"In our efforts to follow the trend, we forgot about our traditional, basic products -- the plastic building bricks -- and we spent all our efforts on new toys that we launched together with films like Star Wars and Harry Potter".
I am the father of a boy that will turn 12 this spring. In the past decade, I bought a lot of Lego for him. It always pissed me off to see that it was near-impossible to buy brick-only set. Most Lego product on the shelves where of the franchise type. These sets where usually much more expensive than generic set, and contain may part that where not really reusable outside of the box theme (ie character's gun, etc). What I want from Lego is bricks, bricks and more bricks (you never have enough of those !). If I really want to buy my kid a Star Wars toy, I'll buy him an action figure, not some overpiced Lego set.
Again, "We will progress forever!" is a fallacy; it contradicts everything we know about physics. Is it absolutely impossible? No, but it's so unreasonable a stance as to be effectively so. There is an upper limit to the amount of computation a given amount of matter can sustain. It's huge. But encryption gets hard exponentially, you can only linearly increase your computation power once you hit the limit by throwing more matter at it. Exponentially rapidly beats linear.
According to today's human knowledge. Unfortunately, science evolve (and quote fast, lately).
Indeed, I don't understand quantum computing. However, this is mostly irrevellant. Be it quantum computing or something else I can't foresee/understand, one day (probably sooner than later, maybe just a few decades away) some computing mechanism will be invented that will put today's computing power to shame. Bref, I speculate that it will be trivial to crack your 128-bit encrypted communication in 20 years (or so).
Current encryption is based on computation that are considered too hard to brute-force to be worth it. I won't feel entirely safe until we have encryption that is impossible to brute-force.
That being said, this does not stop me from living my life and reading my bank report over a 128-bit SSL socket. I am just being realistic about the future prospect of the privacy I am currently enjoying.
Most of the time, I think he is full of shit (I don't read him very often, though) but for once I think he is right on.
Maybe the same thing is true of Linux: it may never be a desktop operating system because the culture values things which prevent it. OS X is the proof: Apple finally created Unix for Aunt Marge, but only because the engineers and managers at Apple were firmly of the end-user culture (which I've been imperialistically calling "the Windows Culture" even though historically it originated at Apple). They rejected the Unix culture's fundamental norm of programmer-centricity. They even renamed core directories -- heretical! -- to use common English words like "applications" and "library" instead of "bin" and "lib."
What Joel miss here here is that Apple did not reject Unix; they BUILT upon it ! OS X is the most glaring example of the success of the "provide machanism, not policy" philosophy. Darwin provide the mechanism, Apple provide the policy, everybody is happy. If Darwin would have enforced policy, Apple may not have been able to rename/bin Application, or/lib "Libraries". Imagine if, somehow, Darwin would have forced the use of X Window and Apple could not have used Quartz...
You know what ? What he exlained in this paper is exactly the reason why I am a Linux users. I am not Aunt Marge. Unix tools and culture had been built with people like me in mind. I am not your typical 99.999% user; why should I use tools built for the lowest common denominator ? Call me an elitist if you want; that's what I am, and Unix make it good to be one.
A collateral effect of having people look at your code is that, assuming you have any pride as a programmer, you will take more care about what you write. I know I make an extra effort when I know my code will have an audience (even if it is just my colleague here).
I know elegant code can have bug too, but I think peer pressure is a good motivaton to write better code.
The problem here would be when the devs shoot themselves in the foot, are unable to clean their own mess and then whine to the sysadmin to fix their setup _in priority_ (because they can't get anything done in the meantime, and that project was due yesterday).
Last week, the CEO of Red Hat, Matthew Szulik, suggested that users stick to Windows for their
business desktops.
.. they are referring to this article, in which the RedHat CEO was not talking about corporate desktop, but about consummer desktop (ie. your mom computer at home):
However, Szulik expects Linux to be ready in a couple of years after it has had time to mature.
In the mean time, he is adamant that corporate users would be surprised by how much the operating system has to offer. "Consumers want USB drivers and digital camera support; but for the enterprise desktop, that is a little bit different - that area is ripe," he said. "We think that the enterprise desktop market place is much more strategic and has buyers whose needs we can exceed."
Are Wired editor getting as bad at quoting as Slashdot ?
The real problem environmentalists miss is the energy issue - we are going to run out of energy long before we ever come close of running out of Alumininum. Aluminum recycling is particularly stupid because it's so cheap to refine in mass quantities.
According to the Aluminium Association of Canada (who should know better than you do), recycling aluminium require 95% less energy. Linkage.
Do the environmentalists have any idea how paper is recycled? It's not friendly - you need very powerful chemicals to break up the bonds to reform into pulp. Where do you think those chemicals go when they're used up?
They are recycled. FYI, I have been working around paper mill recovery boiler (which both produce energy and is part of the caustic liquor recycling chain). My father-in-law still work in the caustic plant of a paper mill, where they finish the recycling process of the chemical that will be reused in the digester (where wood chip is being broken down into pulp). In most (all ?) paper recycling plant, the break-down process is partly mechanical, using less chemical than it used to in the first place.
There is no shortage of land for landfills.
Around city, where most garbage are produce, there is.
There is no shortage of trees. Trees are the least of our problems.
Where I come from, an area totally economically-dependant on lumber, people start to fear it. Between forest fire and savage clear-cut, a tree take 60 years to grow to a profitable economic value. While trees are a renewable ressource, the renewing cycle is very long, thus it should be treated as non-renewable if we don't want to face a temporary shortage.
There is certainly no shortage of either iron or aluminum in the earth's crust.
Certainly, but at which price ? There is plenty of iron in Earth's crust, but most of it can't be extracted profitably.
I know many people who justify their non-recycling lazyness by some pseudo common sense, but rarely see them go as far as you do. Fortunately, this kind of bullshit is easy to debunk. Maybe you are just a troll, after all.
The most interesting statistic coming out of this survey from the POV of an OSS advocate is certainly the "Confidence in open-source development model" option that was a tad below 40%, while "Confidence in Microsoft's business model" was a tiny little natch below 20%. Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that figure about the relative perception of the OSS vs CSS development model.
Also, one of the ad displayed while I was browsing the article was quite ironic IMHO. It was a Microsoft ad claiming that Windows 2k3 provided "UNIX Level Reliability. Without a UNIX-level budget". The irony being that if you are looking for "UNIX-level reliability" at lower cost, you may as well stay in the family and go with Linux... Especially when the next ad for MS claimed "Download free code and boost your productivity". Well, ok, I might just do that by downloading Debian.
Why should sendmail be ripped out of it's role ? Are you wary because of the recent security bugs ? If yes, replacing it with Postfix or qmail might be easier. If not, what is your boss reasonning for replacing sendmail ? Does he have problem keeping sendmail expertise in-house (I agree that sendmail administration is close to black magic) ?
My model M at home is a vintage 1984. It costed me 5 CDN$ in a flea market last year. All key are functionnal and it was'nt very dirty when I bought it. I think you are crazy to buy these for 20~50 USD$ when so many just want to be saved from the dumpster.
There where a few dozen for sale, and they where not selling very fast as I could see. If anybody is interested, I could probably grab a few and ship them for a profit. Only drawback : they have a French-canadian layout (qwerty + accent). Let me know if you are interested.
Well, some applications of it (LDAP for user management) anyway, but that's a subject for a different rant.
Well, I for one would like to hear your rant. Since I found about LDAP, I personnally come to believe that it is the best thing since sliced bread for user management. I am currently building a mail farm that does all it's user authentication and information lookup (aliases, etc) to an Active Directory via LDAP. Also, NIS being what it is, LDAP is pretty much the only single-sign-on scheme that is well supported in Linux.
Come on. Advertising during the frigging install is one thing, spyware is a completely different thing.
I have no problem with ad in the install; it's with the browsing and screen saver part I have problem. Since I have not RTFA, this may well just be typical/. disinformation so I won't be quick to judge Mandrake.
Slashdot Mirror
I am the father of a boy that will turn 12 this spring. In the past decade, I bought a lot of Lego for him. It always pissed me off to see that it was near-impossible to buy brick-only set. Most Lego product on the shelves where of the franchise type. These sets where usually much more expensive than generic set, and contain may part that where not really reusable outside of the box theme (ie character's gun, etc). What I want from Lego is bricks, bricks and more bricks (you never have enough of those !). If I really want to buy my kid a Star Wars toy, I'll buy him an action figure, not some overpiced Lego set.
In theory at least, User Mode Linux should be able to run under Windows.
Er, no. UML is based on Linux kernel,/i> code. Obviously, Linux kernel code don't run on Windows.
According to today's human knowledge. Unfortunately, science evolve (and quote fast, lately).
Indeed, I don't understand quantum computing. However, this is mostly irrevellant. Be it quantum computing or something else I can't foresee/understand, one day (probably sooner than later, maybe just a few decades away) some computing mechanism will be invented that will put today's computing power to shame. Bref, I speculate that it will be trivial to crack your 128-bit encrypted communication in 20 years (or so).
Current encryption is based on computation that are considered too hard to brute-force to be worth it. I won't feel entirely safe until we have encryption that is impossible to brute-force.
That being said, this does not stop me from living my life and reading my bank report over a 128-bit SSL socket. I am just being realistic about the future prospect of the privacy I am currently enjoying.
Two words : quantum computing.
Thanks for the clarification ... so IIUC, MacOS use /Libraries, /Applications, etc while the Darwin core still use the traditionnal /usr, /bin, /lib, etc ?
I know the WOL connector on the motherboard provide 5V, but I wonder how much mA one can pull out of it ?
Think powering an out-of-case device (in my case, a IR receiver).
Most of the time, I think he is full of shit (I don't read him very often, though) but for once I think he is right on.
What Joel miss here here is that Apple did not reject Unix; they BUILT upon it ! OS X is the most glaring example of the success of the "provide machanism, not policy" philosophy. Darwin provide the mechanism, Apple provide the policy, everybody is happy. If Darwin would have enforced policy, Apple may not have been able to rename /bin Application, or /lib "Libraries". Imagine if, somehow, Darwin would have forced the use of X Window and Apple could not have used Quartz ...
You know what ? What he exlained in this paper is exactly the reason why I am a Linux users. I am not Aunt Marge. Unix tools and culture had been built with people like me in mind. I am not your typical 99.999% user; why should I use tools built for the lowest common denominator ? Call me an elitist if you want; that's what I am, and Unix make it good to be one.
A collateral effect of having people look at your code is that, assuming you have any pride as a programmer, you will take more care about what you write. I know I make an extra effort when I know my code will have an audience (even if it is just my colleague here).
I know elegant code can have bug too, but I think peer pressure is a good motivaton to write better code.
I'm not quite sure if you are joking or not ... any, it's definitely not "bum-BARGE-yay" and definitely "bomb-hard-yay".
FIY, the difference between the French spoken in Quebec vs in France is compable to the difference in English spoken in the USofA vs England.
The problem here would be when the devs shoot themselves in the foot, are unable to clean their own mess and then whine to the sysadmin to fix their setup _in priority_ (because they can't get anything done in the meantime, and that project was due yesterday).
I know this from experience.
I suppose when Wired write :
.. they are referring to this article, in which the RedHat CEO was not talking about corporate desktop, but about consummer desktop (ie. your mom computer at home) :
Are Wired editor getting as bad at quoting as Slashdot ?
... is that there are so many to choose from.
Your drivel redlined my bogometer hard :
The real problem environmentalists miss is the energy issue - we are going to run out of energy long before we ever come close of running out of Alumininum. Aluminum recycling is particularly stupid because it's so cheap to refine in mass quantities.
According to the Aluminium Association of Canada (who should know better than you do), recycling aluminium require 95% less energy. Linkage.
Do the environmentalists have any idea how paper is recycled? It's not friendly - you need very powerful chemicals to break up the bonds to reform into pulp. Where do you think those chemicals go when they're used up?
They are recycled. FYI, I have been working around paper mill recovery boiler (which both produce energy and is part of the caustic liquor recycling chain). My father-in-law still work in the caustic plant of a paper mill, where they finish the recycling process of the chemical that will be reused in the digester (where wood chip is being broken down into pulp). In most (all ?) paper recycling plant, the break-down process is partly mechanical, using less chemical than it used to in the first place.
There is no shortage of land for landfills.
Around city, where most garbage are produce, there is.
There is no shortage of trees. Trees are the least of our problems.
Where I come from, an area totally economically-dependant on lumber, people start to fear it. Between forest fire and savage clear-cut, a tree take 60 years to grow to a profitable economic value. While trees are a renewable ressource, the renewing cycle is very long, thus it should be treated as non-renewable if we don't want to face a temporary shortage.
There is certainly no shortage of either iron or aluminum in the earth's crust.
Certainly, but at which price ? There is plenty of iron in Earth's crust, but most of it can't be extracted profitably.
I know many people who justify their non-recycling lazyness by some pseudo common sense, but rarely see them go as far as you do. Fortunately, this kind of bullshit is easy to debunk. Maybe you are just a troll, after all.
The most interesting statistic coming out of this survey from the POV of an OSS advocate is certainly the "Confidence in open-source development model" option that was a tad below 40%, while "Confidence in Microsoft's business model" was a tiny little natch below 20%. Interesting conclusion could be drawn from that figure about the relative perception of the OSS vs CSS development model.
... Especially when the next ad for MS claimed "Download free code and boost your productivity". Well, ok, I might just do that by downloading Debian.
Also, one of the ad displayed while I was browsing the article was quite ironic IMHO. It was a Microsoft ad claiming that Windows 2k3 provided "UNIX Level Reliability. Without a UNIX-level budget". The irony being that if you are looking for "UNIX-level reliability" at lower cost, you may as well stay in the family and go with Linux
OSS needs a killer-app style product/system/something to get the lead, so that microsoft will have to try to be compatible.
We already have one. It's called Apache.
Why should sendmail be ripped out of it's role ? Are you wary because of the recent security bugs ? If yes, replacing it with Postfix or qmail might be easier. If not, what is your boss reasonning for replacing sendmail ? Does he have problem keeping sendmail expertise in-house (I agree that sendmail administration is close to black magic) ?
Ask these guy. Some of them are quite crazy, running "DC farm" and whatnot.
I'm an engineer... what are you ?
I'm not, like most writing code.
My model M at home is a vintage 1984. It costed me 5 CDN$ in a flea market last year. All key are functionnal and it was'nt very dirty when I bought it. I think you are crazy to buy these for 20~50 USD$ when so many just want to be saved from the dumpster.
There where a few dozen for sale, and they where not selling very fast as I could see. If anybody is interested, I could probably grab a few and ship them for a profit. Only drawback : they have a French-canadian layout (qwerty + accent). Let me know if you are interested.
RedHat released their errata about 1.5 hours ago :
l
... NOW !!!
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-279.htm
Patch
It's old news. RedHat does not ship MP3 codec or the CSS library for legal reasons. Yes, it suck.
I wished that ugly Penguinistas monicker would have stayed at Ars.
Go back to the AV Club you fool !
Well, some applications of it (LDAP for user management) anyway, but that's a subject for a different rant.
Well, I for one would like to hear your rant. Since I found about LDAP, I personnally come to believe that it is the best thing since sliced bread for user management. I am currently building a mail farm that does all it's user authentication and information lookup (aliases, etc) to an Active Directory via LDAP. Also, NIS being what it is, LDAP is pretty much the only single-sign-on scheme that is well supported in Linux.
Come on. Advertising during the frigging install is one thing, spyware is a completely different thing.
I have no problem with ad in the install; it's with the browsing and screen saver part I have problem. Since I have not RTFA, this may well just be typical /. disinformation so I won't be quick to judge Mandrake.