And it did kick ass. I always wondered what happened to that - for music suggestions, it always seemed to come back with something that I really liked, and I definitely extended a few branches of my musical-appreciation tree as a result of a few minutes spent on HOMR.
I wonder if there are alternatives to HOMR around out there now? It'd be cool to have an Open Source HOMR, and what with the MP3 scene being what it is these days, it could result in some nice, organized, instant gratification music appreciation...
What Linux has become, like so many other open source projects like it, could *only* have been possible, (or might *never* have been possible) due to the efforts of those other people in the list.
That's my point. Linus, and therefore Linux, is the best representation *in the list* of the sum total of all of those other members of the list, and therefore, if you want a good end-sum evaluation of all those other data points for the 20th Century, Linus/Linux is it.
1: political leaders that a) started wars, or b) ended wars 2: religious leaders that a) fell from grace, or b) held the grace of their god 3: pop culture figures that are products of a greedy western hype machine (Madonna, Bill Gates, John Lennon, Pricess Diana) 4: appear on the list only by virtue of the revenues they have generated for the media machine.
Where does Linus sit? He's not in either of those categories, realistically (okay you could say #4, but that's secondary to his function, unlike Madonna whose prime purpose is to do just that).
Linus, and the entire Linux project, is a peace-time project. You have Jews, Hispanics, Atheists, disabled people, nerds, geeks, jocks and other 'types' of people all working together, peacfully, productively, making something that countless thousands of other members of the human race will put to use to enhance their lives through greater productivity, education, etc.
For free.
Linux is the product of a truly Free Society. It is not some government funded project, it is not based on some fascist/rascist/capitalist/whateverist agenda.
Linus' inclusion in that list is the only one that makes sense.
Should we put a figurehead on the 21st Century that means anything *other* than what this civilization has fought the *entire* century to become, which is a Freedom for All Races? Should we say "the 21st Century was best represented by Adolf Hitler, who was a war monger who persecuted the Jews"?
Should we say "the 21st Century is best beheld by the image of Mother Theresa, who, in spite of her own personal suffering and persecution, continued to suffer her entire life so that children in 3rd World Countries, ignored by the rest of the species, could have decent health services"?
No. I don't think so.
Linux is the child of all of those other people on this list. It's prime creators' (Linus) image is the natural representation of everything that all of those other figureheads has either fought *HARD* to obtain, or *HARD* to prevent.
So I say he deserves to be in that list with the rest of them.
I look at that list, and I see all of these terribly famous/infamous people, and there's Linus' name right there in the midst of 'em, and somehow it just feels so strange to have seen this occur over the years.
There is something almost incongruous about it, yet its so right at the same time... hard to place it.
Linux has come a long way since I got my first Yggdrasil CD-bootable distribution back in 93/94 and turned a useless 486 into my first own super Unix workstation! Well done Linus, and well done the rest of the global Linux team, for producing a truly excellent product.
Linux is one of those projects that truly demonstrates that human beings working together, given peace and prosperity, are capable of overcoming insurmountable odds to achieve new heights.
I'm really happy to have witnessed it, and played my small part in the process.
Is there a FAQ or how-to on getting KDE working under Irix? I've got a spare SGI Indy workstation that's begging me to do something with it, maybe that'd be a fun weekend project.
Can't seem to get through to find a FAQ/Howto myself, everything KDE'ish is slashdotted!
This was a game I wrote in a couple of hours on the Atari Portfolio, using TC2.0... Ever hear of it? I put it online a few years back, it might still be kicking around.
Man, that was a fun project - from concept to product in just under 3 hours, and a fully working game to boot!
I think I've still got the source code for it around somewhere... should see if I can dig it out and fire it up on the old Portfolio, which has been collecting dust.
I don't know about you young teenage whippertwerps, but Neuromancer was a pivotal book for me in the 80's.
So this movie had better not suck ass, or it's gonna be really, really, really fucked up.
I'm already freaked though, check this about the director:
One of the hottest young talents to emerge from Britain's music video scene, Chris Cunningham's eye for arresting images and mastery of visual effects have propelled him in three years to the A list of sought after directors. RES magazine says of Cunningham, "...he manages to be humorous, spooky, subversive and unforgettable all in one clip." On "Neuromancer," Cunningham says,"Film shouldn't be about technology, that should be the background. Neuromancer is a thrilling story. It's also about loads of ideas that Gibson had... It's like a detective story where you don't know what's going on. I love things like that, that unfold."
AArrRRGGGH CRAP!!!
Another MTV Music Video director wannabe tries to catapult himself into the movie biz by leaching 'emselves to a culturally pertinent modern work.
"Film shouldn't be about technology"... thats only because nobody in the film industry understands technology well enough to portray it accurately, you MORON!!
Neuromancer is *ABOUT* how technology affects peoples lives. It's about the technology that modern man creates, it's about the creation of bigger entities through the application of technology.
Who wants to place a bet that we get a crappy movie with some lame-ass actor on the up and up, a love story, some violence, a few perfunctory special effects, and a highly modified script that does not resemble the book in any form?
Shit shit shit.
"I love things like that, that unfold."
What the hell sort of lame-ass simplistic hoserspeak is this? Damnit. He comes across as a total dweeb, Mr. Pop Star Video Director, sage of all things interval.
I vote for an Open Source MOVIE!!! Lets get together all the talent we can find and make our own godamn rendition of Neuromancer, TrippinTheRift style...
It was only during the Inquisition that Christianity and its variants started "going south".
Once the Church had established itself enough to be able to pick up the mess left by the end of the Roman Empire, it became a political tool, and it was inevitable that it became perverted over the following centuries.
History has a lot to offer.
Re:An *EASY* and *OBVIOUS* solution to SPAM.
on
Austria Bans Spam
·
· Score: 1
If it's easy and obvious, where's the code?
Sheesh. What's this supposed to mean?
For your spam signature program, be prepared to deal with hashbusters in the subject and body.
For each indidivual message? I'm sure there are aspiring proponents of the language analsyis school that could come up with decent ways around this - like I say though, absolutes aren't obtainable.
Also, such a system will not stop the transmission of spam, since all the spam signature can only be computed after the message is sent, so this does not alliviate the main problem of the spam eating up network bandwidth.
Not initially, it won't. But reducing the effectiveness of SPAM by giving people the ability to reduce the amount they read naturally results in less SPAM being transmitted.
I don't think network bandwidth is the worst thing about SPAM. The time lost on the part of the end user who has to download the mail, read it, spend time working out it's not something they want, etc. is more of a problem.
In fact, testing will eat up more CPU bandwidth, and a distributed spam signature network will eat even more network bandwidth.
If the signature distribution is well designed, it won't matter that much.
Even if it worked and kept spam out of end-user mailboxes, it wouldn't solve the real problems.
One thing I found offensive about that article is the bit at the end where they refer to Michael Collins as "the crew member that did not take part in the lunar landing".
Shee-it, that bugs me for some reason. If he didn't take part in it, how the heck did Neil and Buzz get back?
In my view, Michael Collins deserves as much respect as Neil and Buzz, and its truly a shame that future generations will not be educated in the skill, professionalism, patience and understanding it took for him to be able to look down on the moon, oh so close, and do his job so that Neil and Buzz could do theirs too.
This is a perfect opportunity for media to teach humility and respect for true professionalism, yet it's missed every time.
Just because a mic cost $10k doesn't mean the end result is going to be 'professional'. I've heard recordings done on $100 microphones, using some guys basement and an old cheap reel-to-reel, which I would definitely consider 'professional'.
A 'professional' is someone who gets the job done, no matter what tools are available. No matter what.
A 'pompous bastard' is someone who whines about not having the most expensive tools available, who blames poor results on 'cheap gear', and who also calls something 'not professional' if it didn't cost loads and loads of money to make.
Not like it was hard porting that server over from Solaris or anything.
The day Microsoft ports any of its GUI-based tools over to Linux will be the day Slashdot goes in-freaking-sane.
Sorta missing the point: No Ethernet port.
on
uCsimm News
·
· Score: 1
I agree that for some things, its overkill and that the dt102 you refer to might be better suited, aside from the fact that it doesn't have plug-and-go Ethernet capabilities.
To me, the built-in ethernet is the best thing about these uCSimms... second being that it runs Linux, third being its size and power requirements. I don't particularly care what cpu it uses, just the fact that as a platform it provides fundamental ethernet-friendly communication abilities is where it's at.
But my "GeekClock" would have to be a bit smarter than these dumb terminals, though. For the "Check IRC Channels" mode, I'd have to be able to implement a mini-irc client, and/or process shell scripts to do something with the output.
He works with computers as his livelihood (good for him) but all he really proves is that he cannot claim even faint acquaintance with the fear and confusion average users feel in the face of computers.
I didn't set out to prove that I have faint acquaintance with the fear and confusion average users feel so you'll have to excuse that shortcoming in my earlier post, though I can certainly back up the argument that I *am* familiar with this phenomenon if needed...
I write music software for a living. The average electronic musician is a fairly savvy type, and I know that there are definitely reasons why musicians prefer Macs over PC's.
That's not my point, however.
My point is: People too easily *blame* computers rather actually take the steps to adjust *themselves* as needed in order to overcome the difficulties that they might encounter. To me, and many other 'techno geeks', this is makes the difference between someone who knows how to use a computer, and someone who doesn't - *not* some 'usability study' or 'focus group' that is supposed to make your AOL experience shinier and happier.
GUI environments including details of configuration are necessary for average users, Jay.
Are they? Really? Does a network setup dialog *have* to be a GUI in order for it to get its job done, or can it just be well laid out text, with good introductory text on what is occurring before and after, that guides the user through doing something they'll probably (on average) only ever do maybe 2 or 3 times for the lifetime of that computer?
They just are. Wasteful? I'll grant this --for now.
For now, meaning until we have terrabyte-level data storage for cheap, in which case multi-gigabyte dialog box-rendering code will not be considered as wasteful...:)
But even if in theory they weren't so necessary, the existence of two strong environments (Win & mac) on desktop personal computers means that in practice Linux must have the equal if it is to succeed at all in the desktop market.
Not necessarily. A GUI configuration environment exists only to serve one purpose - to interact with the person using the computer and present them with information on terms they are comfortable with.
A text mode Linux script could quite happily compete against Windows' "Network Control Panel" if the help text surrounding it were a *lot* more useful, friendly, descriptive, and resulted in the end user having a *much* better understanding of the process being performed.
Graphical design is no replacement for competent literacy, either in the help-file author/programmer or the end user.
People aren't going to convert to text based configuration and operating systems that exclusively cling to it because a)they don't like it and b)they don't have to.
Who says they don't like it? Millions of Linux users can't be wrong, the majority of them are used to using text based config tools... This is just hearsay.
Most people like it when the computer does what they think it is going to do, and they don't like it when the computer does something that wasn't predictable in the eyes of the user. GUI's just serve to buffer the 'experiencing' of this phenomenon in a visually appealing manner.
Text based configuration isn't called "harder" because of some subjective state of preconditioning that we can ascribe to Win/Mac users and wish-away.
I would say that its considered harder because peoples general perception is that screens of text represent study/schooling, and that is usually associated with a large deal of mental effort, often under 'duress' (i.e. school exams, homework, getting the best 'grade', etc).
Whereas GUI's represent more of a 'video game' sort of perspective.
My point is that this perception of text by average users is inaccurate, as automatic as it may be. If people were generally taught to read for the sake of reading, and not in order to get 'good grades' or experience the duress of modern educational methods, then a text mode configuration tool would probably not be viewed with as much disdain.
Perhaps this explains why Linux and other text-ish operating systems are more widely used and more prevalent in the realm of formal education - since most students are already in positions where 'text' and the 'study of letters' is an ability they are already fully exercising in other aspects of their lives, such as college.
(they'll get over it) It simply is harder.
Define 'harder'. And give an argument for how you came to that conclusion...
The reason behind "a) they don't like it" is the simple fact that text based confguration allows for an _infinite_ number of mistakes and misconfigurations.
Does it really? I don't think the mode of operation of the USER INTERFACE has anything to do with whether or not infinite numbers of mistakes are possible. I would argue that its the 'smartness' of the application itself that allows this to occur - if something is wrongly entered in a text mode method of configuration, the program should be able to inform the user accordingly.
Let me give you an example:/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts contains a few text files full of details about network configuration. ifconfig is run on the contents of these files, so they have to be fairly correct.
If something is incorrectly entered, ifconfig usually complains about it by printf'ing to stdout. What if there were a 'help daemon' that ran on the machine to intercept these messages, interpret them according to a database of information, and send e-mail to the user giving them full details of what is wrong?
So what's wasteful, then? Writing GUI based configuration dialogs that people will use only rarely, or writing an OS that people will frequently remove from their hard drives because they cannot get over the learning curve of service configuration?
Whats wasteful to me is 'not writing adequate documentation that can be read by multiple levels of literate society'... GUI's and text config arguments are not really my point.
My point is mostly that people just need to be given better *mental* tools for them to use in overcoming computer-related difficulty, and that most of the modern pop-OS GUI's do not encourage the fostering of those *mental* tools, whereas Linux does, rightly or wrongly so.
In fact, I would argue that pop-OS's like MacOS and Windows encourage entrophy of the mental accumen required to be computer-competent, and therefore have a destructive effect on the end users' computer competency, from a pure mental perspective.
I'm not saying Linux is perfect in this regard, I'm just pointing out that it does encourage computer competency in many ways, and that knowing this difference, us, as members of the Linux/Slashdot community, should use this knowledge to further enhance Linux in the future, either by design of cool/interesting/useful Window managers, better admin scripts, etc.
Check your cereal box.
on
uCsimm News
·
· Score: 1
There might be one in there. If you find it, blow real hard, you might be able to get free music over a telephone.
heh heh.
I can think of *PLENTY* of things to do with this.
on
uCsimm News
·
· Score: 5
This thing is awesome. I can't wait until they ship, I've placed an order for 2 of them for instant prototype work on some things I've been meaning to work on for years.
The fact that it has built-in ethernet is a *major* plus, in my opinion.
Imagine a small terminal that you can plug into your network and get statistics, information from around your network, instantly.
You don't need your PC to be up and running, you just have this small device sitting on a pedestal on your desk with a 320x200 screen, scrolling information from your network, displaying bar graphs of system activity, etc.
Since it runs Linux, we could build a minimal web server for it, so that you can administer it by sticking it on the network and pointing your browser at it.
I'm going to build something like this when I get my prototype uCSimm boards, and I think I will call it the GeekClock. It'll have a few modes:
Clock mode (dial/digital face, etc) Netmon interface - display stats from various netmon packages on your different machines. News scroller - slashdot headlines on your desk! IRC interface - see who is in your favourite #channel!
etc.
Sort of like a dedicated push client... imho the problem with the whole push phenomenon a few years back was that it required your PC not do much else - if you can have it on your desk and just look at it now and then as you work, it seems to me that this is a better way of doing it.
And since it'll be an Open Source project, we can make the GeekClock totally rock! Got a module you want to write, simply dl the code, add it, and away we go.
This way I can finally turn off all the stuff that runs in the background on my main systems, and I don't need to interrupt what I'm doing to keep an eye on things - the GeekClock stands on its pedestal on my desk, telling me whats going on with my network.
That's just one idea.
Another idea I had was to add a MIDI interface to it, and use it as a MIDI protocol analyzer - since I write music software for a living, this would be useful to me.
I guess the point is that there are a whole bunch of things that I could do with a uCSimm when I get one, and I can't wait!
If anyone is interested in the GeekClock project, don't hesitate to mail me. I'd sure like to colaborate with other people that are interested in putting this nifty device to use...
... from the point of view of joe bloggs pc user...
This point of view is a result of that persons involvement with computers over time, their experience. The 'position in PITA scale' as measured by joe bloggs pc user is only relevant when they don't know whats going on... once a user is savvy enough (because no matter how you look at it, becoming savvy is definitely better than just being glib about computer usage) they will become to appreciate the true benefits of this separation from kernel and user interface, and will adopt an operating basis accordingly.
Most people are confused by Windows when they first start using it because they don't know whats going on. As they learn what goes on behind the scenes, they become better and better at using it... the same formula holds true for Linux.
...but system and services configuration? Stone Age(from J.Bloggs' point of view and requirements.)
Again, this is subjective based on J.Bloggs' experiences as he learns to use his computer. Sure, if he just came from a Mac and now has to learn how to edit a text file, he's more than likely not going to want to do this because he is taught that 'learning how to do something new in life' is hard work, and so will therefore find fault with the computer rather than with his own inhibitions towards discovery.
And excuses such as "but I am too busy, I don't have time to learn something" may work to counter my argument that people should just become more literate, but as an argument it doesn't serve to solve the fundamental problem, which is that "learning something new" is misperceived as a slow and painful process.
Actually, it gets faster and easier the more you do it, and most professional computer users take great pride in their ability to hone their causative discovery skills with regards to technology.
I think that this is the fundamental reason behind the Linux movement, personally: people enjoy the process of refining their skill sets that comes from having access to Linux, its tools, and its source code. It builds character. (heh heh!)
Whereas Windows and other Microsoft products are really more specifically geared towards the user *not* having to learn anything, and thus *not* improving their cognitive skills, and to many people this is limiting, and in some cases offensive.
Additionally I would argue that system/services configuration does not *NEED* a large deal of sophisticated GUI - after all, it should be something that only ever happens once.
I have 15 computers in my posession, and I've done major configuration to each one of them maybe 2 or 3 times in the last 5 years that I've had them - everything ranging from multiple windows machines, 5 linux servers, a couple of SGI workstations, etc. Sure, it was nice to have a GUI, but that GUI is just sitting there wasting space now that I've gotten everything working fine...
So I don't agree that these are strong points in Windows' favour, at least not in the context of this discussion...
I sit here reading slashdot on a Windows98 PC which I just rebooted 10 minutes ago due to there being insufficient USER resources to deal with the 15 browser windows, the email client, the irc client, the development environment and the task scheduler, all of which I had running at the same time, and in *spite* of the fact that I have 128 Megs of RAM in this box.
And yet, when I closed all of those applications, I still couldn't start any others up due to an error from Windows itself "Insufficient memory to start application".
Windows is a far worse culprit than Linux in this regard. Hardcoded User Resource limitations? Sheesh.
With Linux, I could've just restarted X and still had my scheduler, email program, development environment still in good shape, but with Windows I've had to reboot it fully in order to get it back in working order.
Sorry, I should have explained myself a bit better - one shouldn't post to slashdot when they're in a hurry, I guess.
I mean what I say from the standpoint of a PAID JOURNALIST, working for a large media entity. Impartiality in a critical review of Windows from a valid technical perspective is a *very* difficult position to maintain when your pay check, and the work environment you depend on, is largely supported by advertising from the very companies you're being critical of...
Old story, sure. But this is the basis of Microsofts marketing engine...
Slashdot Mirror
And it did kick ass. I always wondered what happened to that - for music suggestions, it always seemed to come back with something that I really liked, and I definitely extended a few branches of my musical-appreciation tree as a result of a few minutes spent on HOMR.
I wonder if there are alternatives to HOMR around out there now? It'd be cool to have an Open Source HOMR, and what with the MP3 scene being what it is these days, it could result in some nice, organized, instant gratification music appreciation...
... of the sum total.
What Linux has become, like so many other open source projects like it, could *only* have been possible, (or might *never* have been possible) due to the efforts of those other people in the list.
That's my point. Linus, and therefore Linux, is the best representation *in the list* of the sum total of all of those other members of the list, and therefore, if you want a good end-sum evaluation of all those other data points for the 20th Century, Linus/Linux is it.
Thats all I was trying to say.
All of those other people in the list are either
1: political leaders that a) started wars, or b) ended wars
2: religious leaders that a) fell from grace, or b) held the grace of their god
3: pop culture figures that are products of a greedy western hype machine (Madonna, Bill Gates, John Lennon, Pricess Diana)
4: appear on the list only by virtue of the revenues they have generated for the media machine.
Where does Linus sit? He's not in either of those categories, realistically (okay you could say #4, but that's secondary to his function, unlike Madonna whose prime purpose is to do just that).
Linus, and the entire Linux project, is a peace-time project. You have Jews, Hispanics, Atheists, disabled people, nerds, geeks, jocks and other 'types' of people all working together, peacfully, productively, making something that countless thousands of other members of the human race will put to use to enhance their lives through greater productivity, education, etc.
For free.
Linux is the product of a truly Free Society. It is not some government funded project, it is not based on some fascist/rascist/capitalist/whateverist agenda.
Linus' inclusion in that list is the only one that makes sense.
Should we put a figurehead on the 21st Century that means anything *other* than what this civilization has fought the *entire* century to become, which is a Freedom for All Races? Should we say "the 21st Century was best represented by Adolf Hitler, who was a war monger who persecuted the Jews"?
Should we say "the 21st Century is best beheld by the image of Mother Theresa, who, in spite of her own personal suffering and persecution, continued to suffer her entire life so that children in 3rd World Countries, ignored by the rest of the species, could have decent health services"?
No. I don't think so.
Linux is the child of all of those other people on this list. It's prime creators' (Linus) image is the natural representation of everything that all of those other figureheads has either fought *HARD* to obtain, or *HARD* to prevent.
So I say he deserves to be in that list with the rest of them.
I look at that list, and I see all of these terribly famous/infamous people, and there's Linus' name right there in the midst of 'em, and somehow it just feels so strange to have seen this occur over the years.
There is something almost incongruous about it, yet its so right at the same time... hard to place it.
Linux has come a long way since I got my first Yggdrasil CD-bootable distribution back in 93/94 and turned a useless 486 into my first own super Unix workstation! Well done Linus, and well done the rest of the global Linux team, for producing a truly excellent product.
Linux is one of those projects that truly demonstrates that human beings working together, given peace and prosperity, are capable of overcoming insurmountable odds to achieve new heights.
I'm really happy to have witnessed it, and played my small part in the process.
Is there a FAQ or how-to on getting KDE working under Irix? I've got a spare SGI Indy workstation that's begging me to do something with it, maybe that'd be a fun weekend project.
Can't seem to get through to find a FAQ/Howto myself, everything KDE'ish is slashdotted!
That show, to me, captured a lot of what MP is all about...
Snipes was passe...
"hunt" is where it's at - it could even be played over MODEM!!!
This was a game I wrote in a couple of hours on the Atari Portfolio, using TC2.0... Ever hear of it? I put it online a few years back, it might still be kicking around.
Man, that was a fun project - from concept to product in just under 3 hours, and a fully working game to boot!
I think I've still got the source code for it around somewhere... should see if I can dig it out and fire it up on the old Portfolio, which has been collecting dust.
I don't know about you young teenage whippertwerps, but Neuromancer was a pivotal book for me in the 80's.
So this movie had better not suck ass, or it's gonna be really, really, really fucked up.
I'm already freaked though, check this about the director:
One of the hottest young talents to emerge from Britain's music video scene, Chris Cunningham's eye for arresting images and mastery of visual effects have propelled him in three years to the A list of sought after directors. RES magazine says of Cunningham, "...he manages to be humorous, spooky, subversive and unforgettable all in one clip." On "Neuromancer," Cunningham says,"Film shouldn't be about technology, that should be the background. Neuromancer is a thrilling story. It's also about loads of ideas that Gibson had... It's like a detective story where you don't know what's going on. I love things like that, that unfold."
AArrRRGGGH CRAP!!!
Another MTV Music Video director wannabe tries to catapult himself into the movie biz by leaching 'emselves to a culturally pertinent modern work.
"Film shouldn't be about technology"... thats only because nobody in the film industry understands technology well enough to portray it accurately, you MORON!!
Neuromancer is *ABOUT* how technology affects peoples lives. It's about the technology that modern man creates, it's about the creation of bigger entities through the application of technology.
Who wants to place a bet that we get a crappy movie with some lame-ass actor on the up and up, a love story, some violence, a few perfunctory special effects, and a highly modified script that does not resemble the book in any form?
Shit shit shit.
"I love things like that, that unfold."
What the hell sort of lame-ass simplistic hoserspeak is this? Damnit. He comes across as a total dweeb, Mr. Pop Star Video Director, sage of all things interval.
I vote for an Open Source MOVIE!!! Lets get together all the talent we can find and make our own godamn rendition of Neuromancer, TrippinTheRift style...
j.
How does this work? You can't put standard PCI cards in it?
I was a VC++ programmer for a couple of years before someone finally convinced me to have a look at Delphi.
And when I did, man, I was flabbergasted.
Programming for Windows was actually *FUN*, courtesy of Borland's excellent VCL.
If you've gotta write for Windows, use Delphi. There's not much you can do in VC++ that you can't do in Delphi, and Delphi is a hell of a lot cosier.
At times, it feels almost as fun as it does to write apps for BeOS...
In those days, the Church wasn't that bad.
It was only during the Inquisition that Christianity and its variants started "going south".
Once the Church had established itself enough to be able to pick up the mess left by the end of the Roman Empire, it became a political tool, and it was inevitable that it became perverted over the following centuries.
History has a lot to offer.
If it's easy and obvious, where's the code?
Sheesh. What's this supposed to mean?
For your spam signature program, be prepared to deal with hashbusters in the subject and body.
For each indidivual message? I'm sure there are aspiring proponents of the language analsyis school that could come up with decent ways around this - like I say though, absolutes aren't obtainable.
Also, such a system will not stop the transmission of spam, since all the spam signature can only be computed after the message is sent, so this does not alliviate the main problem of the spam eating up network bandwidth.
Not initially, it won't. But reducing the effectiveness of SPAM by giving people the ability to reduce the amount they read naturally results in less SPAM being transmitted.
I don't think network bandwidth is the worst thing about SPAM. The time lost on the part of the end user who has to download the mail, read it, spend time working out it's not something they want, etc. is more of a problem.
In fact, testing will eat up more CPU bandwidth, and a distributed spam signature network will eat even more network bandwidth.
If the signature distribution is well designed, it won't matter that much.
Even if it worked and kept spam out of end-user mailboxes, it wouldn't solve the real problems.
Which are?
One thing I found offensive about that article is the bit at the end where they refer to Michael Collins as "the crew member that did not take part in the lunar landing".
Shee-it, that bugs me for some reason. If he didn't take part in it, how the heck did Neil and Buzz get back?
In my view, Michael Collins deserves as much respect as Neil and Buzz, and its truly a shame that future generations will not be educated in the skill, professionalism, patience and understanding it took for him to be able to look down on the moon, oh so close, and do his job so that Neil and Buzz could do theirs too.
This is a perfect opportunity for media to teach humility and respect for true professionalism, yet it's missed every time.
Shee-it.
Just because a mic cost $10k doesn't mean the end result is going to be 'professional'. I've heard recordings done on $100 microphones, using some guys basement and an old cheap reel-to-reel, which I would definitely consider 'professional'.
A 'professional' is someone who gets the job done, no matter what tools are available. No matter what.
A 'pompous bastard' is someone who whines about not having the most expensive tools available, who blames poor results on 'cheap gear', and who also calls something 'not professional' if it didn't cost loads and loads of money to make.
Not like it was hard porting that server over from Solaris or anything.
The day Microsoft ports any of its GUI-based tools over to Linux will be the day Slashdot goes in-freaking-sane.
I agree that for some things, its overkill and that the dt102 you refer to might be better suited, aside from the fact that it doesn't have plug-and-go Ethernet capabilities.
To me, the built-in ethernet is the best thing about these uCSimms... second being that it runs Linux, third being its size and power requirements. I don't particularly care what cpu it uses, just the fact that as a platform it provides fundamental ethernet-friendly communication abilities is where it's at.
But my "GeekClock" would have to be a bit smarter than these dumb terminals, though. For the "Check IRC Channels" mode, I'd have to be able to implement a mini-irc client, and/or process shell scripts to do something with the output.
He works with computers as his livelihood (good for him) but all he really proves is that he cannot claim even faint acquaintance with the fear and confusion average users feel in the face of computers.
... :)
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts contains a few text files full of details about network configuration. ifconfig is run on the contents of these files, so they have to be fairly correct.
... GUI's and text config arguments are not really my point.
I didn't set out to prove that I have faint acquaintance with the fear and confusion average users feel so you'll have to excuse that shortcoming in my earlier post, though I can certainly back up the argument that I *am* familiar with this phenomenon if needed...
I write music software for a living. The average electronic musician is a fairly savvy type, and I know that there are definitely reasons why musicians prefer Macs over PC's.
That's not my point, however.
My point is: People too easily *blame* computers rather actually take the steps to adjust *themselves* as needed in order to overcome the difficulties that they might encounter. To me, and many other 'techno geeks', this is makes the difference between someone who knows how to use a computer, and someone who doesn't - *not* some 'usability study' or 'focus group' that is supposed to make your AOL experience shinier and happier.
GUI environments including details of configuration are necessary for average users, Jay.
Are they? Really? Does a network setup dialog *have* to be a GUI in order for it to get its job done, or can it just be well laid out text, with good introductory text on what is occurring before and after, that guides the user through doing something they'll probably (on average) only ever do maybe 2 or 3 times for the lifetime of that computer?
They just are. Wasteful? I'll grant this --for now.
For now, meaning until we have terrabyte-level data storage for cheap, in which case multi-gigabyte dialog box-rendering code will not be considered as wasteful
But even if in theory they weren't so necessary, the existence of two strong environments (Win & mac) on desktop personal computers means that in practice Linux must have the equal if it is to succeed at all in the desktop market.
Not necessarily. A GUI configuration environment exists only to serve one purpose - to interact with the person using the computer and present them with information on terms they are comfortable with.
A text mode Linux script could quite happily compete against Windows' "Network Control Panel" if the help text surrounding it were a *lot* more useful, friendly, descriptive, and resulted in the end user having a *much* better understanding of the process being performed.
Graphical design is no replacement for competent literacy, either in the help-file author/programmer or the end user.
People aren't going to convert to text based configuration and operating systems that exclusively cling to it because a)they don't like it and b)they don't have to.
Who says they don't like it? Millions of Linux users can't be wrong, the majority of them are used to using text based config tools... This is just hearsay.
Most people like it when the computer does what they think it is going to do, and they don't like it when the computer does something that wasn't predictable in the eyes of the user. GUI's just serve to buffer the 'experiencing' of this phenomenon in a visually appealing manner.
Text based configuration isn't called "harder" because of some subjective state of preconditioning that we can ascribe to Win/Mac users and wish-away.
I would say that its considered harder because peoples general perception is that screens of text represent study/schooling, and that is usually associated with a large deal of mental effort, often under 'duress' (i.e. school exams, homework, getting the best 'grade', etc).
Whereas GUI's represent more of a 'video game' sort of perspective.
My point is that this perception of text by average users is inaccurate, as automatic as it may be. If people were generally taught to read for the sake of reading, and not in order to get 'good grades' or experience the duress of modern educational methods, then a text mode configuration tool would probably not be viewed with as much disdain.
Perhaps this explains why Linux and other text-ish operating systems are more widely used and more prevalent in the realm of formal education - since most students are already in positions where 'text' and the 'study of letters' is an ability they are already fully exercising in other aspects of their lives, such as college.
(they'll get over it) It simply is harder.
Define 'harder'. And give an argument for how you came to that conclusion...
The reason behind "a) they don't like it" is the simple fact that text based confguration allows for an _infinite_ number of mistakes and misconfigurations.
Does it really? I don't think the mode of operation of the USER INTERFACE has anything to do with whether or not infinite numbers of mistakes are possible. I would argue that its the 'smartness' of the application itself that allows this to occur - if something is wrongly entered in a text mode method of configuration, the program should be able to inform the user accordingly.
Let me give you an example:
If something is incorrectly entered, ifconfig usually complains about it by printf'ing to stdout. What if there were a 'help daemon' that ran on the machine to intercept these messages, interpret them according to a database of information, and send e-mail to the user giving them full details of what is wrong?
So what's wasteful, then? Writing GUI based configuration dialogs that people will use only rarely, or writing an OS that people will frequently remove from their hard drives because they cannot get over the learning curve of service configuration?
Whats wasteful to me is 'not writing adequate documentation that can be read by multiple levels of literate society'
My point is mostly that people just need to be given better *mental* tools for them to use in overcoming computer-related difficulty, and that most of the modern pop-OS GUI's do not encourage the fostering of those *mental* tools, whereas Linux does, rightly or wrongly so.
In fact, I would argue that pop-OS's like MacOS and Windows encourage entrophy of the mental accumen required to be computer-competent, and therefore have a destructive effect on the end users' computer competency, from a pure mental perspective.
I'm not saying Linux is perfect in this regard, I'm just pointing out that it does encourage computer competency in many ways, and that knowing this difference, us, as members of the Linux/Slashdot community, should use this knowledge to further enhance Linux in the future, either by design of cool/interesting/useful Window managers, better admin scripts, etc.
There might be one in there. If you find it, blow real hard, you might be able to get free music over a telephone.
heh heh.
This thing is awesome. I can't wait until they ship, I've placed an order for 2 of them for instant prototype work on some things I've been meaning to work on for years.
The fact that it has built-in ethernet is a *major* plus, in my opinion.
Imagine a small terminal that you can plug into your network and get statistics, information from around your network, instantly.
You don't need your PC to be up and running, you just have this small device sitting on a pedestal on your desk with a 320x200 screen, scrolling information from your network, displaying bar graphs of system activity, etc.
Since it runs Linux, we could build a minimal web server for it, so that you can administer it by sticking it on the network and pointing your browser at it.
I'm going to build something like this when I get my prototype uCSimm boards, and I think I will call it the GeekClock. It'll have a few modes:
Clock mode (dial/digital face, etc)
Netmon interface - display stats from various netmon packages on your different machines.
News scroller - slashdot headlines on your desk!
IRC interface - see who is in your favourite #channel!
etc.
Sort of like a dedicated push client... imho the problem with the whole push phenomenon a few years back was that it required your PC not do much else - if you can have it on your desk and just look at it now and then as you work, it seems to me that this is a better way of doing it.
And since it'll be an Open Source project, we can make the GeekClock totally rock! Got a module you want to write, simply dl the code, add it, and away we go.
This way I can finally turn off all the stuff that runs in the background on my main systems, and I don't need to interrupt what I'm doing to keep an eye on things - the GeekClock stands on its pedestal on my desk, telling me whats going on with my network.
That's just one idea.
Another idea I had was to add a MIDI interface to it, and use it as a MIDI protocol analyzer - since I write music software for a living, this would be useful to me.
I guess the point is that there are a whole bunch of things that I could do with a uCSimm when I get one, and I can't wait!
If anyone is interested in the GeekClock project, don't hesitate to mail me. I'd sure like to colaborate with other people that are interested in putting this nifty device to use...
Next.
For some, its the same. For others, its not.
In Windows land, you have no choice. Totalitarian technology!
End of discussion.
... from the point of view of joe bloggs pc user...
...but system and services configuration? Stone Age(from J.Bloggs' point of view and requirements.)
This point of view is a result of that persons involvement with computers over time, their experience. The 'position in PITA scale' as measured by joe bloggs pc user is only relevant when they don't know whats going on... once a user is savvy enough (because no matter how you look at it, becoming savvy is definitely better than just being glib about computer usage) they will become to appreciate the true benefits of this separation from kernel and user interface, and will adopt an operating basis accordingly.
Most people are confused by Windows when they first start using it because they don't know whats going on. As they learn what goes on behind the scenes, they become better and better at using it... the same formula holds true for Linux.
Again, this is subjective based on J.Bloggs' experiences as he learns to use his computer. Sure, if he just came from a Mac and now has to learn how to edit a text file, he's more than likely not going to want to do this because he is taught that 'learning how to do something new in life' is hard work, and so will therefore find fault with the computer rather than with his own inhibitions towards discovery.
And excuses such as "but I am too busy, I don't have time to learn something" may work to counter my argument that people should just become more literate, but as an argument it doesn't serve to solve the fundamental problem, which is that "learning something new" is misperceived as a slow and painful process.
Actually, it gets faster and easier the more you do it, and most professional computer users take great pride in their ability to hone their causative discovery skills with regards to technology.
I think that this is the fundamental reason behind the Linux movement, personally: people enjoy the process of refining their skill sets that comes from having access to Linux, its tools, and its source code. It builds character. (heh heh!)
Whereas Windows and other Microsoft products are really more specifically geared towards the user *not* having to learn anything, and thus *not* improving their cognitive skills, and to many people this is limiting, and in some cases offensive.
Additionally I would argue that system/services configuration does not *NEED* a large deal of sophisticated GUI - after all, it should be something that only ever happens once.
I have 15 computers in my posession, and I've done major configuration to each one of them maybe 2 or 3 times in the last 5 years that I've had them - everything ranging from multiple windows machines, 5 linux servers, a couple of SGI workstations, etc. Sure, it was nice to have a GUI, but that GUI is just sitting there wasting space now that I've gotten everything working fine...
So I don't agree that these are strong points in Windows' favour, at least not in the context of this discussion...
I sit here reading slashdot on a Windows98 PC which I just rebooted 10 minutes ago due to there being insufficient USER resources to deal with the 15 browser windows, the email client, the irc client, the development environment and the task scheduler, all of which I had running at the same time, and in *spite* of the fact that I have 128 Megs of RAM in this box.
And yet, when I closed all of those applications, I still couldn't start any others up due to an error from Windows itself "Insufficient memory to start application".
Windows is a far worse culprit than Linux in this regard. Hardcoded User Resource limitations? Sheesh.
With Linux, I could've just restarted X and still had my scheduler, email program, development environment still in good shape, but with Windows I've had to reboot it fully in order to get it back in working order.
Sorry, I should have explained myself a bit better - one shouldn't post to slashdot when they're in a hurry, I guess.
I mean what I say from the standpoint of a PAID JOURNALIST, working for a large media entity. Impartiality in a critical review of Windows from a valid technical perspective is a *very* difficult position to maintain when your pay check, and the work environment you depend on, is largely supported by advertising from the very companies you're being critical of...
Old story, sure. But this is the basis of Microsofts marketing engine...