain controls and squelch and inserting white noise, and playing with the sensitivity. All that. The botton line is that it is nowhere near the same experience, and I suspect that many people will reject the experience until this problem is sorted out.
Gentoo ports needs a lot of work.
As often as not, emerge -u world will completely break your box, or a significant function.
Also, there are some dependancy problems as well that need to be worked out.
The idea is very good, and I'm sure it will get cleaned up, but for now, FOR ME, Gentoo is not ready for heavy lifting, sorry.
192.168.0.0/16
16 concatenated class Cs
You could use one or more of them...
192.168.0.0/255.255.254.0 would give you one subnet of 508 usable addresses, with th network number being 192.160.0.0 and the broadcast address being 192.168.1.255. The mask is 255.255.254.0
the 10.0.0.0/8 is a class A
172.22.16.0/255.254.0.0 is 15 concatenated class Bs
and, we now know about the 192.168 privates.
Designated privates are:
10.0.0.0/8
172.16.0.0/15
192.168.0.0/16
Get with it man!
Baking tapes is old school warezizing. Where do you think the analogy of Burning CDs came from?
In the beginning, people baked tapes, now they burn DVDs.
Total flashback for me there. Ahh, I remember running Maximus in 4 shells under OS/2. My phone bills soared. Fidonet stuff.
What I want to know is, where is Bordello? Managing a bordello was pretty fun as I remember it.
CON.EXE has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down. Press any key to continue.
"Shit!!, the bridge is a mile away!"
I'm sorry, but if it takes you a full year to roll out a few hundred or even a few thousand linux desktops, YOU'RE FIRED!
1. Place multiple hosts into a single collision domain for monitoring of unicast traffic. This has serious performance ramifications.
2. Use an inline monitor in each collision domain where you want to monitor unicast frames.
This can be very expensive, and would get cumbersome to maintain if you have a dozen or more servers to watch.
3. Use Tap ports (available on some switches) to direct all unicast frames to a designated switch monitoring port.
This also has issues, as the tap ports are generally a low priority process in the swithcing engine, and often a simple DOS can cause the switching engine to drop packets rather than forward them to the tap port. I have also done some testing and have found that many (most) tap port services on switches are broken or selective in what traffic they forward to the tap. I can't speak for them all, but I have tested several top vendor products. I ahve a multi-homed (8) interface box that I have designed and abandoned in developing (no time) which runs linux. It's basically an 8 interface sniffer so that I can sniff up to 8 segments at a time. Even this sort of approach is really limited. Maybe they should look at a way to piggy-back patch panels in the comms room, and run a split back to an agregator so they can sniff 'everything at once' without having to deploy many, many monitors. Hey, that's a cool idea.
Syntactic Miscellany easily owned.
However if that "stray application" interacts with a system `feature' in a way that exploits a flaw that exists in system code then it can take the system down JUST LIKE IT CAN IN ANY MAINSTREAM OPERATING SYSTEM
Well, aren't we the master of the obvious. This is entirely the point, but thank you for re-iterating mine. A good example would be....let's say..... a virus? Doesn't seem to matter whether you're running as administrator or not, does it?
Your moronic perspective that this simply shouldn't be possible is absurd...
We're getting defensive now, and you're starting to get hot under the collar, I can see you typing frantically. This is too easy.
There are a lot of numbnuts dumbfucks that don't understand the difference between a system failure and an application failure. My point was that if a game APP fails on the X-Box there will be countless drones clamoring over how unstable the X-Box is. On Windows 2000 in some configurations Explorer.exe crashes on occasion.
The knowledgable user restarts Explorer.exe. The dumbfuck runs to Slashdot to yabber over how their machine "BSOD"d.
You have just defeated yourself. The fact remains that Windows BSODs, period. A hard crash on a blue screen is exactly that. Don't mistake a hard crash for an application failure. Let's see you simply restart explorer.exe when you can't even make use of the keyboard. Many apps have been known to substantially degrade the OS' stability by replacing system DLLs will custom DLLs, old versions, etc. This is the reality of a mainstream system where development tools are easily accessible. This has been fixed in Windows 2000.
Oh? Please enlighten us. Really, I'd like to hear it. It is the reality of a poor design.
Let me give you a little piece of advice : You don't have to run DirectX games on your [mother's] server system(s). Oh, what's that? You're running your machine as a game machine?
The topic is gaming, and the xbox, moron. This is a discussion about gaming. What was that statement even meant to say? What does my mother have to do with this? I think you're going insane.
Nvidia, 3dfx, ATI... these are the cards I'm talking about, not some whiz-bang job.
You end your post by trying to belittle me because I'm talking about running games on one of my boxes, as if that makes someone less credible. This is a discussion about gaming. You just spoke volumes, thanks.
A stray application should never, never never have priviledge to take a machine down, period. If the system does go down, then it is weakness in the OS (unless harware locks up of its own volition). Let me ask you somehting. Have you ever _looked_ at MS code? And I'm not talking about he Hello World! type stuff that you'll get in books. I mean real, production code. I know I haven't and I doubt you have unless you work for them, in which case, your meal-ticket slant nullifies your arguments in the first place. Given that we can't see the code, all we have to go on is how well it performs. Windows Operating systems are easily lockable. If you never have, then keep feeding the unicorns that live in your arse along with your head. I can crash W2k in under one minute AS A REGULAR USER. Try running anything that requires directx, and Microsoft-deemed "deprecated directx calls". It will hang instantly, that is if you can even manage to beg your hardware manufacturer into releasing stable drivers for win2k. Microsoft created their own ratsnest when they decided that the operating system should provide everything for everybody instead of clean, tightly controlled access to hardware, and the ability to say no if an application or driver tries to do something stupid. Blaming the application developer for crashing an operating system when their app goes astray is classic schoolyard psychology. It doesn't wash. the responsibility lies with the OS.
Chipsets have been capable of doing that for years.
For example: 100 x 4.5 = 450MHz
Sony has a long history of being secretive, I would be surprised if this was anything beyond a token appease the legals implementation.
Hmm.
Linux is not newbie friendly, agreed, but you need to chill and take some of your own medecine.
The reasons you give for not liking Linux are false (except the word and outlook thing If you like word so much, why would you even bother trying Linux? Or better yet, use vmware).
There are hundreds upon hundreds of fonts available in Linux.
Check Loki's site www.lokigames.com for some very cool games available under Linux. There are more too.
Drive support? You are clearly not qualified to give an opinion on matters of 'drive support'.
Anyways, you are right in one thing... Linux can be difficult, and it's not for those who are not technically inclined, except under very controlled circumstances.
If you are interested in *how* an operating system or the software you use works stick with Linux. If you could care less about how it all works, and you never want to have to do things manually (or learn how to automate them), then run from linux while you still can.
I won't bash your reasons for disliking Linux, because to you they are reality and valid.
Don't bash my reasons for loving Linux, and dismiss the OS as 'not ready for prime time'.
If Operating Systems were judged strictly by their ease of use, the little thing called the Internet would never have existed, and you would would not have had the opportunity to exercise your hipocricy.
No need to thanks us users of the 'not ready for prime time' Operating Systems.
Corel has no vision. It has been in downward spiral ever since it decided it could do more than create a good graphics package. It chose the wrong markets. By the time they picked up Wordperfect, Office had already won the war and they failed to see it. Scrambling, and with nowhere to turn, they decide to adpot Linux and once again battle the giant. Subsequently, they decide to port their deprecated Wordperfect stuff to Linux, but do it with an ugly, ugly hack using Wine. WP over Wine is a pig and buggy, so it's generally seen as inferior to other, *free* office suites for Linux. Now they can't beat the giant *or* please their newly adpoted user-base. Meanwhile, Photoshop surpasses Draw and becomes the defacto standard for Windows graphics editing and creation. Michael is charged with insider trading, and nothing is heard of the charges afterwards, but he does step down. In comes the newbie who decides that maybe Linux isn't the right way to go. ~Maybe we should just give up and jump in bed with Microsoft~, and ~Maybe we should just aquire a company that has a clue about Linux~ Maybe you should give your head a shake. Now the newbie stands in the lookout atop the mast of a 4/5 sunken ship, attempting to sail this ship out of trouble. And still now, he wonders publically how he should approach sailing it. ~Hmm, maybe we should buy someone who knows how to sail~. Maybe you should.
RH7 is, for lack of a better description, a stinky pile of horse doo-doo.
heh
The inclusion of heavily patched, alpha, non-standard components in RH7 was, in my humble opinion, a tragic mistake.
OK, please tell me which parts of RH 7.0 are alpha quality , heavily patched. I'd especially like your insight on which parts are non-standard.
Hard-core linux users have been turning away from RH for years because in an effort to make your products easier to use, you have strayed far from the path that is Linux's purpose... stability and accessability.
Yes, we all know that people are swarming to Slackware because it is bare, raw linux. Sure a distribution with no configuration tools which forces the user to dig in via the console is far more likely to seem accessible to users.
Making your products accessable to Joe every day windows user by making it easier to use is great, but serves little use when it is done at the expense of those that brought your company to where it is today, the hard-core hackers.
How are these changes at the expense of hard-core hackers? I have never come upon a task or function that I couldn't make ANY linux distribution do for me. I think you're just being willful, or you are not one of the hackers you mention --in which case, why champion someone's else's gripes?
You claim that you publish the source that your company creates; where is it? I know it's on RH's site, but finding a patch on your site is next to impossible, even for the advanced user.
Yes, even hard-core hackers have trouble finding patches, especially on a site as complex as Red Hat's.
As I write this, I'm downloading the latest revision of Debian to install on the remainder of my redhat servers. Until RH releases another product that conforms more to the spirit of open source, I cannot use its shoddy distributions.
Why don't you wait until the latest revision of ANY distribution has undergone some tire-kicking by experimenters, and refining by the developers before you go placing it on your production servers. Or why don't you just HACK a distribution together yourself, seeing as hard-core hackers like yourself are what basically gave RedHat what they have today, right? As a disclaimer, I don't use redhat. I did for a while back in the 2.x --> 4.x days. I tried all of the distributions available at the time and settled on Slackware. That is my personal preference. Still, I won't let someone spout uninformed garbage when I see it, regardless of who it's aimed at. Moderate down as needed. ;)