And this is a business. And we have windows PCs, Linux boxes and AS/400s which all need to be able to use the printers.
What's this "hax0r consumer" you are talking about got to do with it? If you think linux is confined to colleges you need to progress beyond 1995.
Also, I would add that while the non-ms machines here are well under 20%, the amount of printing done from them is probably more than 20% of the total.
And I suppose your car can't be broken into by a thief, and it locks and alarms itself whenever you leave it unattended without you having to think. Surely it automatically parks in a safer place if you leave it in an unlit back alley somewhere.
Is that the industries responsibility too? Perhaps you want brick-proof winshield glass as well?
Of course it doesn't explode of go off a cliff while you're driving it. Driving is its primary USE. Just like computer systems have a primary USE. It's ABUSE we are talking about here though and the "industry" can't cover everything. All they can do is their best. The rest is up to you.
If you think there will ever be a system you can install and leave and it will be 100% secure then it's only a matter of time before you are H4x0R3d.
Firstly, I hate Microsoft and most of the software they produce.
But... Has anyone stopped to ask why these ppl no longer work there? Perhaps they were sacked? Maybe they weren't up to scratch? Who knows, maybe they are trying to get "revenge" on MS by exaggerating the truth about what goes on inside Redmond.
Don't get me wrong, I would dearly love for this claims to be backed up so I could be childish for a few minutes and say "told you so" to some of my pro-ms workmates, but I hardly think we can just take the word of a few ex-employees who (as far as we know) might bear a grudge against their ex-employer.
PGP is not open source.
GPG, the GNU equivalent of PGP _is_ open source, and does not have this vunerability.
As for the police here in the UK, thats a whole other story, and if you ask me Mr Straw has no idea what problems he is creating for the police in the long term with his RIP bill either... but that's another story for another day.
> Can anyone point to a coherent explaination of what
> Sash can offer on Linux, and what it's parts are?
>
This question is probably going to be asked a lot, so I guess we should
start creating a FAQ somewhere.
Anyway. This is of course by no means an official position on anything;
these are just my thoughts.
The Sash end-user gets:
* Painless installation (no command line necessary -- straight from the
browser to the [graphical] installer).
* One-click uninstallation, with recursive dependency checking to prevent
the removal of vital components.
* A point and click interface for the execution and management of all of
his weblications
* Automatic updating of programs/extensions (this is in the works)
* Tiny download sizes for native, fully functional weblications
* Highly componentized infrastructure avoids bloatware -- a program only
fetches and loads exactly what it needs to run.
* Tight security controls every single thing a weblication tries to do
The Sash developer gets:
[from a structural point of view]
* Rapid deployment and easy management of programs
* Powerful native functionality without having to learn a new skill set
(provided that he already knows JavaScript and HTML)
[from a design point of view]
* Ridiculously easy drag-and-drop design for his weblication's UI
* Painless integration of UI with SashScript
* A full-featured IDE which takes him from start to finish in creating a
weblication, including:
- syntax highlighting
- syntax assistance (a la Microsoft's Intellisense)
- multiple document/multiple window interface
- Druids (wizards) which aid in the creation of any given action,
or in the creation of the weblication as a whole
I'm sure there are more features which I am missing right now.
Yeah, this sounds terribly hokey, but it's actually true. We've created a
sample text editor, a web browser, even a simple Lotus Notes mail client
(as demos), each in about an hour, start-to-finish.
Man, I really do sound like a salesman;).
As for parts, perhaps that's for another email. There are two main parts:
the runtime, which runs the weblications, and the WDE (development
environment) which aids developers in writing weblications. For more info,
check out the README.* files in the source tree...
> Lotus Notes Client is excellent to convince managers to let people use an alternative to Windows
Absolutely! Not just managers though. I've pretty much got the go-ahead to use linux on my desktop at work now but the only reason I can't is the lack of a Lotus notes client. Notes client for Linux is good news for me. (although I haven't actually found a mention of a notes client yet on the site)
To those who might suggest a notes client for windows running under wine. I tried that and it was good, but not good enough. (segfault when reading attachments)
I don't think it will take that much to win of it really is better. In my (limited) experience.ogg files at highest bitrate sound about as good as their mp3 counterparts, but are about 80-95% the filesize. It might not sound like much of a saving, but some mp3s are quite big and once the 56kbps napster kidz realise they can save money on their phone bills you have crossed the first hurdle.
The only other thing is playing and encoding them.
Thats no big deal though. Anyone can get a one-off winamp plugin download without a problem.
I think the take up might be slow initially, but once we reach critical mass, watch ogg take over the lossy compressed-audio throne. (_if_ that is, it's really better than mp3 as some of us believe it is)
btw, I think any comparison of mp3 vs ogg to gif vs png is flawed. Think about it.
I'm a GNOME supporter also. I hate KDE, but what I hate more is this attitude of "winning" when your favorite desktop gains more support.
If the KDE ppl are not quitters (and I do not believe that they are) then this will strengthen their efforts if anything. It will motivate them to try even harder to stay ahead (and IMO, they are ahead right now in terms of maturity)
This will mean fiercer competition between these already competent desktops which will in the long term benefit us all.
The existence of two or more competing and constantly improving desktops is the best outcome for us all. Not the one we personally like best "winning"
This is true, but starting your own project doesn't always mean designing and coding from scratch. There's nothing to prevent you borrowing heavily both ideas and code from existing open source projects when starting something new, even when your own ideals and goals are ultimately very different from the project you are borrowing from.
What stops you is the GNU GPL license. It does not just say that you must distribute the source in any form you want. IIRC it says you must distribute the source code in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." In other words, the source you typed in originally, not dissasembled code or obfuscated source.
>How many of you really look over a binary before >you install it? Do you just rpm a package and >then run it? What do you have to lose from >running this random binary?
1) IMO, It's not a good point at all. It's correct that only a minority of ppl care, but that's no reason to remove the choice. It is very important to some people. If there is to be one single standard (god forbid) then it should cater for everyones needs, not just most peoples.
2) Binaries are architecture specific. Linux is not.
We all know the REAL reason you release so often is because is gets announced on slashdot and you write replies to everyones comments. Your replies all get modded up to +5 and your karma soars.
THAT is why RH really releases so often - You simply want more karma.:-)
Let's imagine a new version of XFree86 comes out, promising to be the best thing since sliced bread. Lets imagine that lots of hardware manufacturers produce closed source drivers that work well and that most users are happy.
Now lets imagine that some people decide that the graphical performance of the systems they have is not good enough and they want to do something about it. Perhaps they decide it's XFree86 that is just too big and bloated and they want to write some new windowing system.
They write the fantastic new system with it's almost instant loading time, its superb anti-aliased fonts and so on, but theres a problem. It can only support VESA cards. Unaccelerated. What do they do? They want to look at the source for the XFree86 drivers but they can't. As a result the brilliant new system's performance is even worse than XFree86 on fast hardware. As a result, everyone keeps on using XFree86. We would all effectively be stuck with XFree86 for ever, like it or not. Linux+XFree86 is slower than Win32+directx they all say, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Okay, that's probably all a bit far fetched, but I don't care. You get my point.
I have experimentally discovered (using MSIE5 as an example) that the url box can be filled with up to 1033 characters. Allowing for "http://" and only a single character for the domain name itself you are still only left with 1024 chars for the TLD. (hmm. 1kb - is that a coincidence)
Now, assuming all alphas and the numbers 0-9 there are 35^1024 possible TLDs.
That's only about 1.33 x 10^1581. Microsoft could easily register that many.
I actually agree with the sentiments of most of what you say, but whats this?:
"... is because there's a relatively small number (7) of people working on it"
Where on earth did you get that figure from? Have you ever read either the source code, the contributors list, or looked on lkml to see who submits patches? It is _far_ more than seven.
I don't remember saying there was a problem. I said there was a difference.
We all know how much trouble licensing can cause at the best of times. I just don't want to see more confusion caused by this kind of factual incorrectness and I think it's worth mentioning. It concerns me that this might be considered a flame.
> Grow up, SQL is SQL. yep, and English is English. That doesn't make everyone who speaks it a good author.
> If it does the job, within acceptable terms (cheap, reasonable license) then...
If cheap, reasonable license is what you want in a DBMS, good for you. Personally, I want rock solid stability. Other people want speed. Do you start to get the idea? Different DBMS suit different applications and needs.
> How about comparing Oracle and MS-SQL as well..
Good idea, I agree. Anyone know of any such comparisons?
Yes, SQL is SQL but there are 2 important points: 1) Not every DBMS supports all of the standard SQL commandset. Most support an extrnded subset.
2) More importantly, each is implemented in a totally different way. Saying there are no differences just because they have similar command sets is like saying all cars are the same because they have a steering wheel and 3 foot pedals.
Slashdot Mirror
> This is a business appliance.
And this is a business. And we have windows PCs, Linux boxes and AS/400s which all need to be able to use the printers.
What's this "hax0r consumer" you are talking about got to do with it? If you think linux is confined to colleges you need to progress beyond 1995.
Also, I would add that while the non-ms machines here are well under 20%, the amount of printing done from them is probably more than 20% of the total.
And I suppose your car can't be broken into by a thief, and it locks and alarms itself whenever you leave it unattended without you having to think. Surely it automatically parks in a safer place if you leave it in an unlit back alley somewhere.
Is that the industries responsibility too? Perhaps you want brick-proof winshield glass as well?
Of course it doesn't explode of go off a cliff while you're driving it. Driving is its primary USE. Just like computer systems have a primary USE. It's ABUSE we are talking about here though and the "industry" can't cover everything. All they can do is their best. The rest is up to you.
If you think there will ever be a system you can install and leave and it will be 100% secure then it's only a matter of time before you are H4x0R3d.
> Always do testing on your own.
I felt like repeating that bit. 'cos not many people do, and then they blame their tools when things go wrong.
And that applies to all systems of course though, not just Debian and not just Linux.
> Hell, Ballmer would probably admit it, if he were ever cornered properly.
Now that, I would like to see.
Firstly, I hate Microsoft and most of the software they produce.
But... Has anyone stopped to ask why these ppl no longer work there? Perhaps they were sacked? Maybe they weren't up to scratch? Who knows, maybe they are trying to get "revenge" on MS by exaggerating the truth about what goes on inside Redmond.
Don't get me wrong, I would dearly love for this claims to be backed up so I could be childish for a few minutes and say "told you so" to some of my pro-ms workmates, but I hardly think we can just take the word of a few ex-employees who (as far as we know) might bear a grudge against their ex-employer.
PGP is not open source.
GPG, the GNU equivalent of PGP _is_ open source, and does not have this vunerability.
As for the police here in the UK, thats a whole other story, and if you ask me Mr Straw has no idea what problems he is creating for the police in the long term with his RIP bill either... but that's another story for another day.
I just found this on their mailing list:
;).
> Can anyone point to a coherent explaination of what
> Sash can offer on Linux, and what it's parts are?
>
This question is probably going to be asked a lot, so I guess we should
start creating a FAQ somewhere.
Anyway. This is of course by no means an official position on anything;
these are just my thoughts.
The Sash end-user gets:
* Painless installation (no command line necessary -- straight from the
browser to the [graphical] installer).
* One-click uninstallation, with recursive dependency checking to prevent
the removal of vital components.
* A point and click interface for the execution and management of all of
his weblications
* Automatic updating of programs/extensions (this is in the works)
* Tiny download sizes for native, fully functional weblications
* Highly componentized infrastructure avoids bloatware -- a program only
fetches and loads exactly what it needs to run.
* Tight security controls every single thing a weblication tries to do
The Sash developer gets:
[from a structural point of view]
* Rapid deployment and easy management of programs
* Powerful native functionality without having to learn a new skill set
(provided that he already knows JavaScript and HTML)
[from a design point of view]
* Ridiculously easy drag-and-drop design for his weblication's UI
* Painless integration of UI with SashScript
* A full-featured IDE which takes him from start to finish in creating a
weblication, including:
- syntax highlighting
- syntax assistance (a la Microsoft's Intellisense)
- multiple document/multiple window interface
- Druids (wizards) which aid in the creation of any given action,
or in the creation of the weblication as a whole
I'm sure there are more features which I am missing right now.
Yeah, this sounds terribly hokey, but it's actually true. We've created a
sample text editor, a web browser, even a simple Lotus Notes mail client
(as demos), each in about an hour, start-to-finish.
Man, I really do sound like a salesman
As for parts, perhaps that's for another email. There are two main parts:
the runtime, which runs the weblications, and the WDE (development
environment) which aids developers in writing weblications. For more info,
check out the README.* files in the source tree...
AJ
> Lotus Notes Client is excellent to convince managers to let people use an alternative to Windows
Absolutely! Not just managers though. I've pretty much got the go-ahead to use linux on my desktop at work now but the only reason I can't is the lack of a Lotus notes client. Notes client for Linux is good news for me. (although I haven't actually found a mention of a notes client yet on the site)
To those who might suggest a notes client for windows running under wine. I tried that and it was good, but not good enough. (segfault when reading attachments)
Linux and BSD have "almost all of the mindshare"!!!!
Quick everyone!! abandon all other OS development!!
(seeing this sort of thing at +3 insightful makes my heart sink. finding myself replying feels just as bad)
I don't think it will take that much to win of it really is better. In my (limited) experience .ogg files at highest bitrate sound about as good as their mp3 counterparts, but are about 80-95% the filesize. It might not sound like much of a saving, but some mp3s are quite big and once the 56kbps napster kidz realise they can save money on their phone bills you have crossed the first hurdle.
The only other thing is playing and encoding them.
Thats no big deal though. Anyone can get a one-off winamp plugin download without a problem.
I think the take up might be slow initially, but once we reach critical mass, watch ogg take over the lossy compressed-audio throne. (_if_ that is, it's really better than mp3 as some of us believe it is)
btw, I think any comparison of mp3 vs ogg to gif vs png is flawed. Think about it.
I'm a GNOME supporter also. I hate KDE, but what I hate more is this attitude of "winning" when your favorite desktop gains more support.
If the KDE ppl are not quitters (and I do not believe that they are) then this will strengthen their efforts if anything. It will motivate them to try even harder to stay ahead (and IMO, they are ahead right now in terms of maturity)
This will mean fiercer competition between these already competent desktops which will in the long term benefit us all.
The existence of two or more competing and constantly improving desktops is the best outcome for us all. Not the one we personally like best "winning"
This is true, but starting your own project doesn't always mean designing and coding from scratch. There's nothing to prevent you borrowing heavily both ideas and code from existing open source projects when starting something new, even when your own ideals and goals are ultimately very different from the project you are borrowing from.
Linux in a box?
Linux on a wristwatch?
Suddenly the segfault story about linux on an transistor doesn't seem so ridiculous!
Maybe they can go further. Linux in a meson?
What stops you is the GNU GPL license. It does not just say that you must distribute the source in any form you want. IIRC it says you must distribute the source code in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." In other words, the source you typed in originally, not dissasembled code or obfuscated source.
>How many of you really look over a binary before >you install it? Do you just rpm a package and >then run it? What do you have to lose from >running this random binary?
1) IMO, It's not a good point at all. It's correct that only a minority of ppl care, but that's no reason to remove the choice. It is very important to some people. If there is to be one single standard (god forbid) then it should cater for everyones needs, not just most peoples.
2) Binaries are architecture specific. Linux is not.
Oh come on, we can all see straight through that!
:-)
We all know the REAL reason you release so often is because is gets announced on slashdot and you write replies to everyones comments. Your replies all get modded up to +5 and your karma soars.
THAT is why RH really releases so often - You simply want more karma.
Here's an example situation.
Let's imagine a new version of XFree86 comes out, promising to be the best thing since sliced bread. Lets imagine that lots of hardware manufacturers produce closed source drivers that work well and that most users are happy.
Now lets imagine that some people decide that the graphical performance of the systems they have is not good enough and they want to do something about it. Perhaps they decide it's XFree86 that is just too big and bloated and they want to write some new windowing system.
They write the fantastic new system with it's almost instant loading time, its superb anti-aliased fonts and so on, but theres a problem. It can only support VESA cards. Unaccelerated. What do they do? They want to look at the source for the XFree86 drivers but they can't. As a result the brilliant new system's performance is even worse than XFree86 on fast hardware. As a result, everyone keeps on using XFree86.
We would all effectively be stuck with XFree86 for ever, like it or not.
Linux+XFree86 is slower than Win32+directx they all say, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Okay, that's probably all a bit far fetched, but I don't care. You get my point.
You may not be able to do that depending on the licence you use.
For example the GNU GPL states:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"
In other words, not obfuscated.
(and a good thing too IMHO)
> With infinite TLDs, there's ...
You wouldn't have infinite TLDs.
I have experimentally discovered (using MSIE5 as an example) that the url box can be filled with up to 1033 characters. Allowing for "http://" and only a single character for the domain name itself you are still only left with 1024 chars for the TLD. (hmm. 1kb - is that a coincidence)
Now, assuming all alphas and the numbers 0-9 there are 35^1024 possible TLDs.
That's only about 1.33 x 10^1581. Microsoft could easily register that many.
:)
I actually agree with the sentiments of most of what you say, but whats this?:
"... is because there's a relatively small number (7) of people working on it"
Where on earth did you get that figure from? Have you ever read either the source code, the contributors list, or looked on lkml to see who submits patches? It is _far_ more than seven.
> what is the problem between the two?
I don't remember saying there was a problem. I said there was a difference.
We all know how much trouble licensing can cause at the best of times. I just don't want to see more confusion caused by this kind of factual incorrectness and I think it's worth mentioning.
It concerns me that this might be considered a flame.
> Grow up, SQL is SQL.
yep, and English is English. That doesn't make everyone who speaks it a good author.
> If it does the job, within acceptable terms (cheap, reasonable license) then...
If cheap, reasonable license is what you want in a DBMS, good for you. Personally, I want rock solid stability. Other people want speed. Do you start to get the idea? Different DBMS suit different applications and needs.
> How about comparing Oracle and MS-SQL as well..
Good idea, I agree. Anyone know of any such comparisons?
Yes, SQL is SQL but there are 2 important points:
1) Not every DBMS supports all of the standard SQL commandset. Most support an extrnded subset.
2) More importantly, each is implemented in a totally different way. Saying there are no differences just because they have similar command sets is like saying all cars are the same because they have a steering wheel and 3 foot pedals.
Licencing IS one of the differences.
GNU GPL and BSD for MySQL and PostgreSQL respectively.
> MP3's are great for sampling music, but I think the quality sucks
With constant increases in bandwidth becoming available, how long before people have forgotten MP3 and are just using CDDA anyway?