I know *of* Eddie Izzard. I saw his comedy act on tv one day. Damned near laughed myself to death. I've also seen an interview with him on not too long ago. He seemed like he wanted to get out of the comedy gig and into the acting gig [more than he already was].
I'm sure there's a lot of his stuff I'm not aware of, but what I've seen is funny as hell...
The explaination I heard was that at the time NT was created, there were no trojans/viruses that could withstand a CTRL-ALT-DEL. So it was their way of trying to make sure that when you logged in, there were no trojans watching you.
Don't know how true that might be though. Of course, even if it was true I'm sure it took about a week for someone to write a trojan that could ignore it...
MS is missing the real point. They may whine about it being "unfair", but it is all entirely their fault. Microsoft has had 10+ years to deliver a stable, secure operating system to the people of the world. They have been unable to do so, and now the world has had enough. The confidence in Microsoft products has finally gotten low enough that goverments, and people around the world are looking for something better. That's all there really is to it.
At this point I think that if the OpenSource community wants to become the next big provider of OS's and software, then the product delivered needs to be three things: 1. Easy to Use 2. Stable 3. Secure
It's pretty much got 2 and 3 set, although maybe a little more work needs to be done there. As for ease of use, great strides have been made in that direction, but a lot of work is still needed. As a recent article said, there is a lot of amazing OpenSource software out there, but most of it lacks the polish required to be great. I really hope the open source developers can rise to the occasion. It would really be the nail in Microsoft's coffin.
Ender
Of course, that just my opinion. I could be wrong:)
This reminds me of the fact that they hand checked all my bags at the airport this last time. But they neglected to look in the bladder pocket of my Camelback. I could have had 3 liters of the explosive liquid of my choice in that sucker. But they made sure there was nothing in my shoes. Boy do I feel safe. Not. I won't even get into the fact that there are at least two easy ways [that I can immediately think of] to get a 12" blade onto the plane with almost zero chance of them catching you.
For what it's worth, I will be quite happy when I can get a laptop with 10 hours of unplugged uptime, and "batteries/fuel cells" small enough that I can pack half a dozen extras.
Or some of us don't have a choice [at work]. Hell, it's a firing offence to change the background color of my Desktop, let alone download and install software.! [Get me out of here, PLEASE!]. So it's Outlook at work.
At home, it's a combination of Moz Mail, Squirrelmail [Web mail], and Pine. Mostly Pine.
I for one have used sendmail and postfix, and have tried qmail in the past [sorry, didn't like it]. I finally settled on Postifx. I really like it. I feel I don't have to jump through nearly as many hoops to get it running well as I did with sendmail. I certainly didn't need a 900 page 'bat' book to get postfix running.:)
With that said, to each his/her own. Use what you want, I'm sure people love qmail for reasons that make sense to them, and the same with exim and sendmail. Those of you who would flame me or others because of our choice of email servers all I can say is "Get over it..."
Since anyone can read through the code whenever they want, it's not like knowing that lines 1,300,256-1,300,293 of the kernal code came from SCO is going to reveal any new IP to the public.
You know reading this the way you put it makes me wonder if there's just something about that code that SCO doesn't want us to find out about. [Aside from IP reasons]
IE before the GPL can come to play the code in question has to be put under GPL by the copyright holder.
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
I totally agree with you on this. The problem is that SCO is not only going after the people who **allegedly** put SCO copywrited code into Linux. They are going after people who are just using Linux.
Now at this point it's really too late to put the cat back in the bag [assuming there really is a cat this time]. I think the best thing SCO could do is to let the kernel developers take the code out of the kernel, and for the kernel developers to put up a big notice on kernel.org asking that people cease using the affected kernels.
SCO is saying that it is not right for code to be released under the GPL without the permission of the copyright holders. They are 100% correct! and if there really is infringing code in the kernel, then SCO has every right to continue its attack on IBM and whoever illegally put SCO code into the kernel. However, SCO has *NO* right to use scare tactics to go after innocent bystanders who just happen to be using Linux. It's not OUR fault that someone else broke the law. It's also not the GPL's fault. The GPL works just fine, and it is BECAUSE of the GPL that SCO was able to find out about infringing code in the first place. If the Linux kernel source was kept behind closed doors, SCO would have never known if there was any of their code in it. And i doubt that IBM went to Linus and said, "Hey...psst... I got some SCO copyrighted code I want you to put in Linux. Don't worry, they won't notice, just don't tell anyone..."
Anyway, by going after innocent bystanders, and by making "crackhead" accusations like "IBM is paying people under the table to attack SCO", they are just acting like a bunch of toddlers yelling "HE DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!!" Haven't Darl and Co. grown out of that sort of thing??
They may have had a valid concern at the beginning of all this, but they have overstepped their bounds, and I hope they get crushed, and that the execs are punished properly.
I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled. I feel like I'm being threatened again.
This guy is my hero. The fact that a non-tech company [and the owner of such company] has his sh*t together when it comes to this kind of thing gives me a small glimmer of hope.
I'm in the process of starting up my own small business and I assure you we will get along just fine without using Microsoft products, except maybe their mice. I really like the Intellimouse Optical. There will be no Microsoft software though. Or SCO for that matter but I doubt I would have ever used them anyway.
Personally, I'm considering Belize... Beautiful country, very laid back. I could be the second computer repairman on Ambergris Caye...
As far as the main topic [SCO], I have to say as with everyone else, I'm wondering what the hell they're up to. I figure there's really a limited number of things they might be trying to accomplish:
1. They REALLY believe what they're doing is right.
2. They are just trying to spike the stock price so they can sell high and retire
3. They are trying to get bought out by someone
4. They are pissed because Linux took market share from them, and they are just doing this to get even.
and 5. We can't see it, but they are forcing the GPL into court, and setting it up so they MUST lose, thereby sacrificing themselves for the good of the GPL.
A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too!
Too bad the linked article actually says A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said.
That's 4U, not 4-way... big difference! Whoever contributed this link read it incorrectly.:(
Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC. I'd sure as heck buy one!!
Easy, one is a firewall for your internal LAN, one is a shell/web/irc/ftp/DNS/mail server for your friends and family, one is the backup mail and DNS server, one is a file server on your internal network for Samba/NFS sharing and general purpose Linux stuff, one is your desktop (not in the rack usually), one is your laptop, one is your wife's laptop, one is an old Sparc 20 you had lying around, one is an old AlphaStation 200 you had lying around, one is a P90 running Win95 used for nothing really, one is a PPro-150 box running Win98, one is a dual PPro-200 box running Linux... err, you get the idea. Add in networked printers and your wireless access point and you have a rack full of shit.
Damn! You've almost perfectly described my home network!
I read the book, and enjoyed it though it didn't blow me away. I did like the political/social aspects of it. Even to the point where I've been trying to figure out what my political/economic views are since I really think the direction the US is taking these days is horrible.
Hmm. Looking more closely at the site, it looks like they don't use pressurized tanks. They only display animals that can survive the change in pressure. It says they experimented with it, but had to make the viewing window so small on the pressurized tanks that it wouldn't have made much of a pleasant viewing experience for visitors.
Unfortunately it says the Fangtooth was one of the fish that they can't bring to the surface:(
But it's still worth the trip. There are some really beautiful exhibits...
Seriously, if I could afford to create such an environment and the equipment needed to get the fishes from the ocean and into it (which to the best of my knowledge noone has ever done)
1. MS would design and publish standards that are so nasty and obscure that even skilled coders would have a hard time making any sense of it. That would get them off the hook and still not achieve open standards.
If that's what they want to do, fine because MS would then have to use those same horrible standards. This would have the affect of making their software too difficult for themselves to maintain and/or making people not want to use it if there is another commercial or OSS solution that uses better standards.
2. The software industry as a whole would suffer. Open standards are nice for interoperability, but not so nice for new development. Most standards are not easily made extensible with any sense. If they are extensible that's a loop for MS to exploit. The bottom line would be that new development by MS or any other software maker would suffer. Additionally the OSS world will also suffer. Good things happen when new software is written to do new things. Using the blunt hammer of government to dictate how software works is not a good solution. As soon as government determines it can make MS conform to its technical "guidelines", how long will it be before individuals and not-for-profits are bound and regulated the same way?
I don't think this is the way it would [should] work. It would force MS to use Open standards. Open standards CAN be made extensible. But once MS [or any other company] makes extensions to the standard, one of two things will happen. Either A) Said company will keep those extensions private thereby making their version NOT an open standard so they'll have to pay the 10% premium. Or B) MS will then make those extensions available to everyone else, thereby leveling the playing field which is the result we're going for in the first place.
3. MS's customers will simply suffer an additional 10% or more price raise which they are still mostly required to pay. On the other end, myraid of companies will spring up to do OSS work, crowding out a lot of the good community that has sprung up. These organizations will suck up funding. The projects will also essentially be the same as commerical software projects minus closed source, and as a result software will follow commerical software trends - feature bloat, buginess, and using gimmicks to gain market share (and justify their continued funding).
If MS raises their prices, then people will be even more likely to at least look at OSS for their solutions. And if more companies start going towards OSS then that's not a bad thing either, even if they do start introducing feature bloat etc. It'll be bloated/buggy OSS which someone else can then trim and debug it and sell it themselves.
In the end I think this is a great idea that will benefit everyone, including proprietary software, as long as they at least use open standards.
Slashdot Mirror
I know *of* Eddie Izzard. I saw his comedy act on tv one day. Damned near laughed myself to death. I've also seen an interview with him on not too long ago. He seemed like he wanted to get out of the comedy gig and into the acting gig [more than he already was].
I'm sure there's a lot of his stuff I'm not aware of, but what I've seen is funny as hell...
Ender
The explaination I heard was that at the time NT was created, there were no trojans/viruses that could withstand a CTRL-ALT-DEL. So it was their way of trying to make sure that when you logged in, there were no trojans watching you.
Don't know how true that might be though. Of course, even if it was true I'm sure it took about a week for someone to write a trojan that could ignore it...
Ender
And not a very good one at that...
MS is missing the real point. They may whine about it being "unfair", but it is all entirely their fault. Microsoft has had 10+ years to deliver a stable, secure operating system to the people of the world. They have been unable to do so, and now the world has had enough. The confidence in Microsoft products has finally gotten low enough that goverments, and people around the world are looking for something better. That's all there really is to it.
:)
At this point I think that if the OpenSource community wants to become the next big provider of OS's and software, then the product delivered needs to be three things:
1. Easy to Use
2. Stable
3. Secure
It's pretty much got 2 and 3 set, although maybe a little more work needs to be done there. As for ease of use, great strides have been made in that direction, but a lot of work is still needed. As a recent article said, there is a lot of amazing OpenSource software out there, but most of it lacks the polish required to be great. I really hope the open source developers can rise to the occasion. It would really be the nail in Microsoft's coffin.
Ender
Of course, that just my opinion. I could be wrong
You jerk! You almost made me spew Golden Grahams all over my laptop screen!!!! :)
Ender
This reminds me of the fact that they hand checked all my bags at the airport this last time. But they neglected to look in the bladder pocket of my Camelback. I could have had 3 liters of the explosive liquid of my choice in that sucker. But they made sure there was nothing in my shoes. Boy do I feel safe. Not. I won't even get into the fact that there are at least two easy ways [that I can immediately think of] to get a 12" blade onto the plane with almost zero chance of them catching you.
For what it's worth, I will be quite happy when I can get a laptop with 10 hours of unplugged uptime, and "batteries/fuel cells" small enough that I can pack half a dozen extras.
Ender
Try some Sprite Remix. Not alcoholic, but otherwise qualifies as Skittlebrau to me.
Or some of us don't have a choice [at work]. Hell, it's a firing offence to change the background color of my Desktop, let alone download and install software.! [Get me out of here, PLEASE!]. So it's Outlook at work.
At home, it's a combination of Moz Mail, Squirrelmail [Web mail], and Pine. Mostly Pine.
Ender
I for one have used sendmail and postfix, and have tried qmail in the past [sorry, didn't like it]. :)
I finally settled on Postifx. I really like it. I feel I don't have to jump through nearly as many hoops to get it running well as I did with sendmail. I certainly didn't need a 900 page 'bat' book to get postfix running.
With that said, to each his/her own. Use what you want, I'm sure people love qmail for reasons that make sense to them, and the same with exim and sendmail. Those of you who would flame me or others because of our choice of email servers all I can say is "Get over it..."
Ender
Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses!!!!
Since anyone can read through the code whenever they want, it's not like knowing that lines 1,300,256-1,300,293 of the kernal code came from SCO is going to reveal any new IP to the public.
:)
You know reading this the way you put it makes me wonder if there's just something about that code that SCO doesn't want us to find out about. [Aside from IP reasons]
Makes ya go "hmmmmm...."
Ender
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
I totally agree with you on this. The problem is that SCO is not only going after the people who **allegedly** put SCO copywrited code into Linux. They are going after people who are just using Linux.
Now at this point it's really too late to put the cat back in the bag [assuming there really is a cat this time]. I think the best thing SCO could do is to let the kernel developers take the code out of the kernel, and for the kernel developers to put up a big notice on kernel.org asking that people cease using the affected kernels.
SCO is saying that it is not right for code to be released under the GPL without the permission of the copyright holders. They are 100% correct! and if there really is infringing code in the kernel, then SCO has every right to continue its attack on IBM and whoever illegally put SCO code into the kernel. However, SCO has *NO* right to use scare tactics to go after innocent bystanders who just happen to be using Linux. It's not OUR fault that someone else broke the law. It's also not the GPL's fault. The GPL works just fine, and it is BECAUSE of the GPL that SCO was able to find out about infringing code in the first place. If the Linux kernel source was kept behind closed doors, SCO would have never known if there was any of their code in it. And i doubt that IBM went to Linus and said, "Hey...psst... I got some SCO copyrighted code I want you to put in Linux. Don't worry, they won't notice, just don't tell anyone..."
Anyway, by going after innocent bystanders, and by making "crackhead" accusations like "IBM is paying people under the table to attack SCO", they are just acting like a bunch of toddlers yelling "HE DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!!" Haven't Darl and Co. grown out of that sort of thing??
They may have had a valid concern at the beginning of all this, but they have overstepped their bounds, and I hope they get crushed, and that the execs are punished properly.
Ender
Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled. I feel like I'm being threatened again.
This guy is my hero. The fact that a non-tech company [and the owner of such company] has his sh*t together when it comes to this kind of thing gives me a small glimmer of hope.
I'm in the process of starting up my own small business and I assure you we will get along just fine without using Microsoft products, except maybe their mice. I really like the Intellimouse Optical. There will be no Microsoft software though. Or SCO for that matter but I doubt I would have ever used them anyway.
Ender
Well written, my complaint has been filed [For the amount of $796...]
:)
Ender
Why yes, I do think they are on crack!
Personally, I'm considering Belize... Beautiful country, very laid back. I could be the second computer repairman on Ambergris Caye...
:) "
As far as the main topic [SCO], I have to say as with everyone else, I'm wondering what the hell they're up to. I figure there's really a limited number of things they might be trying to accomplish:
1. They REALLY believe what they're doing is right.
2. They are just trying to spike the stock price so they can sell high and retire
3. They are trying to get bought out by someone
4. They are pissed because Linux took market share from them, and they are just doing this to get even.
and 5. We can't see it, but they are forcing the GPL into court, and setting it up so they MUST lose, thereby sacrificing themselves for the good of the GPL.
Did I miss anything?
Ender
PS. And no "6.??? 7. Profit jokes!
As another Speakeasy Customer, let me second this motion! You guys rock!
Ender-
A 4-way machine is expected to cost less than $3500! IBM expects a 20x increase in the number of PPC Linux servers by 2006."
:(
With those sorts of prices, they're going to get it, too!
Too bad the linked article actually says A base configuration of the 4U is expected to cost less than $3,500, sources said.
That's 4U, not 4-way... big difference! Whoever contributed this link read it incorrectly.
Of course, if they ever DID come out with a 4-way PPC system for $3500, you'd better believe it would increase the hell out of how many people run Linux on PPC. I'd sure as heck buy one!!
Ender
And I'm a proud user of that TLD!
:)
People always look at me funny when I give my email address though. "dot nu[new]?? What the heck is dot nu?!?"
It's actually quite popular since it means "now" in um... Swedish I think. Or one of those other crazy European languages.
Ender
Easy, one is a firewall for your internal LAN, one is a shell/web/irc/ftp/DNS/mail server for your friends and family, one is the backup mail and DNS server, one is a file server on your internal network for Samba/NFS sharing and general purpose Linux stuff, one is your desktop (not in the rack usually), one is your laptop, one is your wife's laptop, one is an old Sparc 20 you had lying around, one is an old AlphaStation 200 you had lying around, one is a P90 running Win95 used for nothing really, one is a PPro-150 box running Win98, one is a dual PPro-200 box running Linux... err, you get the idea. Add in networked printers and your wireless access point and you have a rack full of shit.
Damn! You've almost perfectly described my home network!
Ender
I know it's bad for to comment on sigs, but yes, I do like soggy frosted flakes. Why do you ask?
It's just a random statement. There is a story behind it. I guess I will make a journal entry regarding it....
I read the book, and enjoyed it though it didn't blow me away. I did like the political/social aspects of it. Even to the point where I've been trying to figure out what my political/economic views are since I really think the direction the US is taking these days is horrible.
Ender
Hmm. Looking more closely at the site, it looks like they don't use pressurized tanks. They only display animals that can survive the change in pressure. It says they experimented with it, but had to make the viewing window so small on the pressurized tanks that it wouldn't have made much of a pleasant viewing experience for visitors.
:(
Unfortunately it says the Fangtooth was one of the fish that they can't bring to the surface
But it's still worth the trip. There are some really beautiful exhibits...
Ender
Seriously, if I could afford to create such an environment and the equipment needed to get the fishes from the ocean and into it (which to the best of my knowledge noone has ever done)
On the contrary, the Monterey Bay Aquarium has quite a few deep sea creatures in pressurised tanks/displays. I don't know how they clean them though.
Ender
1. MS would design and publish standards that are so nasty and obscure that even skilled coders would have a hard time making any sense of it. That would get them off the hook and still not achieve open standards.
If that's what they want to do, fine because MS would then have to use those same horrible standards. This would have the affect of making their software too difficult for themselves to maintain and/or making people not want to use it if there is another commercial or OSS solution that uses better standards.
2. The software industry as a whole would suffer. Open standards are nice for interoperability, but not so nice for new development. Most standards are not easily made extensible with any sense. If they are extensible that's a loop for MS to exploit. The bottom line would be that new development by MS or any other software maker would suffer. Additionally the OSS world will also suffer. Good things happen when new software is written to do new things. Using the blunt hammer of government to dictate how software works is not a good solution. As soon as government determines it can make MS conform to its technical "guidelines", how long will it be before individuals and not-for-profits are bound and regulated the same way?
I don't think this is the way it would [should] work. It would force MS to use Open standards. Open standards CAN be made extensible. But once MS [or any other company] makes extensions to the standard, one of two things will happen. Either A) Said company will keep those extensions private thereby making their version NOT an open standard so they'll have to pay the 10% premium. Or B) MS will then make those extensions available to everyone else, thereby leveling the playing field which is the result we're going for in the first place.
3. MS's customers will simply suffer an additional 10% or more price raise which they are still mostly required to pay. On the other end, myraid of companies will spring up to do OSS work, crowding out a lot of the good community that has sprung up. These organizations will suck up funding. The projects will also essentially be the same as commerical software projects minus closed source, and as a result software will follow commerical software trends - feature bloat, buginess, and using gimmicks to gain market share (and justify their continued funding).
If MS raises their prices, then people will be even more likely to at least look at OSS for their solutions. And if more companies start going towards OSS then that's not a bad thing either, even if they do start introducing feature bloat etc. It'll be bloated/buggy OSS which someone else can then trim and debug it and sell it themselves.
In the end I think this is a great idea that will benefit everyone, including proprietary software, as long as they at least use open standards.
Ender