How long until the 2.2.x series is considered done
on
Linux 2.2.4
·
· Score: 1
The 2.0.x kernel is still being fixed. i think 2.0.38 is being worked towards, with alan cox (the maintainer) looking at one more release (2.0.39) before putting it to bed (except for security issues).
i'm sure some people still use the 1.2.x series, and i bet they patch it on their own. software development is never done. at best it pauses.
There's a divide and conquer thread. Didn't read it, but if people wonder what proprietary vendors will do to combat Linux, there's one.
Red Hat's work is open for all to see. I fail to see Microsoft connections, which brings me to another point: Microsoft bashing.
There are some people who support Linux only because they begrudge the success of MS. That's not helpful to the field, and in the end it's not helpful to Linux. Red Hat is feeling the heat from those people.
defining the minimal sets of compatability will be hard, but diversity isn't bad in and of itself.
some people have commented on it (bob young is one), but linux is, and has been for over a year, attracting people from new backgrounds. windows in particular. soon, a lot of mac developers are going to pop up since they'll be learning unix skills anyway for macos x.
i'm a unix bigot, i can't see much of value coming from the windows world. i can see some good ui stuff coming from mac people, but i dunno much about macos gui access - methinks they're skipping x and doing their own stuff. that's a loss.
i really don't see anything wrong with a giant redhat, nor do i see anything wrong with more competition in the distribution arena. as long as it's gpl'd and open, we'll be safe. now if some company uses a linux kernel and proprietary code from init on up in a completely nonstandard config... well, then the linux community is in trouble. it'd be a lot of work though.
you know, apple could put a big ad in national papers asking why bell atlantic is stopping apple consumers from using their service. or something. why doesn't *apple* do something.
the knock on free s/w is that it isn't supported. apple's a big company, where's their support?
they could do something - are they? if not, why not? any apple people care to respond?
send me email if you're looking to install linux on saturday in the ranelagh area (near the barge and the charlemont st. bridge) in dublin, ireland. it's not a big event since i'm doing it in my flat.
yeah, whatever. i'm guessing the losers who post that have contributed squat to any free s/w project. one big goose egg. get a life.
i hate to reply to these morons, but not doing so gives the impression that they're in the majority. i'm sure for every negative post, there are 100 positive readers - who most likely don't read comments to jon katz posts since they're filled with mindless crap.
good, a bunch of you don't like him. wonderful! we've figured it out; we've all gotten the point the first 2^128 times you made it. now shut the fuck up.
Microsoft owes you nothing...
on
Refund Day
·
· Score: 1
i see you read the newsletter.
twerp.
they called the manufacturer - no joy. each manufacturer. microsoft and the vendors laid out a policy in the eula, and now aren't implementing it. the eula was created with each vendor: microsoft and toshiba, microsoft and dell, microsoft and compaq, microsoft and gateway... sensing a trend here?
the people requesting a refund are speaking to the one company in common, the one company that has their money, and the one company who's product they aren't using.
for harrassment, extortion, emotional distress, whatever. make them pay. if we *must* have s/w and similar patents there should be a penalty for people who patent obvious things. this was done in JUNE of 1998 for crying out loud. mp3 shouldn't just defend themselves they should go into serious attack mode. heck, i'd even suggest looking into who is backing mr. hair (the twit who "invented" transmitting audio and video - what's pay per view coupled with a vcr?). wonder how far away riaa is...
this is insane. at best, it's a copy protection device (good). people who support free software should loudly praise, promote, and support intel's psn. why? simple:
1. it really doesn't affect free software, it's not useful since free software doesn't need a per-processor license.
2. it does affect closed software. it helps enforce their licensing schemes. If companies had to pay the full amount for their Microsoft Office software, maybe they'd look around for alternatives.
look kids, i really doubt the free version of mozilla will spew PSN's to every web site that requests it. i suspect the Linux kernel will either have a way to disable it, munge it, or warn that it exists. the new/dev/cmos may be a step towards solving it. at the very least it should be simple enough to write a util to skim executables that have a PSN extraction code (unless it's cleverly hidden in data segments of the like).
PSN's help free software in my mind. it's just one more bit of advocacy for linux and the *bsd's. free software offers platform independence, and it offers the ability to not let companies leak info about you.
so go intel. implement a psn just like sparc's and other workstation class cpu's have done before you. make deals with companies who think they'll get more demographic info. and then let eric raymond, robert young, netscape/mozilla, and all the others involved in free (and open) software explain to the people that their privacy is still quite safe. with linux/*bsd.
what was served by bringing it down? the guy had something nifty and he wanted to let the world see it. fine, he apparently left it wide open, *must* people go in?
every time i get into my car, open the door to my house, or all the other key/pin/card requiring thing i do in life i resent it. i resent that the assholes of the world require me to carry around a little piece of useless metal. that i need to bend over backwards to have the p.o. deliver a package rather then just open my door, and leave it inside. that i can't just lend my friend my car when i'm not around to give them the keys.
right now we use technology, from locks to crypto, to protect ourselves from our own lack of respect of each other.
This story is amazing. Don't people have any memories? CPUID's have existed a looooong time. Sun SPARC's have them for s/w licensing purposes (as far as I've seen them used at least). A quick search on dejanews or some similar usenet archiving system will turn up questions on getting an id on a computer, again for licensing systems. In my mind that's what Intel's CPUID is most useful for. Using it as some unique customer ID is just goofy, and denies the realities of upgrades, people sharing computers, and a rapidly changing industry.
In your article someone mentioned using ethernet card (NIC) MAC's to seed random number generators and to provide a unique ID. Awful. First, computers can have zero to many NIC's, so which MAC (if available) do you pick? MAC's only need to be unique on a LAN and most cards let you set them. MAC's *are* published on a LAN - it's their whole point - so they certainly aren't private. In general software developers looking to MAC's for a unique ID for licensing have been told it won't work for those and other reasons.
If there's one thing USENET and the 'net in general are good info resorces for, it's technical info. I wish to god journalists would ***DO SOME RESEARCH FIRST***!!!!
developers of licensed software have been asking for a cpuid/hostid for years. they had them on sparc's and other real computers, now intel finally has them. good. that means more companies will consider writing unix software for intel chips. of course free software won't need such things.
their web site has an email link - tell them to pressure frankenhuafer, or whoever they are, to release an open source version of mp3/4. alternatively suggest an open source alternative (is there one?) personally i'd rather see an open source version of mp3/4. the idea of free software is to write it once, not recode things over and over like closed source requires.
chances are they don't know. educate them. help them out. they are trying
microsoft isn't doing well with msn. aol now has a possible avenue to the desktop (netscape + sun|linux + corel|applix partnership) and a successful cash flow to fund it (isp business). at&t is a huge communication company that could hammer isp sompetition if they had a larger customer base. microsoft now wants to sell msn to at&t *and* get some free promotion. if it goes through, aol and at&t can beat each other up and microsoft ends up with one or two softer semi-competitors - one of which will be quite grateful.
pretty damn smart actually. if the people who wrote code at microsoft were half as smart as the marketting/business folks nt would have multi-year uptimes...
one more datapoint: some men aren't working because women in their positions get paid less.
several years ago i heard a report on npr about companies that were laying off older men (high pay) and promoting women to fill their place (lower pay).
i'm male, and supporting equal pay for equal work suddenly seem like it's in my own self interest, doesn't it? amazing how many things that "aren't in my self interest" actually are...
Slashdot Mirror
The 2.0.x kernel is still being fixed. i think 2.0.38 is being worked towards, with alan cox (the maintainer) looking at one more release (2.0.39) before putting it to bed (except for security issues).
i'm sure some people still use the 1.2.x series, and i bet they patch it on their own. software development is never done. at best it pauses.
There's a divide and conquer thread. Didn't read it, but if people wonder what proprietary vendors will do to combat Linux, there's one.
Red Hat's work is open for all to see. I fail to see Microsoft connections, which brings me to another point: Microsoft bashing.
There are some people who support Linux only because they begrudge the success of MS. That's not helpful to the field, and in the end it's not helpful to Linux. Red Hat is feeling the heat from those people.
just a thought, but could it be the debugging info that it spews plus the assertions thoughout the code that slow it down? maybe?
defining the minimal sets of compatability will be hard, but diversity isn't bad in and of itself.
some people have commented on it (bob young is one), but linux is, and has been for over a year, attracting people from new backgrounds. windows in particular. soon, a lot of mac developers are going to pop up since they'll be learning unix skills anyway for macos x.
i'm a unix bigot, i can't see much of value coming from the windows world. i can see some good ui stuff coming from mac people, but i dunno much about macos gui access - methinks they're skipping x and doing their own stuff. that's a loss.
i really don't see anything wrong with a giant redhat, nor do i see anything wrong with more competition in the distribution arena. as long as it's gpl'd and open, we'll be safe. now if some company uses a linux kernel and proprietary code from init on up in a completely nonstandard config... well, then the linux community is in trouble. it'd be a lot of work though.
why not add a mailto link to his name - it's vice.president@whitehouse.gov .
you know, apple could put a big ad in national papers asking why bell atlantic is stopping apple consumers from using their service. or something. why doesn't *apple* do something.
the knock on free s/w is that it isn't supported. apple's a big company, where's their support?
they could do something - are they? if not, why not? any apple people care to respond?
oh man, it's a conspiracy. you're right. let's see, of all the issues of the world we should expend energy on:
crisis in kosovo
bugs in gnome
the flood tribunal
dublin's transportation issues
how much money rob makes
yep, the last one. that's definitely going to affect my life the most.
otoh, maybe you just need to get a life. asshole.
send me email if you're looking to install linux on saturday in the ranelagh area (near the barge and the charlemont st. bridge) in dublin, ireland. it's not a big event since i'm doing it in my flat.
kevin
"katz sucks, he doesn't contribute."
yeah, whatever. i'm guessing the losers who post that have contributed squat to any free s/w project. one big goose egg. get a life.
i hate to reply to these morons, but not doing so gives the impression that they're in the majority. i'm sure for every negative post, there are 100 positive readers - who most likely don't read comments to jon katz posts since they're filled with mindless crap.
good, a bunch of you don't like him. wonderful! we've figured it out; we've all gotten the point the first 2^128 times you made it. now shut the fuck up.
i see you read the newsletter.
twerp.
they called the manufacturer - no joy. each manufacturer. microsoft and the vendors laid out a policy in the eula, and now aren't implementing it. the eula was created with each vendor: microsoft and toshiba, microsoft and dell, microsoft and compaq, microsoft and gateway... sensing a trend here?
the people requesting a refund are speaking to the one company in common, the one company that has their money, and the one company who's product they aren't using.
seems pretty simple, eh?
for harrassment, extortion, emotional distress, whatever. make them pay. if we *must* have s/w and similar patents there should be a penalty for people who patent obvious things. this was done in JUNE of 1998 for crying out loud. mp3 shouldn't just defend themselves they should go into serious attack mode. heck, i'd even suggest looking into who is backing mr. hair (the twit who "invented" transmitting audio and video - what's pay per view coupled with a vcr?). wonder how far away riaa is...
this is insane. at best, it's a copy protection device (good). people who support free software should loudly praise, promote, and support intel's psn. why? simple:
/dev/cmos may be a step towards solving it. at the very least it should be simple enough to write a util to skim executables that have a PSN extraction code (unless it's cleverly hidden in data segments of the like).
1. it really doesn't affect free software, it's not useful since free software doesn't need a per-processor license.
2. it does affect closed software. it helps enforce their licensing schemes. If companies had to pay the full amount for their Microsoft Office software, maybe they'd look around for alternatives.
look kids, i really doubt the free version of mozilla will spew PSN's to every web site that requests it. i suspect the Linux kernel will either have a way to disable it, munge it, or warn that it exists. the new
PSN's help free software in my mind. it's just one more bit of advocacy for linux and the *bsd's. free software offers platform independence, and it offers the ability to not let companies leak info about you.
so go intel. implement a psn just like sparc's and other workstation class cpu's have done before you. make deals with companies who think they'll get more demographic info. and then let eric raymond, robert young, netscape/mozilla, and all the others involved in free (and open) software explain to the people that their privacy is still quite safe. with linux/*bsd.
what was served by bringing it down? the guy had something nifty and he wanted to let the world see it. fine, he apparently left it wide open, *must* people go in?
every time i get into my car, open the door to my house, or all the other key/pin/card requiring thing i do in life i resent it. i resent that the assholes of the world require me to carry around a little piece of useless metal. that i need to bend over backwards to have the p.o. deliver a package rather then just open my door, and leave it inside. that i can't just lend my friend my car when i'm not around to give them the keys.
right now we use technology, from locks to crypto, to protect ourselves from our own lack of respect of each other.
This story is amazing. Don't people have any memories? CPUID's have
existed a looooong time. Sun SPARC's have them for s/w licensing purposes
(as far as I've seen them used at least). A quick search on dejanews or
some similar usenet archiving system will turn up questions on getting
an id on a computer, again for licensing systems. In my mind that's
what Intel's CPUID is most useful for. Using it as some unique customer
ID is just goofy, and denies the realities of upgrades, people sharing
computers, and a rapidly changing industry.
In your article someone mentioned using ethernet card (NIC) MAC's to seed
random number generators and to provide a unique ID. Awful. First,
computers can have zero to many NIC's, so which MAC (if available) do
you pick? MAC's only need to be unique on a LAN and most cards let you
set them. MAC's *are* published on a LAN - it's their whole point - so
they certainly aren't private. In general software developers looking
to MAC's for a unique ID for licensing have been told it won't work for
those and other reasons.
If there's one thing USENET and the 'net in general are good info resorces
for, it's technical info. I wish to god journalists would ***DO SOME
RESEARCH FIRST***!!!!
wait, is linux competition or not? will people be replacing windows with linux, or no?
hope the gov't attorneys bring this up in the trial...
developers of licensed software have been asking for a cpuid/hostid for years. they had them on sparc's and other real computers, now intel finally has them. good. that means more companies will consider writing unix software for intel chips. of course free software won't need such things.
as for the paranoid bit - oh give it up.
their web site has an email link - tell them to pressure frankenhuafer, or whoever they are, to release an open source version of mp3/4. alternatively suggest an open source alternative (is there one?) personally i'd rather see an open source version of mp3/4. the idea of free software is to write it once, not recode things over and over like closed source requires.
chances are they don't know. educate them. help them out. they are trying
microsoft isn't doing well with msn. aol now has a possible avenue to the desktop (netscape + sun|linux + corel|applix partnership) and a successful cash flow to fund it (isp business). at&t is a huge communication company that could hammer isp sompetition if they had a larger customer base. microsoft now wants to sell msn to at&t *and* get some free promotion. if it goes through, aol and at&t can beat each other up and microsoft ends up with one or two softer semi-competitors - one of which will be quite grateful.
pretty damn smart actually. if the people who wrote code at microsoft were half as smart as the marketting/business folks nt would have multi-year uptimes...
one more datapoint: some men aren't working because women in their positions get paid less.
several years ago i heard a report on npr about companies that were laying off older men (high pay) and promoting women to fill their place (lower pay).
i'm male, and supporting equal pay for equal work suddenly seem like it's in my own self interest, doesn't it? amazing how many things that "aren't in my self interest" actually are...