It's a second rate player for a second rate OS. It plays first rate video at third rate speeds. QT on Apple and WMP on Windows outperform it hands down (as they should). It's a nice toy for people pushing Unix on the desktop, but it's not even in the running for 'wonder app of the millenium'.
Everytime something large is done in flash, everyone bitches about that, too.
The only way they could have gotten away with it without anyone bitching is a series of JPG (can't use GIFs, someone will whine about the patents) renderings.
Other possibilities, like Quicktime, would also get complaints.
I guess what I should have realized is that there's enough whining, crying, bitching queers on this site that they'll never be happy about anything that isn't written by Linus, supported by RedHat, or directly attacks Microsoft.
Why the warning about "proprietary microsoft software"... it's pretty much common sense that if you're going to be viewing 3D simulations, it's probably only going to be created for a single OS, and that OS is going to be the most popular OS on the internet.
Creating 3d models isn't difficult. Creating a series of 3d models isn't difficult either, but its more time consuming. Creating a series of cross-platform 3d models is likely too much to ask for a FREE site.
Now I've never worked on a large O/S project, so maybe he could just have gone in and fixed the IPFW (whatever that is) himself, in which case this argument is moot, but in the world I work in people own code and they don't like other people fiddling with it.
IPFW is the kernel based firewalling for FreeBSD. It consists of two parts: the in kernel structures and the userland application to add and modify rules.
The complaint Matt was making was that Luigi Rizzo (a developer responsible for writing both versions of IPFW) was committing things to the tree that were breaking world (in FreeBSD, unlike Linux, the userland apps are part of the OS, not just the kernel).
It's been said on the mailing list that disputes with Matt have gone back about 5 years. This relatively recent breakage may have been the tip on a very large iceberg. Regardless, I'm sorry to see him leave, and I hope he continues sending patches through the appropriate channels and that someone else is objective enough to commit them as appropriate.
First, we all know slackware was released 10 years ago, and before that you'd be using Peter MacDonalds standalone install (unless you're downloading tarbells from the net, which were absolutely horrible to use). Have you been using Linux for 11+ years? Unlikely. If so, what version did you start with? 0.02?
Second, check the top uptimes on netcraft. You'll note they're ALL BSD.
Actually, from the microsoft piracy site (link), the BSA does not choose, but rather, someone must recommend or report an offending company:
Most BSA investigations begin with a call to BSA's hotline 888 NO PIRACY or online report on nopiracy.com. Most calls or reports come for current or former employees. Typically, after an initial investigation of the lead, BSA contacts the company reported. In some cases the BSA will pursue a software raid.
This step gives them cause to act on behalf of their clients (microsoft, macromedia, adobe, symantec, etc).
By outlawing the distribution / posting of software deemed "malicious", it becomes only a matter of time until someone attempts to apply it to security tools such as nmap, ethereal, and any/all proof of concept exploits.
The distribution of "malicious" code should be regulated (or intentionally unregulated) much the same as file sharing should be: posting things for others should be legal ; using things for illegal and malicious acts should not .
The problem, though, is the impossibility of catching everyone who uses a "malicious program" once it has been posted. Much like peer-to-peer file sharing, once something is online, it is difficult or impossible to contain. Hence, a paradox: legislators intelligently see that the only way to truly stop these nuisances is to stop it at the source, the single point of failure; unfortunately, this seems to violate fair use and free speech principles. The only way to stop these nuisances is to trample on protected principles.
I, unfortunately, see no easy solution to this problem.
I wouldnt want a large, midsized beige case in my entertainment center, and I'm probably not alone there. I wouldnt mind a sleek, black box, if I had (any kind of) money.
You're paying for the pretty case, and the software. A lot of people on this site probably do not care a single bit about this product, as they could build their own and write basically equivalent software for nearly nothing. A lot of people who know nothing about computers, but might have an extra $600 to spend, might find this somewhat more attractive.
I use deoderant, is direct marketing deoderant going to get me to change my habits? no.
how bout:
I buy servers for my company. Is direct marketing a type of server going to get me to change my habits?
Possibly. If someone (IBM) comes along and offers a new line of boxes, and a support contract to match them, that outperforms what I have (SUN) for a reasonable price, and I might be in the market for servers in the next year or so, then yes. Its very much possible that this direct, targetted marketing could change my mind.
When was the last time someone did a code review on the linux kernel? What's that? It's never happened?
Face it, with a few exceptions, the Open Source community is focused on creating a product, not on creating a secure product. It is this mentality that produces a lot of the products you use today, unfortunately, its the same mentality that causes a few dozen security holes to be discovered weekly.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but the open source community, as a whole, doesnt do much in the way of code audits.
And I can bet you ANYTHING that if it was one of the BSDs that was threatening to take over their marketshare, they'd be singing a different tune about the BSD license.
First, in what course exactly would an instructor want to say "Well, here's a whole bunch of code from a commercial (or any) project. Study it."
While I can appreciate your sentiments, you obviously dont know what you're talking about.
They dont want you to use their code as study material for projects. They want you to use their framework for your own projects: ie. rather than writing in c++ , using the c libraries ( #include <iostream> ), write it in c#, using the.NET libraries.
I'm sure they provide examples, but the point isnt to study the examples, but to provide a new framework on which to build (network based) applications.
Re:Mmmm.. FUN! And a legal nightmare..
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Okay, this is my computer. I purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on my machine. Said snooping software destroys my anti-snooper, interfering with it's proper operation and generally depriving me of it's service that I have paid for.
Shouldn't I be able to sue the snooper software, as I did not ask for it and did not give any kind of authorization for it's installation into my system? To say nothing of the trespassing charges I'm going to bring against the snooper developer..
Consider this situation: You are at work, and you'd like to know if someone's snooping on you (a valid concern). You install your anti-snooper, and the snooping software disables it. Since the computers are owned by the company, you really have no legal recourse (take your software elsewhere?).
Alternative situation: You are married (this may be a stretch...), and your wife thinks that your time spent reading slashdot is really time being spent talking to hideous women in yahoo chat rooms. She gets suspicious enough to buy, and install, activate the snooping software on your home computer. It disables anti-snooping software you installed long before. Now, assuming you believe in the concept of marriage, the computer is as much hers as it is yours: why should your software be any more important than hers?
Yep, that's right. Root can't delete the file. Why? Its not in use, not that it would matter, but rather, its defined to be immutable. Safety precautions: not even dumb admins or hackers can modify or delete that file. Period.
Eventually Linux might have this feature... yet more evidence that *bsd is years ahead of linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder app of the millenium?
Are you kidding?
It's a second rate player for a second rate OS. It plays first rate video at third rate speeds. QT on Apple and WMP on Windows outperform it hands down (as they should). It's a nice toy for people pushing Unix on the desktop, but it's not even in the running for 'wonder app of the millenium'.
If you'd all shut down your filesharing, you'd probably notice a 10x speed increase.
How many people got stuffed in lockers?
At my school, I counted none.
I never saw anyone beaten for being smart. I saw a few beaten for being condescending. They all deserved it.
Google scans a few times the first day or to it indexes your site.
If you're ranked high, and your content changes daily, you get scanned more often.
If you're ranked low, and your content doesn't change often, you'll get scanned at most once a month.
Everytime something large is done in flash, everyone bitches about that, too.
The only way they could have gotten away with it without anyone bitching is a series of JPG (can't use GIFs, someone will whine about the patents) renderings.
Other possibilities, like Quicktime, would also get complaints.
I guess what I should have realized is that there's enough whining, crying, bitching queers on this site that they'll never be happy about anything that isn't written by Linus, supported by RedHat, or directly attacks Microsoft.
Why the warning about "proprietary microsoft software" ... it's pretty much common sense that if you're going to be viewing 3D simulations, it's probably only going to be created for a single OS, and that OS is going to be the most popular OS on the internet.
Creating 3d models isn't difficult. Creating a series of 3d models isn't difficult either, but its more time consuming. Creating a series of cross-platform 3d models is likely too much to ask for a FREE site.
lynx, wget, and fetch, all work over http.
No.
The more you use PGP now, the more they'll have to decrypt if anyone ever decides they need to know what you're doing.
The upshot of all this spending is a few thousand jobs for engineers, programmers, and others in the tech field.
Now I've never worked on a large O/S project, so maybe he could just have gone in and fixed the IPFW (whatever that is) himself, in which case this argument is moot, but in the world I work in people own code and they don't like other people fiddling with it.
IPFW is the kernel based firewalling for FreeBSD. It consists of two parts: the in kernel structures and the userland application to add and modify rules.
The complaint Matt was making was that Luigi Rizzo (a developer responsible for writing both versions of IPFW) was committing things to the tree that were breaking world (in FreeBSD, unlike Linux, the userland apps are part of the OS, not just the kernel).
It's been said on the mailing list that disputes with Matt have gone back about 5 years. This relatively recent breakage may have been the tip on a very large iceberg. Regardless, I'm sorry to see him leave, and I hope he continues sending patches through the appropriate channels and that someone else is objective enough to commit them as appropriate.
Two big problems.
First, we all know slackware was released 10 years ago, and before that you'd be using Peter MacDonalds standalone install (unless you're downloading tarbells from the net, which were absolutely horrible to use). Have you been using Linux for 11+ years? Unlikely. If so, what version did you start with? 0.02?
Second, check the top uptimes on netcraft. You'll note they're ALL BSD.
its a bug that was patched months ago.
blame the users for not updating their systems, just as you'd blame any lazy linux user for not updating theirs.
This step gives them cause to act on behalf of their clients (microsoft, macromedia, adobe, symantec, etc).
This sets a dangerous precedent.
By outlawing the distribution / posting of software deemed "malicious", it becomes only a matter of time until someone attempts to apply it to security tools such as nmap, ethereal, and any/all proof of concept exploits.
The distribution of "malicious" code should be regulated (or intentionally unregulated) much the same as file sharing should be: posting things for others should be legal ; using things for illegal and malicious acts should not .
The problem, though, is the impossibility of catching everyone who uses a "malicious program" once it has been posted. Much like peer-to-peer file sharing, once something is online, it is difficult or impossible to contain. Hence, a paradox: legislators intelligently see that the only way to truly stop these nuisances is to stop it at the source, the single point of failure; unfortunately, this seems to violate fair use and free speech principles. The only way to stop these nuisances is to trample on protected principles.
I, unfortunately, see no easy solution to this problem.
The point is the case, not the functionality.
I wouldnt want a large, midsized beige case in my entertainment center, and I'm probably not alone there. I wouldnt mind a sleek, black box, if I had (any kind of) money.
Yea, you could.
You're paying for the pretty case, and the software. A lot of people on this site probably do not care a single bit about this product, as they could build their own and write basically equivalent software for nearly nothing. A lot of people who know nothing about computers, but might have an extra $600 to spend, might find this somewhat more attractive.
I use deoderant, is direct marketing deoderant going to get me to change my habits? no.
how bout:
I buy servers for my company. Is direct marketing a type of server going to get me to change my habits?
Possibly. If someone (IBM) comes along and offers a new line of boxes, and a support contract to match them, that outperforms what I have (SUN) for a reasonable price, and I might be in the market for servers in the next year or so, then yes. Its very much possible that this direct, targetted marketing could change my mind.
black dell cases ....
something like this would work nicely.
With one notable exception, he might be correct.
When was the last time someone did a code review on the linux kernel? What's that? It's never happened?
Face it, with a few exceptions, the Open Source community is focused on creating a product, not on creating a secure product. It is this mentality that produces a lot of the products you use today, unfortunately, its the same mentality that causes a few dozen security holes to be discovered weekly.
Its not necessarily a bad thing, but the open source community, as a whole, doesnt do much in the way of code audits.
And I can bet you ANYTHING that if it was one of the BSDs that was threatening to take over their marketshare, they'd be singing a different tune about the BSD license.
How about FreeBSD and Darwin (aka Mac OS 10.1) ?
everyone has decided that april fools day stories are neither funny nor clever.
First, in what course exactly would an instructor want to say "Well, here's a whole bunch of code from a commercial (or any) project. Study it."
.NET libraries.
While I can appreciate your sentiments, you obviously dont know what you're talking about.
They dont want you to use their code as study material for projects. They want you to use their framework for your own projects: ie. rather than writing in c++ , using the c libraries ( #include <iostream> ), write it in c#, using the
I'm sure they provide examples, but the point isnt to study the examples, but to provide a new framework on which to build (network based) applications.
Okay, this is my computer. I purchase a piece of software that is supposed to detect snooping software hiding out on my machine. Said snooping software destroys my anti-snooper, interfering with it's proper operation and generally depriving me of it's service that I have paid for.
Shouldn't I be able to sue the snooper software, as I did not ask for it and did not give any kind of authorization for it's installation into my system? To say nothing of the trespassing charges I'm going to bring against the snooper developer..
Consider this situation: You are at work, and you'd like to know if someone's snooping on you (a valid concern). You install your anti-snooper, and the snooping software disables it. Since the computers are owned by the company, you really have no legal recourse (take your software elsewhere?).
Alternative situation: You are married (this may be a stretch...), and your wife thinks that your time spent reading slashdot is really time being spent talking to hideous women in yahoo chat rooms. She gets suspicious enough to buy, and install, activate the snooping software on your home computer. It disables anti-snooping software you installed long before. Now, assuming you believe in the concept of marriage, the computer is as much hers as it is yours: why should your software be any more important than hers?
you are dumb. First, IPFW and IPFilter make linux's Iptables look as sad as they are.
A ME_4_5 i386
Secondly, packages typically arent "broken", they're disabled because of security holes (you still want to install them???).
Furthermore, you obviously know nothing about samba on freebsd:
[2:55pm] me (~) # uname -a
FreeBSD myhostname.edu 4.5-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE-p1 #0: Fri Mar 1 15:09:01 GMT 2002 jeff@myhostname.edu:/usr/src/sys/compile/MACHINEN
[2:55pm] me (~) # which smbclient
/usr/local/bin/smbclient
so, being root on *bsd is academic too?
/bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh: Operation not permitted
... yet more evidence that *bsd is years ahead of linux.
[12:06pm] root (/home/me) # ls -larto
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel schg 452412 Jan 28 05:11
[12:07pm] root (/home/me) # rm -f
rm:
[12:07pm] root (/home/me) # whoami
root
[12:07pm] root (/home/me) # id
uid=0(root) gid=0(wheel) groups=0(wheel), 2(kmem), 3(sys), 4(tty), 5(operator), 20(staff), 31(guest)
Yep, that's right. Root can't delete the file. Why? Its not in use, not that it would matter, but rather, its defined to be immutable. Safety precautions: not even dumb admins or hackers can modify or delete that file. Period.
Eventually Linux might have this feature