I always buy Sci Am. And in my opinion their IT-related articles are very far off the mark. Since I regard IT as my field now (I used to do bio physics many moons ago), I wonder if their other articles are as bad?
This one was no exception. I also don't understand why Mr Gates was entertained to write it. OTOH I have noticed that over the last few years SCi Am seems to be turning into a more populist organ. The editorials now are often critical of the US goverment.
I thought this article to be rather weak, and to some extent an advertisement for Microsoft. It had Bill Gate's characteristic viewpoint of there being no software world outside of Microsoft. His claims about their robot SDK weren't backed up by and hard data. I wonder how much grunt you'd need to crunch all that M$ code?
Also I wasn't sure of the historical accuracy of his allusions.
I remember reading that same article. I can't find a reference to it on-line. It was a radio interview AFAIR, and Bill "I am The Bill That Must Be Paid" Gates ended up losing his cool.
BG's point was that people didn't want patches, they wanted upgrades.
Idiot. A very wealthy idiot, but an idiot all the same.
Has anyone a reference to this Wired article? Back in the mid-90's.
I had the privilege of a donation of two of Digital's AlphaStation 500/500. One was used to run NT, the other Digital UNIX 4.0a.
The DUX machine was sooo fast. I had (have) never seen X run so fast.
The NT box was much slower by comparison. For example the hourglass (!) that appeared on logging in, as the nasty piece of shit OS did whatever it did. Disgusting!
IMO FTP is a more efficient protocol than HTTP, both in terms of negotiating the connection and also in terms of actually shoving the data down the wire.
There are plenty of secure ftp servers out there. FreeBSD's native one, and ProFTPD to name but two.
Unfortunately, as I discovered when I had my ADSL line connected almost two years ago, my provider put a higher QoS value on port 80 than port 21:-( so, as with the Betamax vs VHS debate, popularity weighs in heavier than technical merit.
You can have multiple monitors defined in your XFree86Config file, and since X v4 detects hardware at startup time, changing monitors should not be difficult (disclaimer: I've never done this so I may be completely wrong).
xf86cfg is a fairly crude tool that you can use to configure devices and write the numbers to XFree86Config.
I use xvidtune to fine tune my picture. The "Show" button gives you a modeline that you can put in your XFree86Config file (but you have to understand the format of this file to get it to work).
BTW, IMO XFree86 v4 and above is _much_ easier to understand than 3.X.
That is what will happen with this. Some electronic companies are going to release recorders that will bypass the compliance requirement once they relize that the compliant recorders are not selling well(who is going to buy a recorder that can't record anything?).
But if the MPAA get their legislation through, won't it be illegal to own a non-compliant device?
> If WRS wishes to abandon FreeBSD, it is my hope
> that they at least re-release both the FreeBSD
> trademark and the FreeBSD product under the GPL.
> Please guys, do it now. I am getting goose
> bumps thinking of what will happen if Microsoft
> decides to rescue WRS by buying all of it.
Surely if that happened FreeBSD would just have
to be renamed? No implications for any of the
source code ownership that I can see.
I also don't think it's the GPL that's responsible
for Linux being so popular. More a "hearts and
minds" (H&M) thing, and the structure of the OS.
Linux is just a kernel,/usr,/bin,/etc and so
on are what you add to create a distro. Also, the
kernel development model is more or less a free
for all. IMO it is this which made Linux so cool
in the eyes of developers.
OTOH, FreeBSD is a complete OS (you get/usr and
so on). FreeBSD is also very stable and it's
networking code is directly based on the 4.4 BSD
source, arguably the most hardened networking code
there is out there. As a sysadm I like very much
the fact that I get a complete system, but if
it wasn't just so damn good at what it does, I
would regard it as bloated.
IMO it's because the code tree is maintained as a
sort of High Priesthood that it loses H&M of
developers. Different model of development.
The BSD licence is in theory much more attractive
to a business than GPL because you don't have to
re-release source to the community.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the rest mass of a photon is zero. A photon is pure kinetic energy.
I always buy Sci Am. And in my opinion their IT-related articles are very far off the mark. Since I regard IT as my field now (I used to do bio physics many moons ago), I wonder if their other articles are as bad?
This one was no exception. I also don't understand why Mr Gates was entertained to write it. OTOH I have noticed that over the last few years SCi Am seems to be turning into a more populist organ. The editorials now are often critical of the US goverment.
I thought this article to be rather weak, and to some extent an advertisement for Microsoft. It had Bill Gate's characteristic viewpoint of there being no software world outside of Microsoft. His claims about their robot SDK weren't backed up by and hard data. I wonder how much grunt you'd need to crunch all that M$ code?
Also I wasn't sure of the historical accuracy of his allusions.
Surprisingly for me, my Nikon D80 works fine with iPhoto on my iMAC.
I'm willing to bet we'll have a commercial nuclear fusion generator first, and that's always 30 years away.
And it turns out that it _is_ the same Wired article!
I remember reading that same article. I can't find a reference to it on-line. It was a radio interview AFAIR, and Bill "I am The Bill That Must Be Paid" Gates ended up losing his cool.
BG's point was that people didn't want patches, they wanted upgrades.
Idiot. A very wealthy idiot, but an idiot all the same.
Has anyone a reference to this Wired article? Back in the mid-90's.
I had the privilege of a donation of two of Digital's AlphaStation 500/500. One was used to run NT, the other Digital UNIX 4.0a.
The DUX machine was sooo fast. I had (have) never seen X run so fast.
The NT box was much slower by comparison. For example the hourglass (!) that appeared on logging in, as the nasty piece of shit OS did whatever it did. Disgusting!
IMO FTP is a more efficient protocol than HTTP, both in terms of negotiating the connection and also in terms of actually shoving the data down the wire.
:-( so, as with the Betamax vs VHS debate, popularity weighs in heavier than technical merit.
There are plenty of secure ftp servers out there. FreeBSD's native one, and ProFTPD to name but two.
Unfortunately, as I discovered when I had my ADSL line connected almost two years ago, my provider put a higher QoS value on port 80 than port 21
You can have multiple monitors defined in your XFree86Config file, and since X v4 detects hardware at startup time, changing monitors should not be difficult (disclaimer: I've never done this so I may be completely wrong).
xf86cfg is a fairly crude tool that you can use to configure devices and write the numbers to XFree86Config.
I use xvidtune to fine tune my picture. The "Show" button gives you a modeline that you can put in your XFree86Config file (but you have to understand the format of this file to get it to work). BTW, IMO XFree86 v4 and above is _much_ easier to understand than 3.X.
That is what will happen with this. Some electronic companies are going to release recorders that will bypass the compliance requirement once they relize that the compliant recorders are not selling well(who is going to buy a recorder that can't record anything?).
But if the MPAA get their legislation through, won't it be illegal to own a non-compliant device?
> If WRS wishes to abandon FreeBSD, it is my hope
/usr, /bin, /etc and so
/usr and
> that they at least re-release both the FreeBSD
> trademark and the FreeBSD product under the GPL.
> Please guys, do it now. I am getting goose
> bumps thinking of what will happen if Microsoft
> decides to rescue WRS by buying all of it.
Surely if that happened FreeBSD would just have
to be renamed? No implications for any of the
source code ownership that I can see.
I also don't think it's the GPL that's responsible
for Linux being so popular. More a "hearts and
minds" (H&M) thing, and the structure of the OS.
Linux is just a kernel,
on are what you add to create a distro. Also, the
kernel development model is more or less a free
for all. IMO it is this which made Linux so cool
in the eyes of developers.
OTOH, FreeBSD is a complete OS (you get
so on). FreeBSD is also very stable and it's
networking code is directly based on the 4.4 BSD
source, arguably the most hardened networking code
there is out there. As a sysadm I like very much
the fact that I get a complete system, but if
it wasn't just so damn good at what it does, I
would regard it as bloated.
IMO it's because the code tree is maintained as a
sort of High Priesthood that it loses H&M of
developers. Different model of development.
The BSD licence is in theory much more attractive
to a business than GPL because you don't have to
re-release source to the community.
ftp://ftp9.freebsd.org/pub/os/FreeBSD/\ ISO-IMAGES-i386/4.4-mini.iso is 180224KB small. Still too big? You can cvsup the rest as and when.
Don't forget that it's a strong possibility that
the telephone systems may move from SONET to IP
based routing.
That would be voice over IP, wouldn't it?