Yet another rather good application for Linux that I _would_ buy if it was priced reasonably
I agree 100% - my employer bought me a copy, I certainly wouldn't use it otherwise. The only feature I really like is the context help, showing class members and such. Also, specifically for Java, there is a listing of all classes with all members which is useful...
Although all those features could be semi-easily added to existing free (open source) editors...vi and emacs come to mind.
Not sure what you mean... In C, some_struct_pointer-> pops up a list of members, as does some_struct_name. (the '.' activates the popup) In Java, some_class_name. pops up the members. Always worked without chnage for me, maybe you should check the manual if it's not working for you...
By far, my favorite feature is the popup Intellisense, when you're working with an object or struct and type "." or "->" you get a window with the details of the object at that level.
Slickedit is expensive ($299), and closed source, and most of its (and other editors) features can be reproduced in vi and emacs, but I like it. Especially the feature you mention.
I didn't see a requirement to digitally sign the email, and if worried about being anonymous, why sign it? Use a hotmail (or other) email account to claim the booty.
I'll wager the NSA doesn't need you to sign your emails anyway, I'm sure they know who you are or can find out...
Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music.
No, actually Lars himself gave the reason in the interview.
Ok. Lars says that it is ok for a person to copy their friend's music. Now, this amounts to one person copying another's music using a tape deck or CD burner. This is no different than one person copying another person's music using Napster!
Lars mentions that that one person copying a friend's tape is lower quality than using Napster, but this is not a valid point; is it ok to copy a tape, but not a CD? Many people have CD burners/duplicators. If tape copying is ok, CD copying is ok too. After all, who among us can really tell the difference in a master tape and a copied tape (assuming a good tape dubber)?
Lars' last point was the quantity of Napster. This is just silly. Ok, Lars, why don't you tell us exactly what the cut-off on copied tapes is? If one is ok, is 10? Can I copy 20 of my friend's records? 100?
And (look at the last line) " The Prize for the first person to email us a deciphered text along with the method employed in the crack will be an ancient Gold Roman coin. The Judges decision is final. "
Also you have to encrypt using their PGP key, not yours, so you aren't 'proving your identity', just (hopefully) making sure nobody besides them can read your email. However that doesn't mean the NSA/Men In Black won't say hello if you crack it.
Question: My memory has all the requirements listed above, but it also has ECC (Error Correction Code). Is that a good thing?
Answer: ECC is an excellent function for memory, but it is of no advantage for your new AMD Athlon processor-based system. In fact, it may slow down the performance of your new system. You may want to consider using memory that is not ECC.
Not quite true, when ODP started (just under 2 years ago) it was totally independent. After around 9 months, it was then sold to Netscape as it fitted in with their 'open software' system. AOL then brought Netscape in July last year.
Why are you replying to me? Where did you get the idea that I'm "up in arms"? I don't care about dmoz, I don't think it will get 'big' enough to draw AOL's attention, and Netscape is cool (enough) and smart (enough) to leave it the way it is.
The issue here (and it's only an issue, to me at least, becuase Time-Warner now owns dmoz thru AOL/Netscape, and Time-Warner are !@#$s) is, dmoz now is free (along with most if not all search engines). Let's say I submit an entry, thinking everyone will get free access to this entry. Then, later, dmoz changes the rules and people have to be 'members' and are charged for access to the entries. Obviously, I, and anyone else who put any significant (not 5 minute's worth) work into dmoz would be understandably upset that the work they did is now owned by dmoz, and dmoz is charging for it.
What does it matter if dmoz gets sold off to AOL/TimeWarner?
Umm...AOL owns Netscape. So, since Netscape owns dmoz, AOL/Time Warner has owned dmoz from the beginning. I think you're missing the point here; it's not an issue of selling this to 'the highest bidder' but an issue of someone donating their own time, for free, to a project, and then Aol/Time Warner trying to sell the donated information. That is an issue worth considering. I certainly wouldn't do it.
By its popularity (the suite has been downloaded more than 2 million times), Star Office has done more for Linux than just about any other application, Love said.
Most open source projects don't really care (or keep count of) how many 'downloads' they get, because open source success is measured in the quality, not quantity of a project.
Users who make changes to software such as the Gimp image manipulation software must publish those changes under various open-source licenses, but the mere fact that there is a license obliging users to share code means that someone has set proprietary parameters on the use of the software.
No, they do not have to publish the modified source code if the product is not distributed. However, if the modified product is distributed, then they must also provide the modified source code. If it's used in-house only the modified source code does not have to be released.
Linux has provided developers with open access, and that has made it more flexible and more suited for the challenges of Internet computing.
Ok...what exactly is "Internet computing" and how is it different from "non-Internet computing"?
Citing the rough and tumble of the market, Love called for an evolution of Linux from a diverse platform to products that businesses would buy to improve their productivity in specific tasks.
Do you mean 'evolve' Linux, or write more applications that businesses can use?
Love's road map for that evolution would take Linux from being a packaged OS to products that include a subset of all the OS features, products that make installation of the OS easier, and tools that make management and administration of Linux easier.
A true visionary, I wonder why nobody else already thought of this.
Caldera will offer a product that offers browser-based administration of Linux with a GUI, Love said.
Yes, browser-based administration, because browsers never crash. And of course using X just won't work, because, uh, well...actually it has always been a networked design. And using 128 (or higher) bit encryption via ssh is at least as good as a browser's encryption (without all the bloat of a browser).
"It's one thing to facilitate open access, but another to demand it. That's what you are trying to get away from."
What? Who's this guy talking to? Who's trying to get away from open access to source code? Micro$oft? Oh, yeah, they are...
I'm wondering if this guy really knows anything about the open source movement or Linux, because most of what he says is either incorrect or redundant. His description of the GPL's requirements is wrong. His vision to provide remote administration of Linux is easily accomplished using X (which we all use already) and can be encrypted with ssh for secure administration.
I had a class some time ago (in college) where laptops were provided (ie. chained to the desks). I played solitaire all class, and I suspect many of the other students did so too...I'm not a slacker either, I got an A in that class, but only because I read the book. I didn't pay attention to the professor at all.
The point is, students already feel like classes are boring (not all, but more than a few, I'll bet) and look for something to distract them. If laptops are in the classroom, this will only distract students, not help. I fully, totally, agree with everyone having a computer (laptop, whatever) at an early age, but I don't think it belongs in the classroom unless it is being used properly. For example, a lecture on computers or the internet. On the other hand, if it's only to let everyone view a certain web page with educational info on it, it's going to be much cheaper to get one computer and a projector (that can be shared in the school).
it was hardly available to the average joe back then (universities, govt's and some businesses).
And I should have mentioned also that the RIPE whois you mention does show that University of Cambridge did have internet access at that time (and presumably AT&T Labs @ Cambridge too, though I don't think it was AT&T then). So it would have been possible to connect it to the internet at that time.
Yes, you're right the internet was around in 1991 (and earlier). I should have said, World Wide Web, possibly, since it was hardly available to the average joe back then (universities, govt's and some businesses). From the Coffee Pot's biography:
"It started back in the dark days of 1991, when the World Wide Web was little more than a glint in CERN's eye."
Also known as the Trojan Room Coffee Pot, which is located in the Trojan Room. It was around in 1991, but not connected to the internet (there wasn't one then) until later (see the biography).
Cool. If speed isn't an issue, then price is. If this is faster or as fast as SDRAM, it will replace SDRAM. However, I don't think these will ever compete with traditional magnetic harddrives. These will be VERY expensive in comparison, and only people who are willing to spend lots of money for (physical) stability (it's Solid State, ie. no moving parts) and possibly faster access time. So maybe big servers could use this, but, only if it's less expensive than RAID (but RAID has redundancy...) or if the server is located inside a paint mixing machine...;-)
SO, sure, this will replace/compete with NVRAM. And depending (a lot!) on price, it may replace SDRAM. But I doubt if it will replace physical (platter) hard drives (which, I should add, they are not claiming in the article...). I will say, though, that if they can get the price down to anywhere near traditional drives (now, about $10 per GB or less) then this will replace hard drives!
Although Nando's website looks different than the News and Observer's website, the content is basically the same, except for local news (Raleigh). The N&O has been a HIGHLY conservative newspaper for a long time and I never read it.
That would eliminate the long wires needed to connect the memory to the control unit, "so the whole computer operation itself will be significantly speeded up," Yoder said.
Long wires are not the only thing that makes data storage slow; they gave no numbers on the read/write speeds here, and I'm not convinced that this is going to be fast. There is already an abundance of NVRAM (Non-Volatile RAM) available (eg. SanDisk), but it's VERY expensive (eg. 16MB = $75.00). The read is fast for Flash RAM, but writes are real slow. This, however, isn't Flash...
The real issue I see there is they're trying to say that this will be the normal RAM for a system, and that it won't be erased on reboot - think about this - if you crash WinDoze, you want the memory to be rebooted! You don't want the pooter to be in the same state upon reboot!!! If they're trying to use this as some kind of ROM that gets copied into the RAM on startup, well, that's already around. The only thing I see this doing is replacing NVRAM (eg, Flash, CMOS, etc), which will replace hard drives when it gets cheap (and fast) enough.
I think the fact that Corel is willing to PAY its employees to write open source code is GREAT! The only reason they forked (temporarily, to get a specific product done by a deadline - see Their WINE page) is because they wanted a UI (they used KDE) and the real WINE team wanted an abstract UI layer (so WINE wouldn't be stuck with one UI, or have to maintain multiple UIs in the codebase). Of course any programmer (should) know that the real WINE team is right, and I'm sure the COREL team knows that too, but I am very sympathetic with them needing a UI by their deadline. Ok, fine; they develop one, but it shouldn't go into the core WINE, it's just to get the UI job done until the abstract layer is in place (then plug the KDE UI into that). I think COREL's decision to develop exclusively on their own fork is just due to deadlines. Remember, open source projects don't have corporate deadlines, but companies do! Be glad these people are team players, and let them meet their deadlines - then (hopefully) they'll work with the real WINE team to integrate the forks! Give COREL the credit it deserves, they are paying people to write open code. They're ok in my book.
I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:
THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?
The biggest problem is, once your are on Mars, how do you leave? Everything we sent to Mars is still on the surface, because like Earth, you have to get out of the gravitational pull! The moon is small enough that a lander can get off without problems, but Mars is about the same gravity as Earth, so anything that lands is staying there, unless it also brings a launch pad and enough fuel to launch (Yeah right!)
That alone is the biggest reason people have not gone to Mars (on a manned flight). It's a death sentece, until we can get out of the atmosphere w/o a high-powered launch.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another rather good application for Linux that I _would_ buy if it was priced reasonably
I agree 100% - my employer bought me a copy, I certainly wouldn't use it otherwise. The only feature I really like is the context help, showing class members and such. Also, specifically for Java, there is a listing of all classes with all members which is useful...
Although all those features could be semi-easily added to existing free (open source) editors...vi and emacs come to mind.
Not sure what you mean...
In C, some_struct_pointer-> pops up a list of members, as does some_struct_name. (the '.' activates the popup)
In Java, some_class_name. pops up the members.
Always worked without chnage for me, maybe you should check the manual if it's not working for you...
What other parts of the system have to be upgraded in order to make a smooth transition?
/etc/fstab
/var/shm shm defaults 0 0
What I had to do, but certainly not everything:
1 . Add shared mem fs to
none
2 . Get new modutils (from kernel.org or mirror)
3 . Get new kernel, compile, install, lilo, reboot!
I'm not using devfs, however, and that may take extra steps.
By far, my favorite feature is the popup Intellisense, when you're working with an object or struct and type "." or "->" you get a window with the details of the object at that level.
Visual Slickedit has this and many more features and is availble for almost all UNIXes. Trial versions are available.
Slickedit is expensive ($299), and closed source, and most of its (and other editors) features can be reproduced in vi and emacs, but I like it. Especially the feature you mention.
Incidentally the latest issue of Linux Journal has a review of Visual Slickedit.
...it's getting downloaded first: 800x faster then a modem, 4 hour download time, so that's what, a terabyte?
No, they said it was 50 Gbytes. 50 Gbytes * 8 bits/byte = 400 Gbits
400 Gbits / 4 hr = 100 Gbits/hr
100 Gbits/hr / 3600 secs/hr = 1/36 Gbits/sec
1/36 Gbits/sec ~= 28Mbits/sec
Hmm...somewhere between a T1 and a T3...
I didn't see a requirement to digitally sign the email, and if worried about being anonymous, why sign it? Use a hotmail (or other) email account to claim the booty.
I'll wager the NSA doesn't need you to sign your emails anyway, I'm sure they know who you are or can find out...
Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music.
No, actually Lars himself gave the reason in the interview.
Ok. Lars says that it is ok for a person to copy their friend's music. Now, this amounts to one person copying another's music using a tape deck or CD burner. This is no different than one person copying another person's music using Napster!
Lars mentions that that one person copying a friend's tape is lower quality than using Napster, but this is not a valid point; is it ok to copy a tape, but not a CD? Many people have CD burners/duplicators. If tape copying is ok, CD copying is ok too. After all, who among us can really tell the difference in a master tape and a copied tape (assuming a good tape dubber)?
Lars' last point was the quantity of Napster. This is just silly. Ok, Lars, why don't you tell us exactly what the cut-off on copied tapes is? If one is ok, is 10? Can I copy 20 of my friend's records? 100?
There are 5 different messages to crack :
1.E3 (The Lincolnshire Poacher)
2.E5 (CIA Counting Station)
3.E22 (New Station!)
4.E10 (Phonetic Alphabet Station)
5.G2 (The Swedish Rhapsody)
And (look at the last line) " The Prize for the first person to email us a deciphered text along with the method employed in the crack will be an ancient Gold Roman coin. The Judges decision is final. "
Also you have to encrypt using their PGP key, not yours, so you aren't 'proving your identity', just (hopefully) making sure nobody besides them can read your email. However that doesn't mean the NSA/Men In Black won't say hello if you crack it.
See the AMD Athlon FAQ, question :
Question:
My memory has all the requirements listed above, but it also has ECC (Error Correction Code). Is that a good thing?
Answer:
ECC is an excellent function for memory, but it is of no advantage for your new AMD Athlon processor-based system. In fact, it may slow down the performance of your new system. You may want to consider using memory that is not ECC.
notepad doesn't support keyboard shortcuts like ctrl-s and ctrl-a. argh!
Sure it does!
Try Ctrl-Alt-Del sometime, it supports that wonderfully!
This company does not prosecute your spam, they only send it to your state representative. They also have an extensive list of spam that they want to to sign up to receive!!!
A (major, I'm guessing) partner in this is Choose Your Mail . com, which let you decide what spam to get. Yeah right...
Not quite true, when ODP started (just under 2 years ago) it was totally independent. After around 9 months, it was then sold to Netscape as it fitted in with their 'open software' system. AOL then brought Netscape in July last year.
;)
Ok, ok. You got me.
So I'm no history major.
Why are you replying to me? Where did you get the idea that I'm "up in arms"? I don't care about dmoz, I don't think it will get 'big' enough to draw AOL's attention, and Netscape is cool (enough) and smart (enough) to leave it the way it is.
The issue here (and it's only an issue, to me at least, becuase Time-Warner now owns dmoz thru AOL/Netscape, and Time-Warner are !@#$s) is, dmoz now is free (along with most if not all search engines). Let's say I submit an entry, thinking everyone will get free access to this entry. Then, later, dmoz changes the rules and people have to be 'members' and are charged for access to the entries. Obviously, I, and anyone else who put any significant (not 5 minute's worth) work into dmoz would be understandably upset that the work they did is now owned by dmoz, and dmoz is charging for it.
What does it matter if dmoz gets sold off to AOL/TimeWarner?
Umm...AOL owns Netscape. So, since Netscape owns dmoz, AOL/Time Warner has owned dmoz from the beginning. I think you're missing the point here; it's not an issue of selling this to 'the highest bidder' but an issue of someone donating their own time, for free, to a project, and then Aol/Time Warner trying to sell the donated information. That is an issue worth considering. I certainly wouldn't do it.
By its popularity (the suite has been downloaded more than 2 million times), Star Office has done more for Linux than just about any other application, Love said.
Most open source projects don't really care (or keep count of) how many 'downloads' they get, because open source success is measured in the quality, not quantity of a project.
Users who make changes to software such as the Gimp image manipulation software must publish those changes under various open-source licenses, but the mere fact that there is a license obliging users to share code means that someone has set proprietary parameters on the use of the software.
No, they do not have to publish the modified source code if the product is not distributed. However, if the modified product is distributed, then they must also provide the modified source code. If it's used in-house only the modified source code does not have to be released.
Linux has provided developers with open access, and that has made it more flexible and more suited for the challenges of Internet computing.
Ok...what exactly is "Internet computing" and how is it different from "non-Internet computing"?
Citing the rough and tumble of the market, Love called for an evolution of Linux from a diverse platform to products that businesses would buy to improve their productivity in specific tasks.
Do you mean 'evolve' Linux, or write more applications that businesses can use?
Love's road map for that evolution would take Linux from being a packaged OS to products that include a subset of all the OS features, products that make installation of the OS easier, and tools that make management and administration of Linux easier.
A true visionary, I wonder why nobody else already thought of this.
Caldera will offer a product that offers browser-based administration of Linux with a GUI, Love said.
Yes, browser-based administration, because browsers never crash. And of course using X just won't work, because, uh, well...actually it has always been a networked design. And using 128 (or higher) bit encryption via ssh is at least as good as a browser's encryption (without all the bloat of a browser).
"It's one thing to facilitate open access, but another to demand it. That's what you are trying to get away from."
What? Who's this guy talking to? Who's trying to get away from open access to source code? Micro$oft? Oh, yeah, they are...
I'm wondering if this guy really knows anything about the open source movement or Linux, because most of what he says is either incorrect or redundant. His description of the GPL's requirements is wrong. His vision to provide remote administration of Linux is easily accomplished using X (which we all use already) and can be encrypted with ssh for secure administration.
I had a class some time ago (in college) where laptops were provided (ie. chained to the desks). I played solitaire all class, and I suspect many of the other students did so too...I'm not a slacker either, I got an A in that class, but only because I read the book. I didn't pay attention to the professor at all.
The point is, students already feel like classes are boring (not all, but more than a few, I'll bet) and look for something to distract them. If laptops are in the classroom, this will only distract students, not help. I fully, totally, agree with everyone having a computer (laptop, whatever) at an early age, but I don't think it belongs in the classroom unless it is being used properly. For example, a lecture on computers or the internet. On the other hand, if it's only to let everyone view a certain web page with educational info on it, it's going to be much cheaper to get one computer and a projector (that can be shared in the school).
it was hardly available to the average joe back then (universities, govt's and some businesses).
And I should have mentioned also that the RIPE whois you mention does show that University of Cambridge did have internet access at that time (and presumably AT&T Labs @ Cambridge too, though I don't think it was AT&T then). So it would have been possible to connect it to the internet at that time.
Yes, you're right the internet was around in 1991 (and earlier). I should have said, World Wide Web, possibly, since it was hardly available to the average joe back then (universities, govt's and some businesses). From the Coffee Pot's biography:
"It started back in the dark days of 1991, when the World Wide Web was little more than a glint in CERN's eye."
Also known as the Trojan Room Coffee Pot, which is located in the Trojan Room. It was around in 1991, but not connected to the internet (there wasn't one then) until later (see the biography).
A close relative (but much younger) is AT&T Laboratories Cambridge's Smart Beverage Dispenser. It, however, does not yet conform to rfc2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0), and rfc2325, Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2, "is not sufficiently flexible to represent the advanced multiple beverage dispenser". But, "Development of a revised MIB supporting multiple dynamic beverage options is under way". Hooray!
I doubt that speed is going to be an issue.
;-)
Cool.
If speed isn't an issue, then price is. If this is faster or as fast as SDRAM, it will replace SDRAM.
However, I don't think these will ever compete with traditional magnetic harddrives. These will be VERY expensive in comparison, and only people who are willing to spend lots of money for (physical) stability (it's Solid State, ie. no moving parts) and possibly faster access time. So maybe big servers could use this, but, only if it's less expensive than RAID (but RAID has redundancy...) or if the server is located inside a paint mixing machine...
SO, sure, this will replace/compete with NVRAM.
And depending (a lot!) on price, it may replace SDRAM.
But I doubt if it will replace physical (platter) hard drives (which, I should add, they are not claiming in the article...).
I will say, though, that if they can get the price down to anywhere near traditional drives (now, about $10 per GB or less) then this will replace hard drives!
Although Nando's website looks different than the News and Observer's website, the content is basically the same, except for local news (Raleigh). The N&O has been a HIGHLY conservative newspaper for a long time and I never read it.
That would eliminate the long wires needed to connect the memory to the control unit, "so the whole computer operation itself will be significantly speeded up," Yoder said.
Long wires are not the only thing that makes data storage slow; they gave no numbers on the read/write speeds here, and I'm not convinced that this is going to be fast. There is already an abundance of NVRAM (Non-Volatile RAM) available (eg. SanDisk), but it's VERY expensive (eg. 16MB = $75.00). The read is fast for Flash RAM, but writes are real slow. This, however, isn't Flash...
The real issue I see there is they're trying to say that this will be the normal RAM for a system, and that it won't be erased on reboot - think about this - if you crash WinDoze, you want the memory to be rebooted! You don't want the pooter to be in the same state upon reboot!!! If they're trying to use this as some kind of ROM that gets copied into the RAM on startup, well, that's already around. The only thing I see this doing is replacing NVRAM (eg, Flash, CMOS, etc), which will replace hard drives when it gets cheap (and fast) enough.
I think the fact that Corel is willing to PAY its employees to write open source code is GREAT! The only reason they forked (temporarily, to get a specific product done by a deadline - see Their WINE page) is because they wanted a UI (they used KDE) and the real WINE team wanted an abstract UI layer (so WINE wouldn't be stuck with one UI, or have to maintain multiple UIs in the codebase). Of course any programmer (should) know that the real WINE team is right, and I'm sure the COREL team knows that too, but I am very sympathetic with them needing a UI by their deadline. Ok, fine; they develop one, but it shouldn't go into the core WINE, it's just to get the UI job done until the abstract layer is in place (then plug the KDE UI into that). I think COREL's decision to develop exclusively on their own fork is just due to deadlines. Remember, open source projects don't have corporate deadlines, but companies do! Be glad these people are team players, and let them meet their deadlines - then (hopefully) they'll work with the real WINE team to integrate the forks! Give COREL the credit it deserves, they are paying people to write open code. They're ok in my book.
I don't think people are realizing exactly what the MPAA is suing about. What they are suing about (and saying is illegal, which I personally DO NOT think should be illegal, but is true) is using ANY program or method (i.e. DeCSS) to circumvent the encryption method (CSS) to get at copyrighted material (DVD movie). Read the text of the preliminary injunction from 2600's discussion of it. This is (I think) the most important part:
THE COURT: Of course it is. The whole point here is that CSS is designed to protect against even the playing of a copyrighted DVD except with a player using a licensed CSS key. And if you go ahead and put out DeCSS for the purpose of playing it without using a player with the licensed technology, you have done it primarily for the purpose of circumventing the measure. Isn't that true?
The biggest problem is, once your are on Mars, how do you leave? Everything we sent to Mars is still on the surface, because like Earth, you have to get out of the gravitational pull! The moon is small enough that a lander can get off without problems, but Mars is about the same gravity as Earth, so anything that lands is staying there, unless it also brings a launch pad and enough fuel to launch (Yeah right!)
That alone is the biggest reason people have not gone to Mars (on a manned flight). It's a death sentece, until we can get out of the atmosphere w/o a high-powered launch.