If a person really has the right to be treated equal, or the right to free speach... WHY does there need to be a law that says it is so?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of those governed, [...]
As you can clearly see, all human beings have inherent rights, and the law is there only to protect them.
I'm also confused by the reason he gives for not putting the kernel source under version control: he "[has] to know what goes into the kernel."
Well, CVS, and I'm sure most other version control systems, allow for locking of files, and provide ability for setting up "hooks" -- scripts which are executed prior to check in and after check in, so that very precise control can be established over the source tree.
Okay, I haven't finished reading the Microsoft document yet, but these people have been hitting the crack pipe WAY too much!
Consider, for example, this paragraph:
Embedded Linux offers a standard kernel but no standard device level application programming interface (API). There are multiple implementations of other major OS components so developers end up working with different programming environments and tools for each device, decreasing efficiency, limiting code re-use and increasing application development time.
So the claim here is that (1) there is no standard device API and (2) there are no standard development tools in Linux. Note that I'm not even considering the obvious contradiction about having a standard kernel, but no standard device interface (??!!).
Now, I disagree with both statements, because the ioctl interface has been around for about 25 years, and we have things like the/proc filesystem to complement it; also, the GNU development toolchain is quite standard, and I've seen many compilers and cross-compilers for 8-bit systems that are based off of GCC.
But the crack-smoking part comes here:
* For example, there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.
Huh? Huh?! Didn't they just talk about development tools and device API? What the hell is wrong with these people?
While I wholeheartedly agree with your NRA argument, I don't think this analogy is very accurate -- you say that people who run the attachments (i.e. the victims) should be responsible; wouldn't that suggest that you want the gun shot victims to be held responsible, instead of the people who shot them?
At any case, I do believe that virus writers should be held responsible, but I don't think the solution is the so called "cyber crime" laws or anything that focuses on the means rather than the cause.
Drugs like the one proposed just encourage laziness, but laziness is the primary problem.
Well, I'd say that's only half the problem. Let's not forget the huge amounts of stress inflicted upon us in this rapid-pace, highly complex post-modern society, and the enormous geographical distances, which predispose people to driving everywhere, instead of walking (or bicycling).
What I meant was, usually what's referred to as microcode is implemented by having a FSM which fetches the instructions and translates them (or part of them) to run on another FSM, as opposed to directly manipulating the CPU modules, such as an ALU, etc. Obviously this would make your decode phase more complicated.
So, my question is, does RISC imply that you only should only have one-level state machine in your CPU, or what? I'll read this article and hopefully that'll answer my question, thanks for the link.
Since the Gekko is a native RISC processor it does not suffer the same fate as its Xbox counterpart in that it doesn't have to spend much time in the fetch/decoding stages of the pipeline. Immediately upon fetching the RISC instructions to be executed, they are dispatched and one clock cycle later, they are ready to be sent to the execution units.
Doesn't that simply mean that the PowerPC processor (Gekko) doesn't utilize microcode, rather than being an inherent advantage of the RISC architecture. I mean, couldn't there be a RISC processor with several state machines which depend on each other's instruction sets?
then again, the very same thing happened to me when i installed debian/ppc a while ago...
OK. So there's a possibility that an installation program destroys your partition table, regardless of who the vendor is.
However, I'm an operating system junkie, and I've installed various distributions of Linux (Debian included), FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian/Hurd, SCO OpenServer, Solaris x86, all without problems. The reason for this is probably because I always choose to manually fdisk my hard drive, as opposed to using an automated equivalent. Windows, however does not give you this option. So there.
There you have it from the man himself. "Once you buy it, you have the right to use it forever."
Strange, that reminds me of Animal Farm -- five years from now, this statement might change to "Once you buy it, you have the right to use it forever; on the exact same machine where you originally registered it.
Well, in the words of another Chairman, Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a [...type of liberalism].
I can only imagine the flaming if someone was on here complaining that their 1.3.21-based distribution had problems with their new hardware.
It's interesting to note that, between 1995 and 1998, when versions of Windows were released, there were many, many minor and major releases of Linux.
It's also intersting to note that the development of Windows began some 10 years before the development of Linux. I can only imagine the flaming if someone was complaining about Windows 2.0.
People will bring servers to their knees to get the latest one-line change to the Linux kernel, and yet they'll run a mid-1990s version of the Windows lines and wonder why they have trouble.
Well, I haven't upgraded my kernel in 18 months, yet I've been able to upgrade a lot of my software without having to bring servers to their knees. Is the concept of SOFTWARE ABSTRACTION and MODULARITY something astroturfers are unfamiliar with, I wonder?
Try 2000 and you won't have to worry about all those problems. Not that 2000 doesn't have any problems, but it is a much, much better OS and the problems are fewer and farther between.
That's what everbody used to say about NT 3.51, then 4.0... Supposedly it was going to "revolutionarize the way we do computing," or some such crap, very similar to the XP propaganda.
And you know what? Back in 1998, I tried to install NT on a machine that had Linux, SCO OpenServer, and Windows 95 on it. The Windows installation program wiped out my entire partition table, then said there was some kind of error and it couldn't continue (and it only gave an error code, it's not like it actually explained what the error was).
This product, my friend, is below any conceivable standards of software quality and engineering. I haven't used any MS junk since the above incident, and I've been happily running Linux with 12-15 months uptime on average, and unparalleled flexibility and robustness.
How many designs and implementations did you go through before settling on the current one?
VY: The current version is the result of three total re-writes and there is a new version in the works. The number of minor revisions is much larger than three.
Heh... In a sense, this is a nice retort to the interview with the former Microsoft PH manager, whose interview was recently published on Slashdot. Sure, rewriting from scratch is a mistake. Whatever.
1. Let the industry regulate itself, in the hopes that more secure network equipment and software would be chosen by system administrators and users.
2. Let the government repeal ridiculous legislation which provides specific treatment to "computer crimes," and let these be handled by more general laws, such as those concerning fraud, etc.
3. In order to make the public more aware of IT security issues, the government needs to adopt policies of public security evaluation of any network eqiupment and software it's considering using in their offices. For example, if a government organization decides to use OpenBSD for their computer systems, and explains well the security features of OpenBSD and why it's good to have these security features, than chances are the general public will make a note of this, and executives in companies might start considering information security policies for their organizations.
What's so bad with that?
Control isn't bad itself.
Um, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Slashdot Mirror
Robert L. Stevenson joke
Surely you mean Daniel Defoe?
If a person really has the right to be treated equal, or the right to free speach... WHY does there need to be a law that says it is so?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of those governed, [...]
As you can clearly see, all human beings have inherent rights, and the law is there only to protect them.
I'm not sure I quite understand why New Line decided to open the movie earlier in UK?
:-)
Well, that's what the Americans get for throwing all these bags of tea in a certain harbor... um... some time ago.
I'm also confused by the reason he gives for not putting the kernel source under version control: he "[has] to know what goes into the kernel."
Well, CVS, and I'm sure most other version control systems, allow for locking of files, and provide ability for setting up "hooks" -- scripts which are executed prior to check in and after check in, so that very precise control can be established over the source tree.
I see. Indeed, you're right. What was I thinking? I'm deleting Linux and installing Win XP, as we speak.
8-)
Okay, I haven't finished reading the Microsoft document yet, but these people have been hitting the crack pipe WAY too much!
/proc filesystem to complement it; also, the GNU development toolchain is quite standard, and I've seen many compilers and cross-compilers for 8-bit systems that are based off of GCC.
Consider, for example, this paragraph:
Embedded Linux offers a standard kernel but no standard device level application programming interface (API). There are multiple implementations of other major OS components so developers end up working with different programming environments and tools for each device, decreasing efficiency, limiting code re-use and increasing application development time.
So the claim here is that (1) there is no standard device API and (2) there are no standard development tools in Linux. Note that I'm not even considering the obvious contradiction about having a standard kernel, but no standard device interface (??!!).
Now, I disagree with both statements, because the ioctl interface has been around for about 25 years, and we have things like the
But the crack-smoking part comes here:
* For example, there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.
Huh? Huh?! Didn't they just talk about development tools and device API? What the hell is wrong with these people?
While I wholeheartedly agree with your NRA argument, I don't think this analogy is very accurate -- you say that people who run the attachments (i.e. the victims) should be responsible; wouldn't that suggest that you want the gun shot victims to be held responsible, instead of the people who shot them?
At any case, I do believe that virus writers should be held responsible, but I don't think the solution is the so called "cyber crime" laws or anything that focuses on the means rather than the cause.
just make them use microsoft products for the rest of their lives.
:-)
No, that would violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the 8th amendment.
Drugs like the one proposed just encourage laziness, but laziness is the primary problem.
Well, I'd say that's only half the problem. Let's not forget the huge amounts of stress inflicted upon us in this rapid-pace, highly complex post-modern society, and the enormous geographical distances, which predispose people to driving everywhere, instead of walking (or bicycling).
Someone else besides me listens to Donovan? Dude, you are, like, old!
What I meant was, usually what's referred to as microcode is implemented by having a FSM which fetches the instructions and translates them (or part of them) to run on another FSM, as opposed to directly manipulating the CPU modules, such as an ALU, etc. Obviously this would make your decode phase more complicated.
So, my question is, does RISC imply that you only should only have one-level state machine in your CPU, or what? I'll read this article and hopefully that'll answer my question, thanks for the link.
Since the Gekko is a native RISC processor it does not suffer the same fate as its Xbox counterpart in that it doesn't have to spend much time in the fetch/decoding stages of the pipeline. Immediately upon fetching the RISC instructions to be executed, they are dispatched and one clock cycle later, they are ready to be sent to the execution units.
Doesn't that simply mean that the PowerPC processor (Gekko) doesn't utilize microcode, rather than being an inherent advantage of the RISC architecture. I mean, couldn't there be a RISC processor with several state machines which depend on each other's instruction sets?
then again, the very same thing happened to me when i installed debian/ppc a while ago...
OK. So there's a possibility that an installation program destroys your partition table, regardless of who the vendor is.
However, I'm an operating system junkie, and I've installed various distributions of Linux (Debian included), FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian/Hurd, SCO OpenServer, Solaris x86, all without problems. The reason for this is probably because I always choose to manually fdisk my hard drive, as opposed to using an automated equivalent. Windows, however does not give you this option. So there.
There you have it from the man himself. "Once you buy it, you have the right to use it forever."
Strange, that reminds me of Animal Farm -- five years from now, this statement might change to "Once you buy it, you have the right to use it forever; on the exact same machine where you originally registered it.
Well, in the words of another Chairman, Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a [...type of liberalism].
DOS wasn't usable without the Norton Utilities.
...And QEMM. And 4DOS. And... Why do I even bother?
I can only imagine the flaming if someone was on here complaining that their 1.3.21-based distribution had problems with their new hardware.
It's interesting to note that, between 1995 and 1998, when versions of Windows were released, there were many, many minor and major releases of Linux.
It's also intersting to note that the development of Windows began some 10 years before the development of Linux. I can only imagine the flaming if someone was complaining about Windows 2.0.
People will bring servers to their knees to get the latest one-line change to the Linux kernel, and yet they'll run a mid-1990s version of the Windows lines and wonder why they have trouble.
Well, I haven't upgraded my kernel in 18 months, yet I've been able to upgrade a lot of my software without having to bring servers to their knees. Is the concept of SOFTWARE ABSTRACTION and MODULARITY something astroturfers are unfamiliar with, I wonder?
Try 2000 and you won't have to worry about all those problems. Not that 2000 doesn't have any problems, but it is a much, much better OS and the problems are fewer and farther between.
That's what everbody used to say about NT 3.51, then 4.0... Supposedly it was going to "revolutionarize the way we do computing," or some such crap, very similar to the XP propaganda.
And you know what? Back in 1998, I tried to install NT on a machine that had Linux, SCO OpenServer, and Windows 95 on it. The Windows installation program wiped out my entire partition table, then said there was some kind of error and it couldn't continue (and it only gave an error code, it's not like it actually explained what the error was).
This product, my friend, is below any conceivable standards of software quality and engineering. I haven't used any MS junk since the above incident, and I've been happily running Linux with 12-15 months uptime on average, and unparalleled flexibility and robustness.
From Netcraft's Survey:
The site www.doi.gov is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) on Solaris.
Of course, we don't know whether this was the system which the government investigators broke in, or whether it's something in this domain.
A high GPA after all, is a measure of dedication and perseverance.
Right... A high karma on Slashdot after all, is a measure of dedication and perseverance.
How many designs and implementations did you go through before settling on the current one?
VY: The current version is the result of three total re-writes and there is a new version in the works. The number of minor revisions is much larger than three.
Heh... In a sense, this is a nice retort to the interview with the former Microsoft PH manager, whose interview was recently published on Slashdot. Sure, rewriting from scratch is a mistake. Whatever.
1. Let the industry regulate itself, in the hopes that more secure network equipment and software would be chosen by system administrators and users .
2. Let the government repeal ridiculous legislation which provides specific treatment to "computer crimes," and let these be handled by more general laws, such as those concerning fraud, etc.
3. In order to make the public more aware of IT security issues, the government needs to adopt policies of public security evaluation of any network eqiupment and software it's considering using in their offices. For example, if a government organization decides to use OpenBSD for their computer systems, and explains well the security features of OpenBSD and why it's good to have these security features, than chances are the general public will make a note of this, and executives in companies might start considering information security policies for their organizations.
I did. I'm the other BBDB user who reads Slashdot. But it integrates so damn well with Emacs Gnus, that I'll never switch to something else.
Check out ACM's Software Engineering Code of Ethics. It seems like a good starting point, and can perhaps be incorporated in the GPL.
What's so bad with that?
Control isn't bad itself.
Um, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."