(click here to download the adkiller javascript code and put it on your own webspace, in case you don't trust me:-)
There was no other way I could get this code working; the User Slashbox's size limit was too small to fit the entire code into. I don't want people freeloading my bandwidth if I can help it, and I'm not the sort of person who would pull a bait-and-switch like that. You'll have to take my word on that, which is a bad thing to do for anyone on the Internet, so I say to everyone interested in this code, COPY IT TO YOUR OWN MACHINE and then run it. Save yourself from my dirty, evil self, and save me some bandwidth too! Everybody wins!
Thank you Jamie for bring this issue to the front.
While there are different Linux distributions, these all use the same kernel and the same applications, usually built from the same sources. A Redhat binary will generally run fine on Mandrake or Debian or Caldera or SuSE or what have you. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD have become completely different operating systems with vastly different userspace code. Binaries are not at all portable between the operating systems. This is a far deeper and more severe fork than Linux, and if we continue down the road of having more and more Linux kernels (as we are seeing now), soon the same deep, irrevocable split could happen to Linux as well.
Right now it's just a patch. But Linus has made it clear that he is unwilling (for whatever foolish reasons) to accept Love's patches. If the preempt patches become popular enough (as they no doubt will amongst those using Linux for multimedia production), it won't be long before somebody decides to fork the kernel with preemptible patches simply to make it easier to use for more people. From there, you could very quickly end up with yet another completely different operating system kernel.
I fear for Linux' future now. It seems almost certain that, with Love's preemptible fork, Alan Cox's own fork which is steadily separating from Linus' core, and of course the "classic" Linux kernel, the Linux operating system will soon end up like *BSD, with several mutually incompatible, infighting factions. We can't let this happen.
Instead of making their own forks, Love, Cox and Torvalds *MUST* compromise, unless they want to doom Linux to the same marginalisation that BSD suffered due to excessive politics and infighting. Corporations are already being frightened away from Linux due to the diversity of distributions available; if this excessive diversity were to spread down to the very core of the operating system, the kernel, maintaining commercial software would exceed being just difficult and become almost impossible. We can't let this happen, or else Microsoft will eat us for lunch.
The need to compile custom kernels is a wart inflicted by Linux's monolithic nature. Instead of encouraging the painstaking and error-prone task of compiling custom kernels, we should be working on moving more and more kernel functionality into modules, which are loadable and configurable at run-time. It will always be easier and faster to setup a tool to install the proper modules with the correct parameters than it will to tweak a monolithic kernel config, then spend hours compiling the whole 20MB tarball worth of kernel source just to add support for a new feature.
While 2.4's module support is excellent, and modularisation is become more and more prolific throughout the Linux architecture, there are still several important features which need to be excised from the kernel core and made available as runtime modules. Trivial features such as APM support, SMP and Unix sockets shouldn't require a full recompile to activate. Why do we insist on prolonging the life of "make config" and its brethren when we could very well do without it altogether?
C# has already geared itself up for a dominant position in tomorrow's enterprise development environment due to its ECMA standardisation and Microsoft's atypical encouragement of competing implementations (hence Mono, Portable.NET and other such projects). Microsoft's not stupid -- they know from history that open, standard systems almost always outcompete even the most entrenched closed systems eventually.
Sun has scared off a large potential userbase for their Java platform with their obsessively protective and litigious treatment of their intellectual property. Only Apple is more ferocious in their protection of trademarks and copyrights, and we've all seen the marginalising effect Apple's insular attitude has had. Unless Sun has a rapid change of heart,.NET, C# and the CLR is going to vapourise Sun's marketshare in server applications and enterprise programming userbase due to sheer openness. And you can rest assured that, once Microsoft's asserted their dominance in the field,.NET won't remain an open standard for long.
Further, you need to do more research about your arguments. Open source zealots may never bother to check copyright law, but companys really -have- to defend their copyrighted stuff every single time. If they don't they risk losing the rights to it.
No, NO, NO!Trademarks are lost if they aren't defended, not copyright. Is this really such a difficult distinction for Slashdot readers to make?
This is a great start, and I hope that it is very sucessful and prompts other commercial companies too start to champion open source. Value added solutions can be viable business models.
While I am glad to see open-source get accepted in the marketplace, I fear that open-source projects could very quickly become nothing more than cheap publicity stunts for companies. Our burgeoning corporate republic depends on keeping the sheeple quietly content, and by pacifying the vocal Open-Source Community with a few open-source project could very quickly become just another political manoeuvre, no more meaningful than kissing babies or making token efforts to be "environmentally friendly". This is what Apple's open-source efforts smell like to me, and I personally would rather see companies be more open altogether rather than just throw out some code and say "look, we're open source!"
So the fact that I'm a successful consultant and software developer makes me a troll? I can only wonder what small-minded and petty living you make for yourself. Please, if you aren't going to come up with a thoughtful reply to my posts, don't bother posting until you can see beyond your parents' basement. Thank you.
Does one token open-source project really make up for Apple's intense closed-mindedness? One need only look at their recent past to see that they are still up to their old schemes, what with the recent stink over Aqua-like themes and their continuing refusal to open the Sorensen codec, which powers nearly all the streaming media on the web. Darwin seems to me more like Apple trying to get a free ride by encouraging their users to develop their core operating system for them, while they reap the profits and keep their platform under an iron grip.
I can understand that, with Wind River's recent disowning of FreeBSD, Mr. Hubbard needs a more secure job position, but I can't help but wonder if , by joining Apple, he is abandoning his ideals for open-source software. Apple is one of the most closed companies ever, historically being unwilling to share hardware specifications or even tolerate imitations of their Macintosh look and feel. With a horde of lawyers poised like attack dogs, ready to bite the ankles of any possible patent violator, often shitting on Apple's own dedicated fanbase, is this the place for an idealist open-source developer like Jordan to be spending his time?
I frequent the FreeBSD mailing lists, and I have a large cluster of FreeBSD boxes powering the demanding computer applications my Fortune 500 employers demand, and it is the only operating system I have ever seen able to take the punishment my servers take on a daily basis. Jordan has practically abandoned the lists since joining Apple, and the discussions as a whole feel more hollow and less directional without his guidance. With the continuous slippage of FreeBSD 5.0's development, I fear for the future of my operating system. I can't help but feel that Jordan has abandoned his project to rot like BeOS and the Amiga.
You can do it manually like that if you like, or you can just get 98lite and have it do the grunt work for you. Best $15 you'll ever spend if you're forced to use Windows on a semi-regular basis (for gaming, Office, etc.)
This idea still provides a single point of failure for targetting hacking and DDoS attacks. Regardless of who controls it, one single authentication network is a horrible idea. It is doubtful that Passport will gain any serious momentum, since there have already been numerous attacks on the service. I have yet to see any services which support Passport outside of MSN, and I will never sign up for a Passport or a "Liberty Alliance" account or any other single point of failure.
Why waste all the time developing "gyros"...
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
...when you could just add a third wheel to this rehashed Razor Scooter out in front and improve balance *without* $3000 of worthless technology? Sure, it'd look like a motorised tricycle, but it's about as useful as one anyway. It looks like the dot-com "hype-over-substance" marketing tactic has crossed over into transportation too.
Don't be. I am not a troll, and am well-fed besides.:-)
First, who has the right approach, KDE or GNOME? Which system is better? If we don't know that it would be a mistake to devote all of our energy to one.
Well it should have been obvious from day one that KDE was the better target. GNOME was a hastily-thrown-together mishmash of whatever GPL programs were available at the time, put out solely for the purpose of avoiding the "corrupting" influence of Qt (a point which is moot today) and destroying KDE. KDE was and is planned out; detailed release schedules are maintained and are met more often than not, because everything being done to the core KDE framework is well-planned in advance. Can you tell me, with any certainty, when the next version of GNOME will be thrown together, and what improvements the new version will bring? (I'm sorry for sounding trollish, but GNOME really is a mess. What were they thinking when they decided to do everything in C? Why do I need to install 34 different packages with extremely fragile version dependencies in order to get it running?)
Second, the kernel has no competition? What about BSD?
The *BSD developers make no pretensions of competing with Linux; their development focuses most on its strengths as a server, router and general network bit-pusher. If they were attempting to compete with Linux, you would see more work put in towards implementing 3D support, low-latency patches and other multimedia enhancements Linux has been making great strides in. The fact is, 200FPS in Quake is worthless on a server, and they don't try to compete in this arena. BSD and Linux complement each other, they don't compete.
I'm serious. Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation? I love Linux, love seeing it being adopted by IBM, the MPAA, Sony, and other big companies, but I'm also annoyed that it does all this flashy stuff while still not getting the basics right. I'm sorry if I offended you, but you need to grow up and be a little less closed-minded.
Linux has started to become the platform of choice for extremely complex and involved multimedia production, powering enormous render farms and video storage RAID arrays, yet still, Linux falls on its face for mundane day-to-day productivity work. Linux can render the incredibly lifelike texturing and animation exhibited in "Monsters Inc." and "Titanic", yet it can't even open a simple Word document without formatting errors. While delivering superior performance rendering these intensely detailed and hard-wrought movie scenes, Linux stills falls short of Windows when playing Quake. How did we get into this perplexing state of affairs?
I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego. Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux is polluted with warring egos that suffer too much from the problematic NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. There are a myriad of competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG). We can't even decideon aprinting system! I realize that, according to Eric S. Raymond's famous "Cathedral and Bazaar" text, that open-source software is primarily written to scratch an itch and get peer recognition, but this is taking it too far. If all the man-hours poured into KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.
Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars. The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.
I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop. Linux is growing up; its users need to grow up with it, shed their egos and work towards the common goal of creating an excellent working environment.
Freenet already does all this, and in addition, provides for complete anonymity and encryption. It can also be tunneled over just about any other protocol (instead of being limited to HTTP like uServ). It is still under heavy development, but already contains a wealth of information. This is one of the few truly great open-source projects in development today.
This article must be a joke. Anyone with the slightest degree of environmental science would know this is bullshit. The story says this technology uses thermionics, chemicals similar to chlorofluorocarbons which have been long known to deteriorate our planet's fragile ozone layer. Putting one of these thermionics devices into every automobile and factory in the country would dissolve the ozone above America in the span of a few years. I, for one, don't want to wear SPF 300 sunblock every time I go outside.
Of course, there is no way the EPA would allow any project involving thermionics to even get to the planning stage. This story is obviously yet another hoax. I wish the editors would bother to do some research before letting hoax links onto the front page.
I swear, the hedonistic tendency I see in some of my more computer-oriented friends to slaver over faster processors, more memory, better graphics, and absolutely useless gimmicks like cube-shaped computers and flat-screen monitors saddens me. That we as a culture are so shallow to think that adding a paltry 50MHz to our gigahertz+ processors or having more hard drive space for porn and stolen MP3s will somehow make us happy is the tragedy of the modern age. No electronic pet or game console will bring you any more than a second of joy, until your eyes wander forth to the "next big thing".
So instead of asking for yet another slab of transistors and cathode-ray tubes this holiday season, ask for something that will last, something that will make you feel happy inside as a person. Ask a loved one to give money to your favorite charity in your name (if you read Slashdot, you've been planning on making a donation to the EFF anyway, right? No excuse not to do it now, and you'll get to be cool like Wil Wheaton!). Or better yet, don't tell anyone what you want for Christmas, and then see what they get you, because those gifts are the sort that require true thought on the part of the giver, and it's the thought that counts in the end, right?
Please try to raise yourself above the primal materialism that runs rampant this time of year, and remember what the season is all about. While you may not get the l33t357 b0x, you'll be happier in the long run.
Fair use issues aside, the immaturity displayed by the abundance of copyrighted music on Napster, KaZaA et al. has signalled copyright holders that they need some sort of control in order to prevent copyright infringement on the gargantuan scale of today's P2P networks. While I'm still not totally enamored of this technology (since it doesn't allow for even one generation of copies for backup, WMA/MP3 players, etc.), they are at least heading in the right direction. Notice that this time, they are clearly labelling the copy-protected CDs, and encouraging returns from unsatisfied customers.
While total copy prevention is bad for us consumers, no protection at all is bad for the producers. Instead of the childish stimulus-response behaviour against all forms of copy-protection, we need to work with the content producers in order to develop a scheme that helps both consumers (by encouraging fair-use) and producers (by preventing large-scale robbery of copyrighted works). They are willing to please the consumers (remember, they have to in order to keeping getting our dollars), so instead of rejecting it, make constructive criticisms. This is the only way we are going to be able to full realize the benefits of digital information.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you Jamie for bring this issue to the front.
While there are different Linux distributions, these all use the same kernel and the same applications, usually built from the same sources. A Redhat binary will generally run fine on Mandrake or Debian or Caldera or SuSE or what have you. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD have become completely different operating systems with vastly different userspace code. Binaries are not at all portable between the operating systems. This is a far deeper and more severe fork than Linux, and if we continue down the road of having more and more Linux kernels (as we are seeing now), soon the same deep, irrevocable split could happen to Linux as well.
Right now it's just a patch. But Linus has made it clear that he is unwilling (for whatever foolish reasons) to accept Love's patches. If the preempt patches become popular enough (as they no doubt will amongst those using Linux for multimedia production), it won't be long before somebody decides to fork the kernel with preemptible patches simply to make it easier to use for more people. From there, you could very quickly end up with yet another completely different operating system kernel.
Instead of making their own forks, Love, Cox and Torvalds *MUST* compromise, unless they want to doom Linux to the same marginalisation that BSD suffered due to excessive politics and infighting. Corporations are already being frightened away from Linux due to the diversity of distributions available; if this excessive diversity were to spread down to the very core of the operating system, the kernel, maintaining commercial software would exceed being just difficult and become almost impossible. We can't let this happen, or else Microsoft will eat us for lunch.
While 2.4's module support is excellent, and modularisation is become more and more prolific throughout the Linux architecture, there are still several important features which need to be excised from the kernel core and made available as runtime modules. Trivial features such as APM support, SMP and Unix sockets shouldn't require a full recompile to activate. Why do we insist on prolonging the life of "make config" and its brethren when we could very well do without it altogether?
Sun has scared off a large potential userbase for their Java platform with their obsessively protective and litigious treatment of their intellectual property. Only Apple is more ferocious in their protection of trademarks and copyrights, and we've all seen the marginalising effect Apple's insular attitude has had. Unless Sun has a rapid change of heart, .NET, C# and the CLR is going to vapourise Sun's marketshare in server applications and enterprise programming userbase due to sheer openness. And you can rest assured that, once Microsoft's asserted their dominance in the field, .NET won't remain an open standard for long.
No, NO, NO! Trademarks are lost if they aren't defended, not copyright. Is this really such a difficult distinction for Slashdot readers to make?
This is a great start, and I hope that it is very sucessful and prompts other commercial companies too start to champion open source. Value added solutions can be viable business models.
While I am glad to see open-source get accepted in the marketplace, I fear that open-source projects could very quickly become nothing more than cheap publicity stunts for companies. Our burgeoning corporate republic depends on keeping the sheeple quietly content, and by pacifying the vocal Open-Source Community with a few open-source project could very quickly become just another political manoeuvre, no more meaningful than kissing babies or making token efforts to be "environmentally friendly". This is what Apple's open-source efforts smell like to me, and I personally would rather see companies be more open altogether rather than just throw out some code and say "look, we're open source!"
So the fact that I'm a successful consultant and software developer makes me a troll? I can only wonder what small-minded and petty living you make for yourself. Please, if you aren't going to come up with a thoughtful reply to my posts, don't bother posting until you can see beyond your parents' basement. Thank you.
Does one token open-source project really make up for Apple's intense closed-mindedness? One need only look at their recent past to see that they are still up to their old schemes, what with the recent stink over Aqua-like themes and their continuing refusal to open the Sorensen codec, which powers nearly all the streaming media on the web. Darwin seems to me more like Apple trying to get a free ride by encouraging their users to develop their core operating system for them, while they reap the profits and keep their platform under an iron grip.
I frequent the FreeBSD mailing lists, and I have a large cluster of FreeBSD boxes powering the demanding computer applications my Fortune 500 employers demand, and it is the only operating system I have ever seen able to take the punishment my servers take on a daily basis. Jordan has practically abandoned the lists since joining Apple, and the discussions as a whole feel more hollow and less directional without his guidance. With the continuous slippage of FreeBSD 5.0's development, I fear for the future of my operating system. I can't help but feel that Jordan has abandoned his project to rot like BeOS and the Amiga.
You can do it manually like that if you like, or you can just get 98lite and have it do the grunt work for you. Best $15 you'll ever spend if you're forced to use Windows on a semi-regular basis (for gaming, Office, etc.)
This idea still provides a single point of failure for targetting hacking and DDoS attacks. Regardless of who controls it, one single authentication network is a horrible idea. It is doubtful that Passport will gain any serious momentum, since there have already been numerous attacks on the service. I have yet to see any services which support Passport outside of MSN, and I will never sign up for a Passport or a "Liberty Alliance" account or any other single point of failure.
...when you could just add a third wheel to this rehashed Razor Scooter out in front and improve balance *without* $3000 of worthless technology? Sure, it'd look like a motorised tricycle, but it's about as useful as one anyway. It looks like the dot-com "hype-over-substance" marketing tactic has crossed over into transportation too.
Don't be. I am not a troll, and am well-fed besides. :-)
First, who has the right approach, KDE or GNOME? Which system is better? If we don't know that it would be a mistake to devote all of our energy to one.
Well it should have been obvious from day one that KDE was the better target. GNOME was a hastily-thrown-together mishmash of whatever GPL programs were available at the time, put out solely for the purpose of avoiding the "corrupting" influence of Qt (a point which is moot today) and destroying KDE. KDE was and is planned out; detailed release schedules are maintained and are met more often than not, because everything being done to the core KDE framework is well-planned in advance. Can you tell me, with any certainty, when the next version of GNOME will be thrown together, and what improvements the new version will bring? (I'm sorry for sounding trollish, but GNOME really is a mess. What were they thinking when they decided to do everything in C? Why do I need to install 34 different packages with extremely fragile version dependencies in order to get it running?)
Second, the kernel has no competition? What about BSD?
The *BSD developers make no pretensions of competing with Linux; their development focuses most on its strengths as a server, router and general network bit-pusher. If they were attempting to compete with Linux, you would see more work put in towards implementing 3D support, low-latency patches and other multimedia enhancements Linux has been making great strides in. The fact is, 200FPS in Quake is worthless on a server, and they don't try to compete in this arena. BSD and Linux complement each other, they don't compete.
I'm serious. Why are you so small-minded and petty that you cry troll at the slightest provocation? I love Linux, love seeing it being adopted by IBM, the MPAA, Sony, and other big companies, but I'm also annoyed that it does all this flashy stuff while still not getting the basics right. I'm sorry if I offended you, but you need to grow up and be a little less closed-minded.
I'll tell you why -- good old fashioned ego. Whereas the low end (kernel developers, compiler writers, etc.) and high end (clustering software, 3D modelling and rendering, etc.) of development is led by strong, well-organised teams of well-trained developers with vision and understanding, the middle ground of the Linux is polluted with warring egos that suffer too much from the problematic NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. There are a myriad of competing, mutually incompatible yet separately inadequate office suites (Star Office, KOffice, Applix,...), desktop environments (KDE, Gnome, XFCE, CDE, UDE, ROX,...), and X servers (XFree86, MetroX, XiG). We can't even decide on a printing system! I realize that, according to Eric S. Raymond's famous "Cathedral and Bazaar" text, that open-source software is primarily written to scratch an itch and get peer recognition, but this is taking it too far. If all the man-hours poured into KDE and GNOME were combined into a common vision, we would have one perfect end-user desktop, instead of two poor imitations of Windows.
Don't give me the old "competition" argument either. There is only one Linux kernel, which seems to progress just fine without another competing project nipping at its feet and instigating flamewars. The endless KDE vs. GNOME, Applix vs. StarOffice, and other feuds have wasted more productivity than would be gained by and competitive drive.
I, for one, am somewhat miffed that while my operating system powers Hollywood blockbusters and NASA supercomputers, it still can't fully replace Windows on my office desktop. Linux is growing up; its users need to grow up with it, shed their egos and work towards the common goal of creating an excellent working environment.
Freenet already does all this, and in addition, provides for complete anonymity and encryption. It can also be tunneled over just about any other protocol (instead of being limited to HTTP like uServ). It is still under heavy development, but already contains a wealth of information. This is one of the few truly great open-source projects in development today.
Of course, there is no way the EPA would allow any project involving thermionics to even get to the planning stage. This story is obviously yet another hoax. I wish the editors would bother to do some research before letting hoax links onto the front page.
So instead of asking for yet another slab of transistors and cathode-ray tubes this holiday season, ask for something that will last, something that will make you feel happy inside as a person. Ask a loved one to give money to your favorite charity in your name (if you read Slashdot, you've been planning on making a donation to the EFF anyway, right? No excuse not to do it now, and you'll get to be cool like Wil Wheaton!). Or better yet, don't tell anyone what you want for Christmas, and then see what they get you, because those gifts are the sort that require true thought on the part of the giver, and it's the thought that counts in the end, right?
Please try to raise yourself above the primal materialism that runs rampant this time of year, and remember what the season is all about. While you may not get the l33t357 b0x, you'll be happier in the long run.
While total copy prevention is bad for us consumers, no protection at all is bad for the producers. Instead of the childish stimulus-response behaviour against all forms of copy-protection, we need to work with the content producers in order to develop a scheme that helps both consumers (by encouraging fair-use) and producers (by preventing large-scale robbery of copyrighted works). They are willing to please the consumers (remember, they have to in order to keeping getting our dollars), so instead of rejecting it, make constructive criticisms. This is the only way we are going to be able to full realize the benefits of digital information.