Open source wins again. Finally ridding the world of a bunch of starched-shirt marketing geeks trying to "form interesting synergies" and provide me with a "robust solution", a "feature rich" environment and "streamlined efficiency".
They care more about what they say than the marketspeak they use to phrase it. Unlike the geeks at the big companies (and smaller consulting firms, and half of Slashdot's readers), I hope more people don't feel the need to hide behind stupid marketing buzzwords in the future. Reading a Microsoft press release is like listening to a George Carlin act, only without "the funny".
get a clue you dumb fuck... if you are gonna spend your time telling people that whatever they find interesting is wrong or makes them a loser
I didn't say anything was wrong, only that obsessing over it to the point of anger that it was "spoiled" is. It's not real life, it's a TV show. This is not real life, it's Slashdot. If you take some dumb fuck's worthless loser opinion so seriously you need to respond with angry remarks, you need to find a new anti-drug. I laughed when I read your post, because it isn't about me; it's about some handle's post to a website about a fictional character on television. I couldn't take it personally, so I found it humorous. You'll find life is a lot happier when you stop taking things that don't matter so seriously, which is the point of my original joke, and the point of this post.
Stop crying that the X-Files was spoiled for you...any normal person would shrug it off and watch anyway, content with watching their favorite show. The need for surprise and following along like you're really there is an extension of detached reality. Watch it and enjoy it as a television show, no one said anything was wrong with that, but if you get that angry when the pictures on the screen aren't around anymore, it's time to find a new *hobby*.
I have all the released movies but I was waiting until all the remaining episodes were filmed before watching them. But why bother now.
They made sequels to that movie? Man, I imagine they must have gone downhill after that first one...probably filled with furry muppets or something.
And to all the people complaining: come on, it's only television. If you find yourself complaining that someone spoiled the ending to your favorite TV show, AND that show is the XFiles, AND the spoilage was that the geeky subversives with whom you identify were killed: You really need to (re)evaluate your life. Put down the game comtroller, move out of your parent's basement and cut the mullet. That *whoosh* you hear is life passing you by.
So lets stop worrying what M$ might do. Many people, myself included, are going to keep running and supporting the GPL software, no matter what happens. I like the freedom it gives me far more than any incentive M$ could offer for me to give it up.
We can't stop worrying what they'll do. If the right (wrong) laws are passed, free software will be illegal. Microsoft (and any large corporation) have friends in high places, so it's worth keeping a watchful eye on them.
Would you tell Sklarov to "ignore" Adobe? Johanson to just stop worrying about the MPAA? Well, this is a huge company who obviously has it out for the GPL/free software, and was also one of the President's largest campaign contributors (and a friend of capitalist politicos everywhere). I'd love to ignore the companies I don't like, and often I do...but you can't ignore what's knocking on your front door with a baseball bat. Especially when they just bought a warrant.
Actually, I've tried it out before. My original comments were general, not article specific, in response to those comments, which were not article specific. I've seen the SmarterChild ads in question, and they really aren't so terrible..or even bad. The thing occasionally recommends a keyword that you type, and typing that keyword will spit out a link to buy a t-shirt or some other things.
My question to Slashdot readers: Who gives a shit?
However, this doesn't make marketing children directly acceptible, nor is the "greed is good, we need to be rich" mentality made ok by saying "all the other companies are doing it, too". That is where my comment was directed; people seem to think getting rich is justification for becoming less human.
Slashdot and the readers need to back off, there are much more appropriate scapegoats for the completely justified they're-throwing-ads-at-us-every-corner war.
The ads I've seen, at least, seem pretty much like what the thing was designed to do: it's a tool for throwing marketing at you. Some people like having shopping/stocktips handed to them and they should use SC. If you don't want this thing sending hosted links and paid ads, I don't see any point to using it. If CNN started with "Our top story tonight: Powersauce bars are awesome!" I'd see that as justifiably pissing people off; this article is just nitpicking.
And if you don't jump aboard, you're probably going to be put at a strategic disadvantage. Therefore, it almost becomes a capitalist imperative that you join in on a somewhat less noble cause. I'm sure most Hollywood directors (not the REALLy big ones) will tell you that they're not doing the work they'd really want to do. They're doing the work that sells, not the work that is deep, meaningful, socially relevant, etc.
So, they need to target children and be greedy, underhanded scumbags, because otherwise they wouldn't make a ton of money and would be stuck doing deep, meaningful socially relevant work they enjoy? And this is the good reason?
I don't buy it (npi). Life's too short to squander the whole thing on counting your cash. You can pay your rent and stay fed doing just about anything; I'm not going to cry them a river because they wouldn't be able to buy a Lexus if they hadn't sold their souls.
A better (but still flawed) example would be: suppose that you give your old, run-down Mustang to a poor college student. He puts a lot of hours in it and shapes it into a true hotrod. What would you think of him selling it for a decent figure?
So wait a minute...Microsoft is a poor college student? and Windows networking is a "true hotrod"? Maybe if RAM is analogous to gasoline...
And of course, by "selling it for a decent figure" you mean selling it to a half-blind elderly woman for (arguably) 3 times what it's worth, after cutting deals with the local dealerships to only carry his car.
This is why analogies don't work for computers. One side wants to make it a nice boy working on a car and selling it, the other side wants to make him Hitler or Darth Vader. Let's stick with facts, everyone...an analogy only serves to display your personal bias.
Just responding to the possible queries of the students, in case anyone ever encountered one of these answers:
* But I can do the same thing with Windows telnet, or better, Windows terminal services since I can actually see what I am doing. And I know DOS; BAT files are cool.
And he can smack them for using telnet to send the Administrator's password unencrypted across the world. Terminal services is cool from across the room, but ever try getting in at a colo or from home over DSL or...eek...dialup?
* But I can get that many themes for XP, and plus I actually know how to change the backgrounds and icons in Windows myself. YOu haven't shown me how to do that yet with Linux. This frickin' sucks.
I don't think anyone would say that, since I'm sure he would show the nice simple right-click way to change them, just like in Windows. And I'd have to say, there are more themes and more customizable themes for gnome/kde than for XP, and at no cost. Plus, there is a gnome and a kde and a blackbox, etc..
(snip a few things I pretty much agree with, since I don't see them as being strong points for Linux on the server)
It looks like if I do this Linux thing I have to go through all these damned scripts to figure out what went wrong... and where's the safe mode? If I screw up the scripts, it looks like my machine is hosed.
2 things:
1)/var/log/messages - why would they confuse a script with an error log?
2)His point was, it couldn't happen. Windows gets hosed until you get into safe mode and remove drivers, if you know what is going on. You can't have something in user space take down the OS in Linux.
* Yeah... uh, we do that. Where's the network neighborhood icon?
ha, nice. but his point (unless he's a fool) wasn't superiority, but integration. You don't have to eliminate Windows, they can play nice together. He should have included "and go to the Windows box and browse files on the Linux machine, too".
What are you doing monkeying with the kernel? That doesn't need updating, it's the frickin' kernel. If it's broken, we get a reinstall going while we go to lunch.
(agreed on the part of copying DLL's, partially).
That's a myth he should dispell. Just because something is running, doesn't mean it isn't in need of an update. Security problems? Improved performance? No OS is or remains perfect for years without an update.
And why is he touching the kernel? I update libraries and software all the time without recompiling or restarting. Linux surely has its flaws, but this is one that just isn't true. I hear the "you have to recompile everything!" line from everyone, and I haven't touched source code in a while (last time was by choice).
On a side-note, don't push superiority to them too much. Try to get them to install it on their own machine, or at home, and wait for them to get addicted. Once you use something UNIX-ish for a while, Windows starts to get annoying. It's personal preference though...some people like one bloated app that will do everything for them, and some people like lots of smaller apps combined and tailored to be exactly what you want them to be. I've found people will justify shitty software and turn the other way when something is just dumb, if this is the OS they use, regardless of what kernel it runs on.
1) Oracle saved a billion dollars a year and found it easier to track, monitor and discriminate among its customers. This was what Ellison now wanted to do for America.
Fantastic. I think discrimination should be easier and more accessible, on a nation-wide government level. Is that even possible?
2) It's this fear of an all-too-powerful government rising up and snatching away our liberties.'' Since Sept. 11, Ellison argued, those qualms no longer make any sense: ''It's our lives that are at risk, not our liberties,'' he said.
Both are at risk, jackass, they aren't mutually exclusive. But, if saving lives and fighting terrorism is the goal, here's an easy way to do it. Listen up, get ready to write this down if you're a member of the government: If we want to put an end to terrorism, all we have to do is......(ready?)..stop funding terrorists. Don't give the Taliban $43mil, don't give both Israel and Palestine money and act surprised when bombs go off, don't create Contra's or an Osama Bin Laden knowing full well what they're capable of. If our governments and large corporations stop going in for funding them, it clips their wings. It won't end terrorism, but it'll make it a hell of a lot smaller. I think with $43mil and however-much-more we don't know about, a terrorist could fund their way around an Oracle DB.
Besides, what's more efficient than a database is just putting a soldier with an M-16 in every home to watch over us. Or to have a marine follow every citizen around...start a draft to even up the odds. Maybe when he said our liberties aren't at risk, "our" referred to him and his buddies? Who even knows anymore.
I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it.
I don't agree. Nor does the FSF. If you give binaries to anyone, no matter what company they work for, what distribution they use, what color their hair or whether they think the week begins or ends with Sunday, they must receive source if they request it. This is the point of the GPL; keeping individuals "free" from restrictions in its use. If you don't want to give out your code when it is requested, and don't want to allow people to use it freely, don't GPL it. Once a "free" binary exchanges hands between 2 people, both are entitled to full access. The key word here is "freedom", not "I own it, it is mine, I am the authoritarian who dictates how it will be used".
I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so
If Joe requests source, Joe gets source. If you "don't think so", that's fine...but your program isn't GPL'd. There are many licenses you can use, none better nor worse in my opinion. But if you want your program to be "free" software, you can't pick and choose who gets to be free from restrictions. That's what freedom is all about.
While we're on it, if you value Joe's input into UI design, why wouldn't you want him to have the source? Maybe he's secretly a great programmer and can fix your mistakes.;) This is the other point of the GPL: community input into common problems.
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
From GNU.org:
' Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.'
Distribution is distribution. Don't think of it from the distributor's point of view, think of it from the user's. If I use this software, I have the right to use it how I want. I can modify it, change it, etc. If I don't have these freedoms, it is not GPL'd. Lindows needs to allow access to the source upon request, or they're in obvious violation.
Not that interesting. Did you really expect them to just take the server down and switch at a time when people are flooding the site, or when they've been working on the code? Give them a few days...
oops, wait..make that a few hours
A device like this, if its going to get market share in the PDA world needs to function out of the box like your wrist watch, DVD player, VCR etc.
Actually, my watch sucks. I plugged it into my laptop, and nothing happened. Ok, it tells time perfectly and as it turns out my previous watch had changed settings that made the transition flawed, but I still blame it on the watch.
In other words, it does. It functions out of the box perfectly, the same way my watch, DVD player and VCR do: by not interacting with every broken computer in the world. Should a PDA work perfectly, and sync with Outlook on the first try? Absolutely. Should we blame the PDA that some guy who beats up his computer and uses Outlook couldn't sync them? I don't have the answer, nor does anyone but the individuals troubleshooting his problem. If it turns out his computer wasn't broken in some way, his review is accurate...but I've dealt with way too many users trying to email a 50MB attachment over dialup then complaining "outlook is broken" to automatically assume the new hardware is bad.
Didn't anyone else stop to wonder why we know it will sync with outlook, but just magically not for this guy? Maybe his computer is broken? Maybe the PDA he got is defective? I've seen non-techies set them up, so it isn't that it takes kernel hacking or anything...
Uh, there is still no conclusive evidence that says we've done jack schit to either help or harm the environment
So, an oil tanker spilling all over and killing animals, plants and polluting water doesn't harm the environment? Factories spewing out carcinogenic pollutants doesn't hurt anything? Smog from our cars, pesticides killing plants, cutting down rainforests and stripping the land to put up more buildings are all neutral?
I'm not saying we're (definitely) the cause of global warming, but I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest we've broken plenty.
He is 100% right: If the thing doesn't simply plug in, install, and sync flawlessly, then it's a screwed up product.
Two things:
A) It didn't work for this one guy. Most companies have an IT department, or at least bring in consultants, to deploy new technology.
B) You apparantly don't work in an IT-related field. Things almost never work flawlessly, unless you just took the computer, the OS and the PDA out of the box. This guy has done reviews for dozens of PDA's (he boo'd most)...maybe (scenerio ahead) he uses the same laptop for all of them, and has a dozen conflicting drivers/bugs laying around? Maybe XP is the cause of the problem (since I've seen breand new modems and printers fail with it on the first try). Or, maybe the PDA does suck. You can't say it automatically sucks because one person's computer wouldn't sync. The symptom he's described fits perfectly with Palm V's and Palm M100's, and Blackberry's (RIM 957) I've installed and had to fix.
My only issue with the review is that it didn't really say much. I know now the battery sucks, and that some guy with a PalmOS fetish didn't like it. It has about as much cred as a Slashdot post.
But the detection of those elusive, small Earth-like worlds may be closer than you think
I've seen lots of Science Fiction movies about aliens that go from planet to planet, soaking up the natural resources of each, conquering and destroying them (making them uninhabitable), and moving on. Anyone else ever think we're the aliens?
I mean, we've already screwed up this one, and now rather than fix it (because wanting to do that makes you a "tree hugger") we're going after another. I can't say I'm against it, but it's just...creepy.
You are not authorized to view this page You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.
If you believe you should be able to view this directory or page, please try to contact the Web site by using any e-mail address or phone number that may be listed on the www.wehavethewayout.com home page.
You can click Search to look for information on the Internet.
Why bother doing it? Because you can patent your invention, and for a period of time you can have the exclusive right to build it, or you can collect royalties from other folks who build it.
"Because you can patent it"? What about "because you're the first to do it, giving you a head-start and the best implementation of this idea".
What you're advocating is the IBM/Apple theory of 'I'll invent something, then sit on my ass for a few years and collect checks'.
I can't agree with it. I think Stallman goes overboard plenty, but no one should own a foundation. People love throwing around buzzphrases like "it stifles innovation", but what stifles it more: having to work at making the best {song,car,software} and one-up the competition (or work together for something even better), or thousands of truly brilliant people unable to even touch something and use it in to their goal because it has a legal restriction and some guy wants to get paid today for work he did yesterday?
To stick with your engine analogy, and how patents promote innovation:
Why haven't we seen electric cars in the mainstream?
Because no one interested in making one is allowed to, since the patents were all taken by persons with a vested interest in fossil-fuel/oil-based-automotive corporations. If not for that, we wouldn't need to bomb the Middle East every 5 years; someone might actually get somewhere with a non-oilbased engine.
Musicians still have their place, too: Led Zepplin never worried when a coverband showed up. The only time anyone should be concerned is in resale of the original product, because I can box and ship somthing cheaper than someone else can create, box and ship. If I'm putting work into something, too, I have no real advantage. Cliff's Notes don't replace the original work, nor does spending time developing an application based on someone else's theory.
I hereby declare that I and everyone I know form a conglomerate "organization", and as such we will only be purchasing copyrighted material collectively in the future. Because we will only be redistributing this material within our own organization, and not to anyone outside it, we should be exempt from copyright restrictions, right?
If it's free software, absolutely. I believe this is the point of the GPL, and incidentally, the point of the parent post. If a GPL'd application is used, it can be distributed to anyone. And, if you choose to only distribute it to persons within your organization, that's your business provided you make the source accessible.
If someone wanted to steal information from our files, they could do so through the internet.
Or they could tell the receptionist they're here to see Bob, and then go look at the paper files. I think it would be easier to do the latter.
What if your internet connection is secured? Or, more likely, the sensitive data isn't even on a machine connected to the internet? And since you work with something worth stealing, you hired someone more aware than a receptionist to block entry to the building, and your important paper-trail isn't left out on a desk in an unlocked room? Persons working with large companies and government institutions should at least be aware that things like this exist.
Obviously this isn't relevant to some little dotcom startup. But data worth stealing will be stolen...and if they can't get physical access, or net access, they have to take on other means. Bribery is an option, but risky since it's easy for someone to blow the whistle. Same for blackmail and extortion. This seems easy compared to some alternatives, especially considering many large companies exist in large cities: I can get an apartment or an office across the street from their servers, and try to pick off data without anyone in the world knowing. If you're a security professional, this should at least be in the back of your mind.
We really promise that thing with N*SYNC was just a joke! Really, look, we're cool! We're rockers! Check out our rebellious Star Wars guitar line. Please check out my next movie, so my daughter can go to an upscale liberal arts college like Sarah Lawrence. Don't make us go back on our word and release Sith fishnet belly shirts and "Moons of Endor" hotpants. We'll do it. We're whores.
"Can you imagine wearing glasses or goggles that, when looking at a person, a built-in display would tell you everything you wanted to know about that person?"
They're called "
beer goggles"....7 or 8 pints of Hefeweizen and I know all I ever need to know about that woman. All I don't know is "why I never realized she was hot before".
Now, if only they could invent something to avoid the Coyote Ugly Syndrome of the next morning...like some sort of shoe-horn or spatula. I'm sick of having to gnaw my arm off to escape the bear trap.
No one said anything about free (beer) software. Libre means liberty.
Also, RTFA(rticle). It is about Corel shutting down the Open Source site, and the poster mentions what a loss it is since they gave us CorelDraw and WordPerfect. That is inaccurate, they gave "us" no such things. Many members of the open source community don't use Linux...if these applications were given to the OS community, they could be ported to other operating systems. As is, they are linux-only.
As many readers already know, Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.
Linux community != Open Source community.
As far as I know, there were never open source or free (libre) versions of Draw or WordPerfect. Releasing a linux binary is not contributing to the open source community.
I am aware they contributed some other packages, but the big two were never offered.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source wins again. Finally ridding the world of a bunch of starched-shirt marketing geeks trying to "form interesting synergies" and provide me with a "robust solution", a "feature rich" environment and "streamlined efficiency".
They care more about what they say than the marketspeak they use to phrase it. Unlike the geeks at the big companies (and smaller consulting firms, and half of Slashdot's readers), I hope more people don't feel the need to hide behind stupid marketing buzzwords in the future. Reading a Microsoft press release is like listening to a George Carlin act, only without "the funny".
http://extremetracking.com/open;sys?login=olobs
Bwaha! The page hits are 18% evil, and roughly 12% communist.
get a clue you dumb fuck ... if you are gonna spend your time telling people that whatever they find interesting is wrong or makes them a loser
I didn't say anything was wrong, only that obsessing over it to the point of anger that it was "spoiled" is. It's not real life, it's a TV show. This is not real life, it's Slashdot. If you take some dumb fuck's worthless loser opinion so seriously you need to respond with angry remarks, you need to find a new anti-drug. I laughed when I read your post, because it isn't about me; it's about some handle's post to a website about a fictional character on television. I couldn't take it personally, so I found it humorous. You'll find life is a lot happier when you stop taking things that don't matter so seriously, which is the point of my original joke, and the point of this post.
Stop crying that the X-Files was spoiled for you...any normal person would shrug it off and watch anyway, content with watching their favorite show. The need for surprise and following along like you're really there is an extension of detached reality. Watch it and enjoy it as a television show, no one said anything was wrong with that, but if you get that angry when the pictures on the screen aren't around anymore, it's time to find a new *hobby*.
I have all the released movies but I was waiting until all the remaining episodes were filmed before watching them. But why bother now.
They made sequels to that movie? Man, I imagine they must have gone downhill after that first one...probably filled with furry muppets or something.
And to all the people complaining: come on, it's only television. If you find yourself complaining that someone spoiled the ending to your favorite TV show, AND that show is the XFiles, AND the spoilage was that the geeky subversives with whom you identify were killed: You really need to (re)evaluate your life. Put down the game comtroller, move out of your parent's basement and cut the mullet. That *whoosh* you hear is life passing you by.
So lets stop worrying what M$ might do. Many people, myself included, are going to keep running and supporting the GPL software, no matter what happens. I like the freedom it gives me far more than any incentive M$ could offer for me to give it up.
We can't stop worrying what they'll do. If the right (wrong) laws are passed, free software will be illegal. Microsoft (and any large corporation) have friends in high places, so it's worth keeping a watchful eye on them.
Would you tell Sklarov to "ignore" Adobe? Johanson to just stop worrying about the MPAA? Well, this is a huge company who obviously has it out for the GPL/free software, and was also one of the President's largest campaign contributors (and a friend of capitalist politicos everywhere). I'd love to ignore the companies I don't like, and often I do...but you can't ignore what's knocking on your front door with a baseball bat. Especially when they just bought a warrant.
Actually, I've tried it out before. My original comments were general, not article specific, in response to those comments, which were not article specific. I've seen the SmarterChild ads in question, and they really aren't so terrible..or even bad. The thing occasionally recommends a keyword that you type, and typing that keyword will spit out a link to buy a t-shirt or some other things.
My question to Slashdot readers: Who gives a shit?
However, this doesn't make marketing children directly acceptible, nor is the "greed is good, we need to be rich" mentality made ok by saying "all the other companies are doing it, too". That is where my comment was directed; people seem to think getting rich is justification for becoming less human.
Slashdot and the readers need to back off, there are much more appropriate scapegoats for the completely justified they're-throwing-ads-at-us-every-corner war. The ads I've seen, at least, seem pretty much like what the thing was designed to do: it's a tool for throwing marketing at you. Some people like having shopping/stocktips handed to them and they should use SC. If you don't want this thing sending hosted links and paid ads, I don't see any point to using it. If CNN started with "Our top story tonight: Powersauce bars are awesome!" I'd see that as justifiably pissing people off; this article is just nitpicking.
And if you don't jump aboard, you're probably going to be put at a strategic disadvantage. Therefore, it almost becomes a capitalist imperative that you join in on a somewhat less noble cause. I'm sure most Hollywood directors (not the REALLy big ones) will tell you that they're not doing the work they'd really want to do. They're doing the work that sells, not the work that is deep, meaningful, socially relevant, etc.
So, they need to target children and be greedy, underhanded scumbags, because otherwise they wouldn't make a ton of money and would be stuck doing deep, meaningful socially relevant work they enjoy? And this is the good reason?
I don't buy it (npi). Life's too short to squander the whole thing on counting your cash. You can pay your rent and stay fed doing just about anything; I'm not going to cry them a river because they wouldn't be able to buy a Lexus if they hadn't sold their souls.
Me: What is 22/7
smarterchild: 3.142857
>>> You know what I've been thinking? There's nothing like a good, old- fashioned t-shirt.
Me: a t-shirt?
smarterchild: Ah, the t-shirt. Always tasteful. Always in style. I've got my very own line! Check them out by clicking here
Those shirts had nothing to do with Pi. The bastards.
A better (but still flawed) example would be: suppose that you give your old, run-down Mustang to a poor college student. He puts a lot of hours in it and shapes it into a true hotrod. What would you think of him selling it for a decent figure?
So wait a minute...Microsoft is a poor college student? and Windows networking is a "true hotrod"? Maybe if RAM is analogous to gasoline...
And of course, by "selling it for a decent figure" you mean selling it to a half-blind elderly woman for (arguably) 3 times what it's worth, after cutting deals with the local dealerships to only carry his car.
This is why analogies don't work for computers. One side wants to make it a nice boy working on a car and selling it, the other side wants to make him Hitler or Darth Vader. Let's stick with facts, everyone...an analogy only serves to display your personal bias.
Just responding to the possible queries of the students, in case anyone ever encountered one of these answers:
* But I can do the same thing with Windows telnet, or better, Windows terminal services since I can actually see what I am doing. And I know DOS; BAT files are cool.
And he can smack them for using telnet to send the Administrator's password unencrypted across the world. Terminal services is cool from across the room, but ever try getting in at a colo or from home over DSL or...eek...dialup?
* But I can get that many themes for XP, and plus I actually know how to change the backgrounds and icons in Windows myself. YOu haven't shown me how to do that yet with Linux. This frickin' sucks.
I don't think anyone would say that, since I'm sure he would show the nice simple right-click way to change them, just like in Windows. And I'd have to say, there are more themes and more customizable themes for gnome/kde than for XP, and at no cost. Plus, there is a gnome and a kde and a blackbox, etc..
(snip a few things I pretty much agree with, since I don't see them as being strong points for Linux on the server)
It looks like if I do this Linux thing I have to go through all these damned scripts to figure out what went wrong... and where's the safe mode? If I screw up the scripts, it looks like my machine is hosed.
2 things:
1)/var/log/messages - why would they confuse a script with an error log?
2)His point was, it couldn't happen. Windows gets hosed until you get into safe mode and remove drivers, if you know what is going on. You can't have something in user space take down the OS in Linux.
* Yeah... uh, we do that. Where's the network neighborhood icon?
ha, nice. but his point (unless he's a fool) wasn't superiority, but integration. You don't have to eliminate Windows, they can play nice together. He should have included "and go to the Windows box and browse files on the Linux machine, too".
What are you doing monkeying with the kernel? That doesn't need updating, it's the frickin' kernel. If it's broken, we get a reinstall going while we go to lunch.
(agreed on the part of copying DLL's, partially).
That's a myth he should dispell. Just because something is running, doesn't mean it isn't in need of an update. Security problems? Improved performance? No OS is or remains perfect for years without an update.
And why is he touching the kernel? I update libraries and software all the time without recompiling or restarting. Linux surely has its flaws, but this is one that just isn't true. I hear the "you have to recompile everything!" line from everyone, and I haven't touched source code in a while (last time was by choice).
On a side-note, don't push superiority to them too much. Try to get them to install it on their own machine, or at home, and wait for them to get addicted. Once you use something UNIX-ish for a while, Windows starts to get annoying. It's personal preference though...some people like one bloated app that will do everything for them, and some people like lots of smaller apps combined and tailored to be exactly what you want them to be. I've found people will justify shitty software and turn the other way when something is just dumb, if this is the OS they use, regardless of what kernel it runs on.
1) Oracle saved a billion dollars a year and found it easier to track, monitor and discriminate among its customers. This was what Ellison now wanted to do for America.
Fantastic. I think discrimination should be easier and more accessible, on a nation-wide government level. Is that even possible?
2) It's this fear of an all-too-powerful government rising up and snatching away our liberties.'' Since Sept. 11, Ellison argued, those qualms no longer make any sense: ''It's our lives that are at risk, not our liberties,'' he said.
Both are at risk, jackass, they aren't mutually exclusive. But, if saving lives and fighting terrorism is the goal, here's an easy way to do it. Listen up, get ready to write this down if you're a member of the government: If we want to put an end to terrorism, all we have to do is......(ready?)..stop funding terrorists. Don't give the Taliban $43mil, don't give both Israel and Palestine money and act surprised when bombs go off, don't create Contra's or an Osama Bin Laden knowing full well what they're capable of. If our governments and large corporations stop going in for funding them, it clips their wings. It won't end terrorism, but it'll make it a hell of a lot smaller. I think with $43mil and however-much-more we don't know about, a terrorist could fund their way around an Oracle DB.
Besides, what's more efficient than a database is just putting a soldier with an M-16 in every home to watch over us. Or to have a marine follow every citizen around...start a draft to even up the odds. Maybe when he said our liberties aren't at risk, "our" referred to him and his buddies? Who even knows anymore.
I don't agree. Nor does the FSF. If you give binaries to anyone, no matter what company they work for, what distribution they use, what color their hair or whether they think the week begins or ends with Sunday, they must receive source if they request it. This is the point of the GPL; keeping individuals "free" from restrictions in its use. If you don't want to give out your code when it is requested, and don't want to allow people to use it freely, don't GPL it. Once a "free" binary exchanges hands between 2 people, both are entitled to full access. The key word here is "freedom", not "I own it, it is mine, I am the authoritarian who dictates how it will be used".
I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so
If Joe requests source, Joe gets source. If you "don't think so", that's fine...but your program isn't GPL'd. There are many licenses you can use, none better nor worse in my opinion. But if you want your program to be "free" software, you can't pick and choose who gets to be free from restrictions. That's what freedom is all about.
While we're on it, if you value Joe's input into UI design, why wouldn't you want him to have the source? Maybe he's secretly a great programmer and can fix your mistakes.
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
From GNU.org: ' Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.'
Distribution is distribution. Don't think of it from the distributor's point of view, think of it from the user's. If I use this software, I have the right to use it how I want. I can modify it, change it, etc. If I don't have these freedoms, it is not GPL'd. Lindows needs to allow access to the source upon request, or they're in obvious violation.
Not that interesting. Did you really expect them to just take the server down and switch at a time when people are flooding the site, or when they've been working on the code? Give them a few days...
;)
oops, wait..make that a few hours
telnet www.apache.org 80
GET / HTTP/1.0
Apache/2.0.35 Server
A device like this, if its going to get market share in the PDA world needs to function out of the box like your wrist watch, DVD player, VCR etc.
Actually, my watch sucks. I plugged it into my laptop, and nothing happened. Ok, it tells time perfectly and as it turns out my previous watch had changed settings that made the transition flawed, but I still blame it on the watch.
In other words, it does. It functions out of the box perfectly, the same way my watch, DVD player and VCR do: by not interacting with every broken computer in the world. Should a PDA work perfectly, and sync with Outlook on the first try? Absolutely. Should we blame the PDA that some guy who beats up his computer and uses Outlook couldn't sync them? I don't have the answer, nor does anyone but the individuals troubleshooting his problem. If it turns out his computer wasn't broken in some way, his review is accurate...but I've dealt with way too many users trying to email a 50MB attachment over dialup then complaining "outlook is broken" to automatically assume the new hardware is bad.
Didn't anyone else stop to wonder why we know it will sync with outlook, but just magically not for this guy? Maybe his computer is broken? Maybe the PDA he got is defective? I've seen non-techies set them up, so it isn't that it takes kernel hacking or anything...
Uh, there is still no conclusive evidence that says we've done jack schit to either help or harm the environment
So, an oil tanker spilling all over and killing animals, plants and polluting water doesn't harm the environment? Factories spewing out carcinogenic pollutants doesn't hurt anything? Smog from our cars, pesticides killing plants, cutting down rainforests and stripping the land to put up more buildings are all neutral?
I'm not saying we're (definitely) the cause of global warming, but I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest we've broken plenty.
He is 100% right: If the thing doesn't simply plug in, install, and sync flawlessly, then it's a screwed up product.
Two things:
A) It didn't work for this one guy. Most companies have an IT department, or at least bring in consultants, to deploy new technology.
B) You apparantly don't work in an IT-related field. Things almost never work flawlessly, unless you just took the computer, the OS and the PDA out of the box. This guy has done reviews for dozens of PDA's (he boo'd most)...maybe (scenerio ahead) he uses the same laptop for all of them, and has a dozen conflicting drivers/bugs laying around? Maybe XP is the cause of the problem (since I've seen breand new modems and printers fail with it on the first try). Or, maybe the PDA does suck. You can't say it automatically sucks because one person's computer wouldn't sync. The symptom he's described fits perfectly with Palm V's and Palm M100's, and Blackberry's (RIM 957) I've installed and had to fix.
My only issue with the review is that it didn't really say much. I know now the battery sucks, and that some guy with a PalmOS fetish didn't like it. It has about as much cred as a Slashdot post.
But the detection of those elusive, small Earth-like worlds may be closer than you think
I've seen lots of Science Fiction movies about aliens that go from planet to planet, soaking up the natural resources of each, conquering and destroying them (making them uninhabitable), and moving on. Anyone else ever think we're the aliens?
I mean, we've already screwed up this one, and now rather than fix it (because wanting to do that makes you a "tree hugger") we're going after another. I can't say I'm against it, but it's just...creepy.
You are not authorized to view this page
You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.
If you believe you should be able to view this directory or page, please try to contact the Web site by using any e-mail address or phone number that may be listed on the www.wehavethewayout.com home page.
You can click Search to look for information on the Internet.
HTTP Error 403 - Forbidden
Internet Explorer
Why bother doing it? Because you can patent your invention, and for a period of time you can have the exclusive right to build it, or you can collect royalties from other folks who build it.
"Because you can patent it"? What about "because you're the first to do it, giving you a head-start and the best implementation of this idea".
What you're advocating is the IBM/Apple theory of 'I'll invent something, then sit on my ass for a few years and collect checks'.
I can't agree with it. I think Stallman goes overboard plenty, but no one should own a foundation. People love throwing around buzzphrases like "it stifles innovation", but what stifles it more: having to work at making the best {song,car,software} and one-up the competition (or work together for something even better), or thousands of truly brilliant people unable to even touch something and use it in to their goal because it has a legal restriction and some guy wants to get paid today for work he did yesterday?
To stick with your engine analogy, and how patents promote innovation:
Why haven't we seen electric cars in the mainstream?
Because no one interested in making one is allowed to, since the patents were all taken by persons with a vested interest in fossil-fuel/oil-based-automotive corporations. If not for that, we wouldn't need to bomb the Middle East every 5 years; someone might actually get somewhere with a non-oilbased engine.
Musicians still have their place, too: Led Zepplin never worried when a coverband showed up. The only time anyone should be concerned is in resale of the original product, because I can box and ship somthing cheaper than someone else can create, box and ship. If I'm putting work into something, too, I have no real advantage. Cliff's Notes don't replace the original work, nor does spending time developing an application based on someone else's theory.
I hereby declare that I and everyone I know form a conglomerate "organization", and as such we will only be purchasing copyrighted material collectively in the future. Because we will only be redistributing this material within our own organization, and not to anyone outside it, we should be exempt from copyright restrictions, right?
If it's free software, absolutely. I believe this is the point of the GPL, and incidentally, the point of the parent post. If a GPL'd application is used, it can be distributed to anyone. And, if you choose to only distribute it to persons within your organization, that's your business provided you make the source accessible.
If someone wanted to steal information from our files, they could do so through the internet.
Or they could tell the receptionist they're here to see Bob, and then go look at the paper files. I think it would be easier to do the latter.
What if your internet connection is secured? Or, more likely, the sensitive data isn't even on a machine connected to the internet? And since you work with something worth stealing, you hired someone more aware than a receptionist to block entry to the building, and your important paper-trail isn't left out on a desk in an unlocked room? Persons working with large companies and government institutions should at least be aware that things like this exist.
Obviously this isn't relevant to some little dotcom startup. But data worth stealing will be stolen...and if they can't get physical access, or net access, they have to take on other means. Bribery is an option, but risky since it's easy for someone to blow the whistle. Same for blackmail and extortion. This seems easy compared to some alternatives, especially considering many large companies exist in large cities: I can get an apartment or an office across the street from their servers, and try to pick off data without anyone in the world knowing. If you're a security professional, this should at least be in the back of your mind.
We really promise that thing with N*SYNC was just a joke! Really, look, we're cool! We're rockers! Check out our rebellious Star Wars guitar line. Please check out my next movie, so my daughter can go to an upscale liberal arts college like Sarah Lawrence. Don't make us go back on our word and release Sith fishnet belly shirts and "Moons of Endor" hotpants. We'll do it. We're whores.
"Can you imagine wearing glasses or goggles that, when looking at a person, a built-in display would tell you everything you wanted to know about that person?"
They're called " beer goggles"....7 or 8 pints of Hefeweizen and I know all I ever need to know about that woman. All I don't know is "why I never realized she was hot before".
Now, if only they could invent something to avoid the Coyote Ugly Syndrome of the next morning...like some sort of shoe-horn or spatula. I'm sick of having to gnaw my arm off to escape the bear trap.
(Score -5. Chauvanistic Jackcass)
No one said anything about free (beer) software. Libre means liberty.
Also, RTFA(rticle). It is about Corel shutting down the Open Source site, and the poster mentions what a loss it is since they gave us CorelDraw and WordPerfect. That is inaccurate, they gave "us" no such things. Many members of the open source community don't use Linux...if these applications were given to the OS community, they could be ported to other operating systems. As is, they are linux-only.
As many readers already know, Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.
Linux community != Open Source community.
As far as I know, there were never open source or free (libre) versions of Draw or WordPerfect. Releasing a linux binary is not contributing to the open source community.
I am aware they contributed some other packages, but the big two were never offered.