Re:Too late, you already have zero privacy
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
This is very true. I'm not so sure we should be paranoid about losing privacy any longer. I actually like Amazon's purchase-based selecting of products I might be interested in. As long as privacy is not invaded (intrusive marketting.. which already exists but could become much worse) it may make the world seem more personal, and less "cold." Using information gathered on people should be used "anonymously," inoppressive, and not in an intrusive manner.
That said, the events in 1984 will most likely not happen, but the possibility for similar events and oppression is there. I find it somewhat scary that numerous Americans do not want criticism about the country, especially at "times like these." In my opinion, now _is_ the time for criticism. We should _never_ have scrutinized (to the extent that occured) George W. Bush for the trivial things which took place before. It seems extremely assbackwards that we now must stand behind the president when his actions are much more serious than whether he dips into Social Security and whatnot. People will most likely die as results of GWB's decisions. Scrutinizing should be at the _highest_ level right now. Although this is not related to privacy, it does have a vague similarity to events in 1984.
America's defense and policy planners are calling for a new kind of war and a new kind of warfare. Few people have any idea what it might look like or how it might work.
I do! I do! Pick up some James Bond movies.
Seriously, what is the point of this article again? Am I just too stupid to see something there which is not overly redundant or pointless?
why do you think they wouldn't? There is a little monetary incentive with providing information. A good number of people fear the government way more than any corporation, and yet corporations are already selling consumer information. It's only a matter of time. Today John Ashcroft I believe was talking about needing to link all phone lines together that a single person uses. In other words, to track someone who uses cell phones, regular phone lines, etc. all from one point. I think many people will act emotionally and because this is a very emotional time in America, they are willing to give up everything in order to "win" this so-called war. I find it disturbing that GWB talks about "attacks on freedom" and "haters of freedom" then the US goes around and takes away freedom to prevent more attacks. And yet, GWB claims we have not lost to the terrorists. I believe we have and will lose much more than we realize due to acting on emotions rather than rational thought.
You seem to have not touched LISP in the last 20 either. Please check out Common Lisp. Scheme is designed to be small (and slib is not what I would consider a language library.. it's more of an add-on).
Oh my god. Please. Get CMUCL or CLISP. These are Common Lisp implementations (not Scheme). I am simply amazed at the library features available that even C does not have. And they do have a FFI (foreign function interface) which allows you to call C functions (albeit, not portably).
Do yourself a favor and learn about Common Lisp. Not all members of the LISP family are equal. You are most likely thinking of Scheme. Scheme is a reduced API (on purpose) used mostly for academic purposes. It is most likely what you are taught in CS at the University. Common Lisp is the API heavy LISP with everything (probably the kitchen sink too! though I haven't found it yet).
Java's great strength is that it has a huge set of APIs, all in a unified form, making programming a less repetitive and painful experience. Java is for people who understand that recoding the same search tree three hundred times is not going to make them richer, cooler or a better programmer. LISP is for people with time to waste.
You obviously do not know or understand LISP (the entire family). Learn it (CL would be your best bet). Do not just trash it without understand what it is all about.
"We are going to eliminate all non-microsoft programming by 2003"
I think they might pull it off.
If they do pull it off I would be amazed. They came a little late to the table on GUIs. Mac could have won. They came late to the internet. Netscape was kicking their ass. Now they are coming extremely late to network computing (i.e. Java's domain). Can they undo a good 5-6 years of programmers using Java (and actually liking it)? Will their platform be fast enough? We know Java took awhile.
To me, this is looking like the return of MS Bob. For one thing, most people still use modems. The benefit gained by upgrades (subscription-based software) would not be worth the enormous download times (and costs). MS might make money on the few that use cable/DSL or businesses (which they will be hitting hard). I don't see this being a huge success until bandwidth becomes cheaper for many people. Many of their customers are still using Win95 and 98. I believe people will start questioning why they need to upgrade. If MS does not provide a good reason,.NET will fail. Then again, MS might very well have a good answer: Passport. That will be a nightmare beyond any nightmare ever imagined.
On the bright side, they will never take my Linux away.
Sometimes they get lucky [netscape.com], but more often, they get f*cked [fuckedcompany.com].
It's interesting you brought up Netscape as the lucky company, since Jim Clark (the founder) practically got raped by VCs with Silicon Graphics (SGI). IIRC, the VCs stepped in and took control (board of directors, or what have you) and left Jim with no control of SGI. Then he went and founded Netscape. I guess the lesson to learn is don't let VCs own more of the company than you.
Read the book "The New New Thing." It's all about Jim Clark and his various companies. Quite interesting.
Oh, as for the open source startups, the VCs that invested in them were fools.
I am sick and tired of people knocking Stallman's morals. Basically what all of you are saying is "I am perfectly willing to bend in my ethics, and I want to criticize those who are making me look bad by presenting a better example."
I don't know where you live, but here in America morals are relative.
In the end, Stallman will win.
Win what? If hes striving for GPL popularity, the nI do believe he is already a success.
I believe that Stallman has identified a greivous fault in our society, that we are immeshed in a maze of copyright and patents that are designed to fetter or behavious at every turn. Although the Church will be slow to recognize him, especially becuase the technilogical issues are hard to explain to such a conservative organization, I believe that in my children's lifetime RMS will be beatified.
No. Stallman is blinded by the simple fact that morals are relative in America. Not everyone believes in the same freedom as he does. What the hell church are you talking about? Scientology?
That is why I take every chance I can to associate myself with RMS, in hopes that some of his godliness will rub off, and that when he dies he will intervene with Jesus for my unworthy soul.
You must be a troll, or a very dim bulb.
Remember, if you are doing work on non-GPL'd code, YOU ARE DOING THE WORK OF THE DEVIL. I'm sick and tired of all this "oh I have to make a living" crap. This is your eternal soul we are talking about here, while your poverty ends when you die.
Are you talking metaphorically here, or about a specific software emperor? I have an eternal soul? Gee-whiz!
The game logic is very much tied to graphics performance. AFAIK, you can't really have collision detection, object movement, network play, etc. without it being tied to framerate. Which, of course, AI would be tied to things like object position and movement. Now what would be possible is to have certain small things be implemented in Java (like motions that certain objects go through.. scripting type stuff). That is how Quake (and Unreal IIRC) handle addons. They use an interpretted bytecode much like Java (Quake uses a subset of C called QuakeC I believe). Unless a game is compiled from Java to machine langauge before hand (not JIT), I don't think it would be possible to have a whole FPS game in Java--even with all the enhancements on the hardware side.
Reference counting is the worst of all garbage collection algorithms, IMO. It can leave cyclic data structures left behind (not to mention costs of incrementing/decrementing a counter.. and the storage of the counter in each object/block of memory used). Anyone considering doing GC should definately look at all the work which has been done w/ Lisp, Scheme, and the various other languages which have garbage collection built into the language design. Generational collectors (using something like mark-and-sweep or stop-and-copy methods) are probably some of the best as of now. There are also incremental (real-time) garbage collectors. On top of that are the differences of conservative and exact collectors (where conservative misses a few objects here and there and exact gets every object).
Ideally the programmer would never have to think about memory (and generally resource) usage, but just program design. Which is probably why Lisp is looking much nicer to me these days.;-)
The reason your argument is really, really wrong is that most break-ins happen months or years after the vendor announces the problem and supplies a fix. Disclosure is simply not an issue most of the time.
Yes, I see that now. I have personally witnessed many break-ins because of information given out on bugtraq and the like. But, many of those break-ins were with bugs that happened many months (even _years_) ago. So yes, disclosure very much is a nonissue.
I have seen some security issues in the past that would make most people's jaw drop. Stuff like downloadable unshadowed/etc/passwd file from anonymous FTP to people leaving credit cards stored in plaintext on a web store. Many people do not know about the passwd file trading that is present on IRC and such. People trade passwords on one machine in hopes to get access on another machine somewhere (mostly for IRC purposes.. such as bots and unfortunately, DDoS). Detecting those situations would be impossible. And the worst part of all this is the social issues of security. I have had people give me _root_ access to their Linux computers to fix their problems (even upgrade their kernel). These are people I have just met through #linux or whatnot. Many times it is easier to gain access to machines through people than brute-force cracking. Even simply going over to another's desk at work and finding post-it notes containing passwords.
Many authors do. One example might be "doublethink." I don't think it was a word before Orwell coined it. In any case, a word has to be coined sometime by someone, right?
I agree. I'm really starting to believe this problem is with how security is presented (this happens for both Windows and *IX). Whenever you first get *IX or Windows installed what do you normally see first? A login/password prompt. What kind of signal does this send to the end-user/admin? "The front door is locked, no one is getting in." What they do not realize is that the ceiling is missing and crackers are outside scaling the walls.
Instead of presenting systems as "secure on install," we should instead be presenting them as "WARNING: insecure system. Apply your own security measures." Then the software vendor should give the end-users a number of different tools they could use to secure their data/system. By getting the customer _involved_ it will help make security issues more "concrete," and something the customer can better understand. So in other words, the vendor should be trying their best to make secure software, but to the customer they should be saying "our software is insecure."
Yes, I suppose MS would attempt to shutdown the government too, if they found a hole in their product. Wanna know how the majority of crackers get information? BUGTRAQ! Why do you think there are so-called "script kiddies." It is not because they are writing their own programs to crack into machines. Wanna know why servers get broken into? Admins don't UPDATE THEIR SERVER! Many do not even read BUGTRAQ. If you _ever_ get someone who knows what they are doing breaking into your computer you have very little security to stop them. Fortunately, people who know what really goes on are few and far between. The majority are script-kiddies (the me-toos). Full disclosure is good, but the reality is full disclosure is where the majority of break-ins and virii occur. Admins need to keep a better eye on bugs than they do. Full disclosure only works if the admins are quick at fixing their system. Between the time the bug first hits Bugtraq and the time admins patch there is _huge_ opportunity for crackers to hit a good many sites. Especially on holidays or the weekends.
Microsoft has enough lawyers that seem to have plenty of free time on their hands, that my bet would be that they'd try to shut you down, and prevent you from making the promised disclosure.
Nothing should lead you to believe this. For one, it would probably cost _way_ more to sit in court than to fix the bug and send out email notices and actually get the patch to customers. They eventually have to fix it anyways, why delay it? Most likely, MS would have a patch the following day and would post security warnings to major sites. They are not _that_ irresponisble.
You can't _force_ people to upgrade their computers. MS makes it easy enough with Windows' Update. People are just too damn stupid to maintain their computers.
And I believe that is ultimately what will decide if this technology stays or leaves. But, Microsoft will win I am sure. Remember there already is a killer app that will be tied to their web services and everything else: MS Office. Sun is pretty much out of the game when it comes to applications people use. Could they transform Staroffice into their killer app? I doubt it.
It's a little more complex than that. The web services MS and Sun are talking about are more interactive, which is why they have Java and C#. We won't know until afterwords, but I'm certain Microsoft is turning Windows from a computer operating system into a "network" operating system. Your applications will move with you, and to which ever device you are using at the time (hence the need for portable bytecode executables). Your computer will ultimately blend into the network. Think of your computer now as a thin client which accesses Microsoft's mainframe. They are taking the model of pay-per-use computing world-wide. Scary times indeed.
haha. Which is what makes me think "how the hell do Mono/dotGNU stand a chance." Of course MS is encouraging them. It makes getting their technology implemented everywhere just that much easier.
Methinks Sun truely fumbled the ball when they choose just Java, knowing good and well how people stick to computer languages religiously.
Once upon a time there was a wise old (okay, he was pretty young) man named Linus. One day, he created this thing called "Linux." Many moons later, and after many people followed his trail, he uttered some words jokingly. Those words were something to the effect of "Linux will strive towards World Domination." A little news site, called Slashdot, was running at the time. They posted the word of Linus. People far and wide took notice and took his words literally. For the people of Linux hated the empire known as Microsoft. They saw Linux as a way to bring them freedom from the empire. They weren't too keen on the points of GNU's idea called "free software," but they did realize they would not have to pay the Microsoft tax anymore.
And here we are today. In a battle of words with no action. The free software coders for the most part do not care about Microsoft's market share. And some *gasp* actually want the freedom provided from free software.
Honestly, I would simply _love_ it if we could all go back to 1996 or 97. The community was thriving, but not being hyped. There was no news site (except maybe Slashdot.. can't recall the exact time period). Now it is too crowded, it seems. Freshmeat used to be a place where quality software could be found (not the landfill of use-once-and-throwaway perl scripts it is today). Today I suppose we have Advagato (Kuro5hin isn't exactly 100% technology forum, but it's nice). It's just not the same anymore. Will people continue writing free software knowing people are making money off of it? If I knew big corporations were making money off Apache (and I coded for Apache) I'd be asking questions. If IIS is selling, is my time worthless? Could I be making money coding on proprietary? Serious questions need answering.
The air we breathe has been monopolized by rabbits.
Why are we pretending that the "web" is a "market"? Does it really matter which web browser has the greater "market" share? No one is making money on the web right now (serious money). Apache is not losing money to IIS.
Why are we still tweaking yesterday's product to make it a wee bit better?
Haha. Reminds me of that "product" called Linux. Come to think of it, I believe Apache's biggest market is that "product" called Linux. Tweak, tweak, tweak.
This is the syndrome of engineers putting features into a product with no input from marketing. It's a great technical product, guys, but the market doesn't want this anymore.
Do tell me, since when has Apache brought in a marketting staff? I'm just curious. Their web page says "non-profit." I'm assuming that must be part of their "marketting strategy" also. Sorta like FUD.
"Web services" is a simple concept
Yes. I wonder why Open Source (TM) can't create such simple stuff. I mean, even Microsoft is taking years to create this "simple concept." I've been hearing about this "simple concept" since, oh, what was it, 1995 or 96. Erm. maybe not. I believe those were the years of plug-ins and VRML. Wonder when they will finally deliver my 3D web. I've been waiting for years!
Churchill and Roosevelt knew they had to ally with Stalin to beat Hitler. It took another forty years to liberate Stalin's empire, but ultimately both battles were won. If they had been pigheaded about Stalin in the first place, we would all be living in the Third Reich right now.
Oh yes! Hitler = Evil, Bill Gates = Hitler, Bill Gates = Evil. Let us please stop equating Bill Gates with evil. This is bullshit jealousy. He stole our web, waa waa! He stole our desktop, waa waa! Grow up. He made money legit, yes legit. It may be considered "hardball," but it was legit. He never went around killing people. This is sad coming from Linux camp. What makes this worse is it is coming from a news source that is representing Linux (and on top of that free software).
Why doesn't the author get off his lazy ass and code. The beauty of free software is anyone can contribute to make it better. If he wants Apache to go towards web services then he, himself, should be the one to throw some cash on the table or get busy coding.
Hmm. I don't know much about the DVD problem (I don't even have a DVD drive/card). The power supply would definately be a problem if you were on an Athlon, but since Athlon would probably crash at random w/ 250W PS (maybe not even work) I'm assuming you have a Pentium-class.
nVidia makes great products, but stability (and compatibility) has never been their strong point. It may be worth checking out Matrox G400 or ATI in this case (after trying everything possible to fix my TNT I was very close to buying a G400, but decided on trying another nVidia product and lucked out).
BTW, you probably know this already, but with nVidia you usually have a choice between 2 drivers you can use. One is the card manufacturer (such as creative labs, elsa, etc.) the other is nVidia reference (Detonator) drivers. Try using both if you haven't already.
Re:What Version of the nvidia drivers are you usin
on
ATi Radeon 8500
·
· Score: 1
Were you using different versions of GLX and the kernel driver? (i.e. GLX 9.6 installed and attempted to use a new driver such as 1.0)
The only cause for crashing that I can see is you had an incorrect GLX installed (maybe even Mesa GLX?).
I'm thinking it's not your drivers. What type of power supply do you have? I used to think it was software problem back when I had a TNT that constantly locked, but it seems to have been a hardware problem. Right now I'm using a geforce2 and have very few problems (I do still get a lockup once in awhile that is exactly like the TNT lockup.. but it is considerably rarer--TNT locked every single time on q3, but only a few times on half-life).
If your nvidia card is crapping out in 2D then it has to be something wrong with the hardware (or maybe a very misconfigured driver).
Re:What Version of the nvidia drivers are you usin
on
ATi Radeon 8500
·
· Score: 1
Hardly. The 1.0 version of GLX extracts into the/usr subdirectories (no need for Makefile). I've been recompiling the kernel driver for a good number of kernel versions without problems. The only time to reinstall GLX is when you get a newer X version (and even that might not matter if you are simply upgrading) or when you get a newer kernel driver.
Other than the believe in superstition, there is no _technical_ reason to keep reinstalling the GLX driver. The GLX and kernel driver are completely seperate from each other.
Re:What Version of the nvidia drivers are you usin
on
ATi Radeon 8500
·
· Score: 1
Uhm. GLX is binary only. The Makefile simply installs it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very true. I'm not so sure we should be paranoid about losing privacy any longer. I actually like Amazon's purchase-based selecting of products I might be interested in. As long as privacy is not invaded (intrusive marketting.. which already exists but could become much worse) it may make the world seem more personal, and less "cold." Using information gathered on people should be used "anonymously," inoppressive, and not in an intrusive manner.
That said, the events in 1984 will most likely not happen, but the possibility for similar events and oppression is there. I find it somewhat scary that numerous Americans do not want criticism about the country, especially at "times like these." In my opinion, now _is_ the time for criticism. We should _never_ have scrutinized (to the extent that occured) George W. Bush for the trivial things which took place before. It seems extremely assbackwards that we now must stand behind the president when his actions are much more serious than whether he dips into Social Security and whatnot. People will most likely die as results of GWB's decisions. Scrutinizing should be at the _highest_ level right now. Although this is not related to privacy, it does have a vague similarity to events in 1984.
Seriously, what is the point of this article again? Am I just too stupid to see something there which is not overly redundant or pointless?
why do you think they wouldn't? There is a little monetary incentive with providing information. A good number of people fear the government way more than any corporation, and yet corporations are already selling consumer information. It's only a matter of time. Today John Ashcroft I believe was talking about needing to link all phone lines together that a single person uses. In other words, to track someone who uses cell phones, regular phone lines, etc. all from one point. I think many people will act emotionally and because this is a very emotional time in America, they are willing to give up everything in order to "win" this so-called war. I find it disturbing that GWB talks about "attacks on freedom" and "haters of freedom" then the US goes around and takes away freedom to prevent more attacks. And yet, GWB claims we have not lost to the terrorists. I believe we have and will lose much more than we realize due to acting on emotions rather than rational thought.
You seem to have not touched LISP in the last 20 either. Please check out Common Lisp. Scheme is designed to be small (and slib is not what I would consider a language library.. it's more of an add-on).
Common Lisp HyperSpec (ANSI standard)
Do yourself a favor and learn about Common Lisp. Not all members of the LISP family are equal. You are most likely thinking of Scheme. Scheme is a reduced API (on purpose) used mostly for academic purposes. It is most likely what you are taught in CS at the University. Common Lisp is the API heavy LISP with everything (probably the kitchen sink too! though I haven't found it yet).
Great place to start
The Common Lisp HyperSpec (The ANSI CL standard reference) -- view this for the API features
You obviously do not know or understand LISP (the entire family). Learn it (CL would be your best bet). Do not just trash it without understand what it is all about.
To me, this is looking like the return of MS Bob. For one thing, most people still use modems. The benefit gained by upgrades (subscription-based software) would not be worth the enormous download times (and costs). MS might make money on the few that use cable/DSL or businesses (which they will be hitting hard). I don't see this being a huge success until bandwidth becomes cheaper for many people. Many of their customers are still using Win95 and 98. I believe people will start questioning why they need to upgrade. If MS does not provide a good reason,
On the bright side, they will never take my Linux away.
Read the book "The New New Thing." It's all about Jim Clark and his various companies. Quite interesting.
*Cough*Eazel*Cough*Ximian*Cough*
Win what? If hes striving for GPL popularity, the nI do believe he is already a success.
No. Stallman is blinded by the simple fact that morals are relative in America. Not everyone believes in the same freedom as he does. What the hell church are you talking about? Scientology?
You must be a troll, or a very dim bulb.
Are you talking metaphorically here, or about a specific software emperor? I have an eternal soul? Gee-whiz!
The game logic is very much tied to graphics performance. AFAIK, you can't really have collision detection, object movement, network play, etc. without it being tied to framerate. Which, of course, AI would be tied to things like object position and movement. Now what would be possible is to have certain small things be implemented in Java (like motions that certain objects go through.. scripting type stuff). That is how Quake (and Unreal IIRC) handle addons. They use an interpretted bytecode much like Java (Quake uses a subset of C called QuakeC I believe). Unless a game is compiled from Java to machine langauge before hand (not JIT), I don't think it would be possible to have a whole FPS game in Java--even with all the enhancements on the hardware side.
Reference counting is the worst of all garbage collection algorithms, IMO. It can leave cyclic data structures left behind (not to mention costs of incrementing/decrementing a counter.. and the storage of the counter in each object/block of memory used). Anyone considering doing GC should definately look at all the work which has been done w/ Lisp, Scheme, and the various other languages which have garbage collection built into the language design. Generational collectors (using something like mark-and-sweep or stop-and-copy methods) are probably some of the best as of now. There are also incremental (real-time) garbage collectors. On top of that are the differences of conservative and exact collectors (where conservative misses a few objects here and there and exact gets every object).
;-)
Ideally the programmer would never have to think about memory (and generally resource) usage, but just program design. Which is probably why Lisp is looking much nicer to me these days.
Didn't Sun or someone do this already? I remember reading something about it once.
I have seen some security issues in the past that would make most people's jaw drop. Stuff like downloadable unshadowed
Many authors do. One example might be "doublethink." I don't think it was a word before Orwell coined it. In any case, a word has to be coined sometime by someone, right?
I agree. I'm really starting to believe this problem is with how security is presented (this happens for both Windows and *IX). Whenever you first get *IX or Windows installed what do you normally see first? A login/password prompt. What kind of signal does this send to the end-user/admin? "The front door is locked, no one is getting in." What they do not realize is that the ceiling is missing and crackers are outside scaling the walls.
Instead of presenting systems as "secure on install," we should instead be presenting them as "WARNING: insecure system. Apply your own security measures." Then the software vendor should give the end-users a number of different tools they could use to secure their data/system. By getting the customer _involved_ it will help make security issues more "concrete," and something the customer can better understand. So in other words, the vendor should be trying their best to make secure software, but to the customer they should be saying "our software is insecure."
Nothing should lead you to believe this. For one, it would probably cost _way_ more to sit in court than to fix the bug and send out email notices and actually get the patch to customers. They eventually have to fix it anyways, why delay it? Most likely, MS would have a patch the following day and would post security warnings to major sites. They are not _that_ irresponisble.
You can't _force_ people to upgrade their computers. MS makes it easy enough with Windows' Update. People are just too damn stupid to maintain their computers.
And I believe that is ultimately what will decide if this technology stays or leaves. But, Microsoft will win I am sure. Remember there already is a killer app that will be tied to their web services and everything else: MS Office. Sun is pretty much out of the game when it comes to applications people use. Could they transform Staroffice into their killer app? I doubt it.
It's a little more complex than that. The web services MS and Sun are talking about are more interactive, which is why they have Java and C#. We won't know until afterwords, but I'm certain Microsoft is turning Windows from a computer operating system into a "network" operating system. Your applications will move with you, and to which ever device you are using at the time (hence the need for portable bytecode executables). Your computer will ultimately blend into the network. Think of your computer now as a thin client which accesses Microsoft's mainframe. They are taking the model of pay-per-use computing world-wide. Scary times indeed.
haha. Which is what makes me think "how the hell do Mono/dotGNU stand a chance." Of course MS is encouraging them. It makes getting their technology implemented everywhere just that much easier.
Methinks Sun truely fumbled the ball when they choose just Java, knowing good and well how people stick to computer languages religiously.
I'll let you in on a little secret..
Once upon a time there was a wise old (okay, he was pretty young) man named Linus. One day, he created this thing called "Linux." Many moons later, and after many people followed his trail, he uttered some words jokingly. Those words were something to the effect of "Linux will strive towards World Domination." A little news site, called Slashdot, was running at the time. They posted the word of Linus. People far and wide took notice and took his words literally. For the people of Linux hated the empire known as Microsoft. They saw Linux as a way to bring them freedom from the empire. They weren't too keen on the points of GNU's idea called "free software," but they did realize they would not have to pay the Microsoft tax anymore.
And here we are today. In a battle of words with no action. The free software coders for the most part do not care about Microsoft's market share. And some *gasp* actually want the freedom provided from free software.
Honestly, I would simply _love_ it if we could all go back to 1996 or 97. The community was thriving, but not being hyped. There was no news site (except maybe Slashdot.. can't recall the exact time period). Now it is too crowded, it seems. Freshmeat used to be a place where quality software could be found (not the landfill of use-once-and-throwaway perl scripts it is today). Today I suppose we have Advagato (Kuro5hin isn't exactly 100% technology forum, but it's nice). It's just not the same anymore. Will people continue writing free software knowing people are making money off of it? If I knew big corporations were making money off Apache (and I coded for Apache) I'd be asking questions. If IIS is selling, is my time worthless? Could I be making money coding on proprietary? Serious questions need answering.
Why are we pretending that the "web" is a "market"? Does it really matter which web browser has the greater "market" share? No one is making money on the web right now (serious money). Apache is not losing money to IIS.
Haha. Reminds me of that "product" called Linux. Come to think of it, I believe Apache's biggest market is that "product" called Linux. Tweak, tweak, tweak.
Do tell me, since when has Apache brought in a marketting staff? I'm just curious. Their web page says "non-profit." I'm assuming that must be part of their "marketting strategy" also. Sorta like FUD.
Yes. I wonder why Open Source (TM) can't create such simple stuff. I mean, even Microsoft is taking years to create this "simple concept." I've been hearing about this "simple concept" since, oh, what was it, 1995 or 96. Erm. maybe not. I believe those were the years of plug-ins and VRML. Wonder when they will finally deliver my 3D web. I've been waiting for years!
Oh yes! Hitler = Evil, Bill Gates = Hitler, Bill Gates = Evil. Let us please stop equating Bill Gates with evil. This is bullshit jealousy. He stole our web, waa waa! He stole our desktop, waa waa! Grow up. He made money legit, yes legit. It may be considered "hardball," but it was legit. He never went around killing people. This is sad coming from Linux camp. What makes this worse is it is coming from a news source that is representing Linux (and on top of that free software).
Why doesn't the author get off his lazy ass and code. The beauty of free software is anyone can contribute to make it better. If he wants Apache to go towards web services then he, himself, should be the one to throw some cash on the table or get busy coding.
Hmm. I don't know much about the DVD problem (I don't even have a DVD drive/card). The power supply would definately be a problem if you were on an Athlon, but since Athlon would probably crash at random w/ 250W PS (maybe not even work) I'm assuming you have a Pentium-class.
nVidia makes great products, but stability (and compatibility) has never been their strong point. It may be worth checking out Matrox G400 or ATI in this case (after trying everything possible to fix my TNT I was very close to buying a G400, but decided on trying another nVidia product and lucked out).
BTW, you probably know this already, but with nVidia you usually have a choice between 2 drivers you can use. One is the card manufacturer (such as creative labs, elsa, etc.) the other is nVidia reference (Detonator) drivers. Try using both if you haven't already.
Were you using different versions of GLX and the kernel driver? (i.e. GLX 9.6 installed and attempted to use a new driver such as 1.0)
The only cause for crashing that I can see is you had an incorrect GLX installed (maybe even Mesa GLX?).
I'm thinking it's not your drivers. What type of power supply do you have? I used to think it was software problem back when I had a TNT that constantly locked, but it seems to have been a hardware problem. Right now I'm using a geforce2 and have very few problems (I do still get a lockup once in awhile that is exactly like the TNT lockup.. but it is considerably rarer--TNT locked every single time on q3, but only a few times on half-life).
If your nvidia card is crapping out in 2D then it has to be something wrong with the hardware (or maybe a very misconfigured driver).
Hardly. The 1.0 version of GLX extracts into the /usr subdirectories (no need for Makefile). I've been recompiling the kernel driver for a good number of kernel versions without problems. The only time to reinstall GLX is when you get a newer X version (and even that might not matter if you are simply upgrading) or when you get a newer kernel driver.
Other than the believe in superstition, there is no _technical_ reason to keep reinstalling the GLX driver. The GLX and kernel driver are completely seperate from each other.
Uhm. GLX is binary only. The Makefile simply installs it.