Re:when we're finished patting ourselves on the ba
on
2003: Year of Apache
·
· Score: 1
When we bragg about these numbers, Microsoft respond with: "Our webserver is used by more Forbes/Fortune 500 companies and is used by more secure websites. Apaches numbers are only high because a lot of amateurs use it".
These are words without substance. Where's the beef?
I work for a TLA Fortune 500 telecom. We use Apache for revenue-generating sites. We use other HTTP servers as well, some proprietary, like NES/iPlanet/SunONE. IIS is virtually non-present except on some small internal boxes.
MS gets used for Exchange and fileservers. There is interest in promoting Linux, and virtually none in promoting MS for any serious systems.
What exactly are you insinuating is going wrong? What are your suggestions for improvement?
-----BEGIN DRIPPING SARCASM----- Yes, I specifically meant Moscovites and residents of New Delhi out of all the possible connotations of Asian. I really don't know why I chose such a broad and sweeping term that no one could possibly understand the meaning of. -----END DRIPPING SARCASM-----
In all seriousness, I'm not sure there's a great word these days to describe the 'Mongoloid race' without appearing insulting. Asian seems to be the currently-fashionable (but technically ambiguous) label in the USA.
Of my Korean/Chinese/Japanese friends who've broached the subject, all have expressed a dislike for describing people as Oriental, which they associate with inanimate objects like rugs and food. They usually refer to themselves as a race as Asian, which to my knowledge is not the case with Indians and others who geographically match the term Asian.
In the beginning, God created the universe, and saw that it was good. And God created Man, and Man developed Windows 3.1. Angered, God sent a UDP packet flood filled with His wrath to destroy the sins of man.
Man, lacking a TCP/IP stack in his creation, missed out on this experience entirely. God, receiving no response from his fierce, packety wrath, believed he had won, then abandoned the Earth and spent the rest of eternity darning socks.
IBM's a large, large company with abundant resources in the area of software design.
Pththth-fit, wrong-o. The whole point of real openly published standards is to avoid the need for software design. While IBM has made real contributions to free code, this is a cost saving move.
No need to slobber. I don't mean to indicate they'll design all sorts of neat-o proprietary internal software to slather on top of the OS (they seem to be leaning towards web-based J2EE apps for that sort of thing), but they will be able to pretty easily distribute the OS per their design, and have the skills on hand to battle any major problems.
When discussing desktop Linux with user-facing IT managers, a lot of them have hesitated because of distribution issues. They feel MS makes it easy for them to distribute custom-built OS images on a wide scale, compared to e.g. Redhat. I don't have much experience with distributing Windows desktops on a large scale, so I'm not sure how they really compare.
Non-standard is about to die the misserable death it deserves and all applications and data will enjoy the real cross platform deployment that is the promise of SOFTware.
I don't think this makes sense from a productivity standpoint. Most of us probably believe that linux wins a TCO fight with Windows, but that would not be the case if you had to develop all your basic tools from scratch, even for IBM.
Oh, I don't mean to speculate that they'll do it from scratch. They'll probably build on top of Redhat or SUSE.
The dog food-eating will certainly make them look good too.
IBM's a large, large company with abundant resources in the area of software design. They've got the ability to tailor-design an OS to the needs of their company and deploy it enterprise-wide, and with Linux and friends, do it without losing much cross-platform compatibility.
A similar switch might be tougher for other large organizations with widescale Windows deployments, where a few lightly-customized Win2k images might be the most they can currently support.
Yeah. I'm not agreeing with the original post (there's plenty of great trilogies around), I was just tossing in some related info for anyone who might be interested.
FWIW, the LOTR 'trilogy' was intended by Tolkien to be published as one physical book. The cost of publishing such a large book at the time (post-WWII) was such that the publisher divided it into three volumes.
The names "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers", and "Return of the King" were made up after the fact. Tolkien preferred "War of the Ring" as the name of the third, as he believed "Return of the King" gave away the plot.
Bad: "embracing" an existing standard, extending it incompatibly behind closed doors, flooding the marketplace with incompatible software and claiming it supports the standard.
Appropriating existing application software (not exactly standard in the same was as, say, TCP/IP), developing it thoroughly, and contributing the useful changes back to the original development teams is a bit different. It could be done badly, yes, but Apple doesn't seem to have a poor track record lately in this respect.
Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie began receiving financial support from Bell Labs to port UNIX to the PDP-11 in 1970. That new version of UNIX got the first of the year as its epoch.
I've been skipping commercials since the first time I recorded a TV show on my VCR in the 80's.
Skipping commercials on a recording you've made has always been possible; modern devices are simply improving on the fast-forward button because of customer demand. The idea is "I've recorded a television show, and I'd like to view it in the manner of my choosing". The price you pay is giving up real-time viewing.
Advertisements aired during television programs are a deal between the networks and the advertisers, not between the networks and the viewers. The ad slots will be worth less if it is shown that less people watch the ads because of 'skip' features. Perhaps the quality of the programming will decrease because of this; the networks might have to seek alternate funding, such as subscriptions, pay-per-view, and such. That is the risk they take when their business is based on voluntary advertisement-viewing; they are not innately due any payment simply because they created and aired a show for public viewing.
Unsolicited email, however, is both a public and private nuisance at others' expense. The telecoms and ISPs whose resources are being abused to deliver an obnoxious amount of unwanted data to their paying customers are not being compensated as the television networks are. They didn't request to be spammed. Their customers don't appreciate it either.
The spammers started pissing in the pool because it didn't have a No Pissing sign. Open SMTP relays were misused as gratis advertisement delivery devices. So we locked down the relays. We blacklisted networks of known spammers. We created elaborate swimsuits with more or less effective piss filters, and they kept floating around with grins, urinating gleefully all over everyone in warm yellow delight, using various questionable methods to whiz upon humanity.
People are tired of getting pissed on. Nobody wants to wear a raincoat all the time, so maybe some anti-pissing legislation is in order.
The TV networks, on the other hand, draw their customer base via public broadcast of free entertainment, which is viewed on a voluntary basis. They pay their bills by blending in paid content with the goal of getting the customer to pay attention to it. If the customer is choosing to ignore the paid content, their delivery method is ineffective and they need to find another way to do business. Bossing the people around who voluntarily pay their salaries shows lack of creativity and will only serve to generate animosity in the long term.
To sum up, ignoring commercials is not stealing and is typical human behavior; spamming is unjustified and could be construed as stealing.
That doesn't work for the same reason anarchy doesn't work. Because it's what we started with. Without spoken or unspoken rules, we have anarchy and total lack of privacy.
Then some or many people decide they'd rather not have it that way, tell people to piss off and mind their own business; and that's where absolute anarchy and unprivacy end and structured living begins.
If you've ever played an owned/rented/borrowed DVD that had unviewable scenes, skips, etc, you've experienced one valid reason for copying your DVDs.
When I buy a DVD, I like to think that I'm buying a copy of the movie to view for as long as I like, and that I can use whichever personal methods I wish to keep the movie around. That includes copying it to other media for preservation.
I don't know of a comprehensive list, but some players (including some Sony players) will allow you to bypass content that others lock down, so it's possible that yours is not affected.
The Sixth Sense comes to mind as one example of a DVD with previews that attempt to block the "index forward" function. It's very common in the rental versions of DVDs.
DVDs aren't What We Want anyway. All the silly restrictions are a pain in the ass.
Can't skip previews/warnings when the technology is there to make it easy to do so
Can't view DVDs from other regions
Can't view the DVDs you purchased at home if you move to or visit another region (envision moving to another country and having to buy a new, incompatible DVD player and DVDs)
Encryption makes it a pain in the ass to legally view your DVDs on unpopular platforms
DVD licensing fees, etc
These and other things make purchasing DVDs less enjoyable and worthwhile. There are ways to work around these things; what's the end result of all the restrictions? People buy DVD players that let them view DVDs from whatever region they like. People create software to defeat the security features. People rip out all the scenes, paste them together, then offer them up for free download where they're voraciously devoured by the public before they're even released.
We don't want lame-ass restrictions. Legally we may only have a license to view the movie and not own a copy of it, but that's not how people think or what they want.
DVD opened up with the silly restrictions removed offers a quality copy of a movie that is a pleasure to own and operate, which is What We Want. Give us what we want and we'll eat it up.
Slashdot Mirror
When we bragg about these numbers, Microsoft respond with:
"Our webserver is used by more Forbes/Fortune 500 companies and is used by more secure websites. Apaches numbers are only high because a lot of amateurs use it".
These are words without substance. Where's the beef?
I work for a TLA Fortune 500 telecom. We use Apache for revenue-generating sites. We use other HTTP servers as well, some proprietary, like NES/iPlanet/SunONE. IIS is virtually non-present except on some small internal boxes.
MS gets used for Exchange and fileservers. There is interest in promoting Linux, and virtually none in promoting MS for any serious systems.
What exactly are you insinuating is going wrong? What are your suggestions for improvement?
-----BEGIN DRIPPING SARCASM-----
Yes, I specifically meant Moscovites and residents of New
Delhi out of all the possible connotations of Asian. I really
don't know why I chose such a broad and sweeping term that
no one could possibly understand the meaning of.
-----END DRIPPING SARCASM-----
In all seriousness, I'm not sure there's a great word these days to describe the 'Mongoloid race' without appearing insulting. Asian seems to be the currently-fashionable (but technically ambiguous) label in the USA.
Of my Korean/Chinese/Japanese friends who've broached the subject, all have expressed a dislike for describing people as Oriental, which they associate with inanimate objects like rugs and food. They usually refer to themselves as a race as Asian, which to my knowledge is not the case with Indians and others who geographically match the term Asian.
Except Asians in the U.S. are probably used to be called Chinese all the time by ignorant mistake. Being called a chink would still be insulting.
Computer! Re-enable sarcasm processing.
In the beginning, God created the universe, and saw that it was good. And God created Man, and Man developed Windows 3.1. Angered, God sent a UDP packet flood filled with His wrath to destroy the sins of man.
Man, lacking a TCP/IP stack in his creation, missed out on this experience entirely. God, receiving no response from his fierce, packety wrath, believed he had won, then abandoned the Earth and spent the rest of eternity darning socks.
No need to slobber. I don't mean to indicate they'll design all sorts of neat-o proprietary internal software to slather on top of the OS (they seem to be leaning towards web-based J2EE apps for that sort of thing), but they will be able to pretty easily distribute the OS per their design, and have the skills on hand to battle any major problems.
When discussing desktop Linux with user-facing IT managers, a lot of them have hesitated because of distribution issues. They feel MS makes it easy for them to distribute custom-built OS images on a wide scale, compared to e.g. Redhat. I don't have much experience with distributing Windows desktops on a large scale, so I'm not sure how they really compare.
Non-standard is about to die the misserable death it deserves and all applications and data will enjoy the real cross platform deployment that is the promise of SOFTware.
I hope so too.
No.
I don't think this makes sense from a productivity standpoint. Most of us probably believe that linux wins a TCO fight with Windows, but that would not be the case if you had to develop all your basic tools from scratch, even for IBM.
Oh, I don't mean to speculate that they'll do it from scratch. They'll probably build on top of Redhat or SUSE.
The dog food-eating will certainly make them look good too.
Take WebSphere...
...please!
IBM's a large, large company with abundant resources in the area of software design. They've got the ability to tailor-design an OS to the needs of their company and deploy it enterprise-wide, and with Linux and friends, do it without losing much cross-platform compatibility.
A similar switch might be tougher for other large organizations with widescale Windows deployments, where a few lightly-customized Win2k images might be the most they can currently support.
They'll come around eventually...
I hope my coffee habit doesn't turn me into Jon Lovitz.
Well, I for one don't enjoy tossing my information about willy-nilly just to read an article.
How about tossing it around pell-mell? Helter-skelter? Higgledy-piggledy?
Yeah. I'm not agreeing with the original post (there's plenty of great trilogies around), I was just tossing in some related info for anyone who might be interested.
You question 'coma' but not the word 'comet' itself?
Comet comes from the Greek 'kometes' which means 'the hairy one' (according to Google). So naturally they used 'coma' to describe the 'hair'.
FWIW, the LOTR 'trilogy' was intended by Tolkien to be published as one physical book. The cost of publishing such a large book at the time (post-WWII) was such that the publisher divided it into three volumes.
The names "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers", and "Return of the King" were made up after the fact. Tolkien preferred "War of the Ring" as the name of the third, as he believed "Return of the King" gave away the plot.
Source: Appendices to TTT 4-DVD set. There is some info at Wikipedia also.
Bad: "embracing" an existing standard, extending it incompatibly behind closed doors, flooding the marketplace with incompatible software and claiming it supports the standard.
Appropriating existing application software (not exactly standard in the same was as, say, TCP/IP), developing it thoroughly, and contributing the useful changes back to the original development teams is a bit different. It could be done badly, yes, but Apple doesn't seem to have a poor track record lately in this respect.
Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie began receiving financial support from Bell Labs to port UNIX to the PDP-11 in 1970. That new version of UNIX got the first of the year as its epoch.
The previous version had 1969-01-01 as the epoch.
If you strike it down, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
http://www.kde.org/documentation/userguide/frequen tly-asked-questions.html#id2844731
It stands for 'K', and the 'K' doesn't mean anything. Like 'X' in the X Window System.
My point was that it doesn't mean anything, contrary to what the grandparent post indicated.
I've been skipping commercials since the first time I recorded a TV show on my VCR in the 80's.
Skipping commercials on a recording you've made has always been possible; modern devices are simply improving on the fast-forward button because of customer demand. The idea is "I've recorded a television show, and I'd like to view it in the manner of my choosing". The price you pay is giving up real-time viewing.
Advertisements aired during television programs are a deal between the networks and the advertisers, not between the networks and the viewers. The ad slots will be worth less if it is shown that less people watch the ads because of 'skip' features. Perhaps the quality of the programming will decrease because of this; the networks might have to seek alternate funding, such as subscriptions, pay-per-view, and such. That is the risk they take when their business is based on voluntary advertisement-viewing; they are not innately due any payment simply because they created and aired a show for public viewing.
Unsolicited email, however, is both a public and private nuisance at others' expense. The telecoms and ISPs whose resources are being abused to deliver an obnoxious amount of unwanted data to their paying customers are not being compensated as the television networks are. They didn't request to be spammed. Their customers don't appreciate it either.
The spammers started pissing in the pool because it didn't have a No Pissing sign. Open SMTP relays were misused as gratis advertisement delivery devices. So we locked down the relays. We blacklisted networks of known spammers. We created elaborate swimsuits with more or less effective piss filters, and they kept floating around with grins, urinating gleefully all over everyone in warm yellow delight, using various questionable methods to whiz upon humanity.
People are tired of getting pissed on. Nobody wants to wear a raincoat all the time, so maybe some anti-pissing legislation is in order.
The TV networks, on the other hand, draw their customer base via public broadcast of free entertainment, which is viewed on a voluntary basis. They pay their bills by blending in paid content with the goal of getting the customer to pay attention to it. If the customer is choosing to ignore the paid content, their delivery method is ineffective and they need to find another way to do business. Bossing the people around who voluntarily pay their salaries shows lack of creativity and will only serve to generate animosity in the long term.
To sum up, ignoring commercials is not stealing and is typical human behavior; spamming is unjustified and could be construed as stealing.
Of course this is all in my verbose opinion.
Yeah, the K of course stands for... uh... kuh-- kih--
Er.
That doesn't work for the same reason anarchy doesn't work. Because it's what we started with. Without spoken or unspoken rules, we have anarchy and total lack of privacy.
Then some or many people decide they'd rather not have it that way, tell people to piss off and mind their own business; and that's where absolute anarchy and unprivacy end and structured living begins.
If you've ever played an owned/rented/borrowed DVD that had unviewable scenes, skips, etc, you've experienced one valid reason for copying your DVDs.
When I buy a DVD, I like to think that I'm buying a copy of the movie to view for as long as I like, and that I can use whichever personal methods I wish to keep the movie around. That includes copying it to other media for preservation.
I don't know of a comprehensive list, but some players (including some Sony players) will allow you to bypass content that others lock down, so it's possible that yours is not affected.
The Sixth Sense comes to mind as one example of a DVD with previews that attempt to block the "index forward" function. It's very common in the rental versions of DVDs.
These and other things make purchasing DVDs less enjoyable and worthwhile. There are ways to work around these things; what's the end result of all the restrictions? People buy DVD players that let them view DVDs from whatever region they like. People create software to defeat the security features. People rip out all the scenes, paste them together, then offer them up for free download where they're voraciously devoured by the public before they're even released.
We don't want lame-ass restrictions. Legally we may only have a license to view the movie and not own a copy of it, but that's not how people think or what they want.
DVD opened up with the silly restrictions removed offers a quality copy of a movie that is a pleasure to own and operate, which is What We Want. Give us what we want and we'll eat it up.