Regarding redundancy, it's not just to filter out flawed experiments, but to make sure the correct parameters are being considered. If one experimenter can reliably reproduce his results, but few others can, it means there might be a different cause of the results that wasn't anticipated.
In subatomic physics, one such cause could be a security guard somehow getting access to the room where measurements are taking place, opening the door, and shining a flashlight into the room. Or, it could be something more subtle.
I don't remember the details, but there apparently have been some recent experiments with cold fusion that have produced results that could possibly be explained by cold fusion. It's all preliminary, AFAIK.
Maybe, but GNOME's backend is relatively slow, and we know how integrated Emacs is (and relatively fast in comparison), so his experience there could be of some use.
I agree that RMS is probably running for the board because of his philosophy, but it annoys me when people on/. just assume that is definitely the case, and give zero credit to the guy who was really responsible for the "Linux revolution".
RMS is a programmer, so it's not unreasonable to believe that since he was partly behind the creation of GNOME (even if the reasons are no longer there), he might want GNOME to succeed. Since KDE has made leaps that GNOME hasn't (I don't know this myself, since I use Window Maker, but it's what I keep hearing), RMS might want to help make GNOME better.
Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.
That's all fine and dandy, but when you're working for a security firm, it's your job to trust as few things as possible, which means you check everything yourself. Anyone company who expects security experts to "trust them, it's secure" clearly has no understanding of the security field. Independent testing is important, and security experts will immediately assume that anyone who tries to forbid public scrutiny has something to hide.
I remember Alan Cox didn't want to go to the US because of the DMCA. Is he going to have to leave the UK now? Where can a person go to avoid this kind of crap, and still have decent net connectivity?
Do you think commercial software handles errors better?
Dammit! This isn't a bloody pissing match! If we're going to set the bar so low that "it's okay as long as it's a little better than closed source", then we're destined for failure.
Instead, why don't we take this criticism at face value? "Open source programmers stink at error handling." Fine. Let's start disciplining ourselves and write our code with meticulous care. After all, we have no deadlines, we don't need to cut corners, we collectively have more time on our hands, so why coudln't we write excellent code if we trained ourselves to be careful. I think it's possible.
Re:Which releases are production stable?
on
Linux 2.4.13
·
· Score: 2
Does *BSD have stateful packet filtering (i.e. connection tracking)? iptables is the main thing that keeps me with Linux (and Linux 2.4).
Can somebody please tell me what XP is like? With all the tyrannical crap that goes into XP, I've finally decided never to buy it, or any later version (unless MS suddenly reforms,helll freezes over, etc). I'm just sick and tired of developers telling me that I, the user, am incompetent and not worthy of being in control of my own equipment. XP is the final slap in the face to this effect.
Bah. Why should we listen to this "Diffie" character? I mean, what kind of a security expert is he anyway? It's not like he contributed anything useful to the field or anything...;-)
Democracy is flawed, anyway (not that tyranny is any better, though). It depends on the idea that everyone is equally qualified to make any type of decision. Back when democracy was invented, that assumption was mostly true, but now we have too many people who aren't qualified (i.e. the general public) making specialized decisions.
The security there is both weak by default and complicated to change (i.e. you can horribly break it without knowing why if you remove some premissions). It's possible, but it's difficult.
Of course, when the kernel is unstable and full of holes, that sort of kills its chances anyway, wouldn't you think?
in the case of Unix, you would have had to demonstrate how something else works better,
If Windows was the only operating system in existence today, by your logic, it would be unjustified to say that "Windows fails as an operating system on many levels". The fact that there is nothing that currently works better simply means that new ideas need to be explored. It does NOT mean that the current system is the best possible system.
Yes, the parent poster's comment was lacking in quality, but that doesn't make the statement incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
In subatomic physics, one such cause could be a security guard somehow getting access to the room where measurements are taking place, opening the door, and shining a flashlight into the room. Or, it could be something more subtle.
I don't remember the details, but there apparently have been some recent experiments with cold fusion that have produced results that could possibly be explained by cold fusion. It's all preliminary, AFAIK.
I agree that RMS is probably running for the board because of his philosophy, but it annoys me when people on /. just assume that is definitely the case, and give zero credit to the guy who was really responsible for the "Linux revolution".
Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.
Bailout packages from Microsoft has allowed them to remain in the PC business.
I wonder if people are confusing Pascal's ":=" with "!=". That would explain a lot of the troll moderators...
And for masks, Scotch tape is preferred. ;-)
"Computer, recursively delete everything starting with a dot."
Possible interpretations:
I like how you just make up a quote, then criticize it.
Join the already-under-way development of Ogg Tarkin (scroll down).
That's all fine and dandy, but when you're working for a security firm, it's your job to trust as few things as possible, which means you check everything yourself. Anyone company who expects security experts to "trust them, it's secure" clearly has no understanding of the security field. Independent testing is important, and security experts will immediately assume that anyone who tries to forbid public scrutiny has something to hide.
... At which point you patch the OS, then you're back to square one, just like with the copy prevention schemes of the 80s.
I remember Alan Cox didn't want to go to the US because of the DMCA. Is he going to have to leave the UK now? Where can a person go to avoid this kind of crap, and still have decent net connectivity?
Didn't MSN do this before?
Dammit! This isn't a bloody pissing match! If we're going to set the bar so low that "it's okay as long as it's a little better than closed source", then we're destined for failure.
Instead, why don't we take this criticism at face value? "Open source programmers stink at error handling." Fine. Let's start disciplining ourselves and write our code with meticulous care. After all, we have no deadlines, we don't need to cut corners, we collectively have more time on our hands, so why coudln't we write excellent code if we trained ourselves to be careful. I think it's possible.
Does *BSD have stateful packet filtering (i.e. connection tracking)? iptables is the main thing that keeps me with Linux (and Linux 2.4).
Can somebody please tell me what XP is like? With all the tyrannical crap that goes into XP, I've finally decided never to buy it, or any later version (unless MS suddenly reforms,helll freezes over, etc). I'm just sick and tired of developers telling me that I, the user, am incompetent and not worthy of being in control of my own equipment. XP is the final slap in the face to this effect.
Bah. Why should we listen to this "Diffie" character? I mean, what kind of a security expert is he anyway? It's not like he contributed anything useful to the field or anything... ;-)
I hope what I just wrote makes sense.
Wow, I don't believe I actually did that. Many apologies, Bruce.
YOU will. I'll just start compiling from source and/or using debsigs-verify.
Since when does Bruce Perens have Slashdot ID #2469724? Hell, my ID is 52652, and I think Bruce was here longer than me.
Of course, when the kernel is unstable and full of holes, that sort of kills its chances anyway, wouldn't you think?
If Windows was the only operating system in existence today, by your logic, it would be unjustified to say that "Windows fails as an operating system on many levels". The fact that there is nothing that currently works better simply means that new ideas need to be explored. It does NOT mean that the current system is the best possible system.
Yes, the parent poster's comment was lacking in quality, but that doesn't make the statement incorrect.
Really, I'll get some sleep now. I promise.