There are mountains of original open source games, each is probably considered "successful" by its authors as they have actually been released to the public...
And what is with drawing in all the FUD about governments software policies?? The real issue for governments (and many others) is open formats, not source. Vendor lock-in and the inability to review old data stored in an unsupported format is a great concern (for _all_ software users). This is something the author completely ignores.
Governments are not game players, they are willing to pay for ongoing software support/development. Governments do not require "large initial investments in cutting edge innovation", they require reliable data processing (and storage).
Just to confuse things futher a comment is laid in about government-funded research. The author seems to suggest that private companies paid by their government (ie the general public) to do software research should not be forced to open source their results because the company is taking a risk in doing the research in the first place and deserves a reward if successful. WHAT F'ING RISK??? They are not undertaking this research on their own, they are being PAID to do so. These I guess are the same companies that claim ownership on anything the people they pay create, strange how they chaff at the bit when they get treated the same way.
Overall I rate the article as a near complete waste of time in reading and it blew the needle off my FUD meter.
If updating NT 4 to XP levels requires downloading X number of packages of Y megabytes, plenty of people are going to opt to just drop their dollars on XP.
Multiple releases, complicated interactions between various patches released by different individuals and the various problems this creates in tracking down bugs are things that some people don't want to spend their time on.
The people who are willing to jump these hurdles are probably already not using Microsoft OSs.
If all you do is create a cheaper Windows replica, who is going to use it? The same people who now buy $2 CD copies??
To pull a true Microsoft, you would need to embrace and extend Windows. So after re-writing Windows XP entirely, you now need to add something additional that users will actually want in order for them to use your product instead of Microsofts.
Where are you going to get your developers from, most of them use other OSs where the development tools are freely available? "Hey, come work on FreeWin, you just need to buy 3 compilers at DDDD dollars a pop...."
I don't think you points are totally invalid, Microsofts business is heavily structered around closed source and closed formats, but those are not the only cards they hold in their hand.
This works fine for spam that requires a valid return address, but what about all the spam that is just trying to get you to visit a website. Replying to such a spam just gets you a bounce message.
Does this mean I now have to read all my spam to decide which I should reply to and which I should ignore???
Yes, and something that doesn't seem to get a mention is that blocking off dialups also stops all those viruses with their own SMTP engines (read as: any major virus released in the last 3+ years).
Mail serving is not a CPU intensive task, sure it will thrash your disk but I'd be surprised if most mail servers didn't have plenty of CPU cycles to burn.
Also, when all an ISPs customers start implementing dodgy "spam guards" that bounce mail back to non-existant senders, it is the ISP postmaster who wastes his time wading through the "bounce of a bounce" messages.
It is all in the unlinking. From the given results, reiserfs is ~10 times faster deleting files then anything else. This would make a huge difference in the run times of the test.
The Bonnie++ website (linked from the article??) tells you what each test does.
I started doing my own testing (and put it on hold after spending two weeks worth of evenings on it and constantly finding more tests worth running). I didn't include jfs at the time, now I wish I did:(
My solution for speed was ext3 with an external journal on another IDE channel.
No more disk thrashing to update the journal = ext2 speed with ext3 protection:)
Err, were you hoping for some +1 funny mods with this post??
You claim your product (which you don't yet have fully working as indicated by your later post) requires a high level of technical ability to produce. Despite this fact and the fact that you have yet to produce it, you claim a few misplaced words would see this product produced by Big Brother Company X at a level your company couldn't compete with??
You claim that your business plan requires your company be a monopoly.
You also are quite happy to ignore the adage "Nothing new under the sun" and not bring your product to market ASAP, happy to let it sit on the back burner for several years despite already having a customers for it!
Although the originally article does not mention it, it would seem another danger of NDAs is that they provide an illusion of protection which enables companies to twiddle their thumbs until they are blind-sided by the more pro-active.
Sticking with your consulting careers is perhaps the best indication of just how serious you are about this product...
Err, it isn't like they have stopped producing a product. Nor are they in a highly competitive developing market where three(+) year old technology is "old school". By market share alone they set the defacto standards for office document formats and training costs.
This news does explain why Microsoft started a big Windows XP product push on Aussie TV recently.
inetnu m: 202.0.0.0 - 202.0.15.255 netname: DOMEWA-AU descr: Department of Minerals & Energy (WA) descr: Mineral House descr: 100 Plain Street descr: East Perth Western Australia 6004 country: AU
It gets wider only if abuse reports are repeatedly ignored. It takes many steps to get as wide as you are describing.
No, it doesn't take many steps, just two poorly worded emails with an insufficient grovel content. Anti-spam fanatics like all humans come in a range of hues from upstanding and truthful to petty and dishonest...
Modification of the front side bus speed is now a fairly trivial affair, it can be done by software whilst the system is running. Increasing it by 2% is very unlikely to cause the system to fail, but will give you a few dollars more on your benchmark result.
Various BIOS settings are also able to be changed on the fly, checking all these values whilst the benchmark is running will alter the results of the benchmark, but the difference they can make requires any true benchmarker to monitor them...
I think "sloppy" and "follow mouse" focus are the same thing.
AFAIK KDE (and Windows) always gives focus to new windows, no matter what focus policy you select. I've tried everything short of hacking the source to get KDE to not do this, as I quite like it but I can't stand this window behaviour.
My video card came with nview, which allows up to 32 virtual desktops for Windows...
Thanks for mentioning "multitask" as an opening for one of my long standing rants.
Neither Windows or KDE support a sensible multi-tasking window focus model. My definition of sensible is a model which will raise new windows, but not give them focus. If I'm typing in a window and a new window appears, I want my keystrokes to keep going to the same old window. Mouse clicks are trickier but if I click on a window and a new window appears as I'm clicking, the new window should become focused but not process the click.
Without this sort of focus model, running lots of interactive tasks at once can become a random game of chance and wasted moments undoing errant keystrokes.
Windows that pop-up from other virtual desktops are just as annoying.
Given that other companies in the same business have all the required "testing" equipment already, the act of reverse engineering a competitors equipment would be trivial.
I think it is because they fear public review, far more so then software producers.
If someone finds a flaw in say a northbridge and announces it to the world, they are stuffed.
a) It damages their brandname. b) No-one would want that northbridge (version) anymore. All motherboards with that northbridge would be de-valued. That is a large chumk of stock to write down(off).
You can't "flash/patch" a northbridge (or an inkjet printer controller, etc), if something doesn't work like it should, you just have to hope the software driver can fake it (and releasing that driver in binary-only format helps keep your dirty little secrets).
Many motherboards utilise third party chips (eg LAN, temp sensors, PLL clock chips, etc). There is nothing saying they have to make the most of those chips. It may be embarassing for them if someone pointed out that users are missing out on feature X of chip Y because the northbridge doesn't support it.
Slashdot Mirror
So now we have to have dominant and submissive hard drives???
There are mountains of original open source games, each is probably considered "successful" by its authors as they have actually been released to the public...
And what is with drawing in all the FUD about governments software policies?? The real issue for governments (and many others) is open formats, not source. Vendor lock-in and the inability to review old data stored in an unsupported format is a great concern (for _all_ software users). This is something the author completely ignores.
Governments are not game players, they are willing to pay for ongoing software support/development. Governments do not require "large initial investments in cutting edge innovation", they require reliable data processing (and storage).
Just to confuse things futher a comment is laid in about government-funded research. The author seems to suggest that private companies paid by their government (ie the general public) to do software research should not be forced to open source their results because the company is taking a risk in doing the research in the first place and deserves a reward if successful. WHAT F'ING RISK??? They are not undertaking this research on their own, they are being PAID to do so. These I guess are the same companies that claim ownership on anything the people they pay create, strange how they chaff at the bit when they get treated the same way.
Overall I rate the article as a near complete waste of time in reading and it blew the needle off my FUD meter.
If updating NT 4 to XP levels requires downloading X number of packages of Y megabytes, plenty of people are going to opt to just drop their dollars on XP.
...."
Multiple releases, complicated interactions between various patches released by different individuals and the various problems this creates in tracking down bugs are things that some people don't want to spend their time on.
The people who are willing to jump these hurdles are probably already not using Microsoft OSs.
If all you do is create a cheaper Windows replica, who is going to use it? The same people who now buy $2 CD copies??
To pull a true Microsoft, you would need to embrace and extend Windows. So after re-writing Windows XP entirely, you now need to add something additional that users will actually want in order for them to use your product instead of Microsofts.
Where are you going to get your developers from, most of them use other OSs where the development tools are freely available? "Hey, come work on FreeWin, you just need to buy 3 compilers at DDDD dollars a pop
I don't think you points are totally invalid, Microsofts business is heavily structered around closed source and closed formats, but those are not the only cards they hold in their hand.
This works fine for spam that requires a valid return address, but what about all the spam that is just trying to get you to visit a website. Replying to such a spam just gets you a bounce message.
Does this mean I now have to read all my spam to decide which I should reply to and which I should ignore???
I haven't RTFA, but I read something about this last week.
It basically boils down to the fact that a number of the ISPs employees are directly involved in the website.
These people have become defendants not because they work at the hosting ISP, but because they are involved in the hosted site.
Move along people, nothing to see here.
Your Snort box can decode ROT13 usenet posts on the fly??
Your Snort box can understand base64 MIME encoded emails??
I think any film with Lori Petty in it is a winner, but I might be biased.
Also Point Break seems to make a point of not glorifying "gun fights", which is nice change in an action movie.
Yes, and something that doesn't seem to get a mention is that blocking off dialups also stops all those viruses with their own SMTP engines (read as: any major virus released in the last 3+ years).
Mail serving is not a CPU intensive task, sure it will thrash your disk but I'd be surprised if most mail servers didn't have plenty of CPU cycles to burn.
Also, when all an ISPs customers start implementing dodgy "spam guards" that bounce mail back to non-existant senders, it is the ISP postmaster who wastes his time wading through the "bounce of a bounce" messages.
It is all in the unlinking. From the given results, reiserfs is ~10 times faster deleting files then anything else. This would make a huge difference in the run times of the test.
The Bonnie++ website (linked from the article??) tells you what each test does.
ext3 rocks!
:(
:)
I started doing my own testing (and put it on hold after spending two weeks worth of evenings on it and constantly finding more tests worth running). I didn't include jfs at the time, now I wish I did
My solution for speed was ext3 with an external journal on another IDE channel.
No more disk thrashing to update the journal = ext2 speed with ext3 protection
This is not an attempt to force consumers to use MS products, it is an attempt to force them to use DRM products.
I have as much interest in buying a DRM-enabled computer as I do in buying a motor vehicle that won't turn left...
Err, were you hoping for some +1 funny mods with this post??
You claim your product (which you don't yet have fully working as indicated by your later post) requires a high level of technical ability to produce. Despite this fact and the fact that you have yet to produce it, you claim a few misplaced words would see this product produced by Big Brother Company X at a level your company couldn't compete with??
You claim that your business plan requires your company be a monopoly.
You also are quite happy to ignore the adage "Nothing new under the sun" and not bring your product to market ASAP, happy to let it sit on the back burner for several years despite already having a customers for it!
Although the originally article does not mention it, it would seem another danger of NDAs is that they provide an illusion of protection which enables companies to twiddle their thumbs until they are blind-sided by the more pro-active.
Sticking with your consulting careers is perhaps the best indication of just how serious you are about this product...
Patent, or get off the pot.
Yes, except that it completely broke because no-one noticed that the SSL certificate was about to expire.
Err, it isn't like they have stopped producing a product. Nor are they in a highly competitive developing market where three(+) year old technology is "old school". By market share alone they set the defacto standards for office document formats and training costs.
This news does explain why Microsoft started a big Windows XP product push on Aussie TV recently.
It gets wider only if abuse reports are repeatedly ignored. It takes many steps to get as wide as you are describing.
No, it doesn't take many steps, just two poorly worded emails with an insufficient grovel content. Anti-spam fanatics like all humans come in a range of hues from upstanding and truthful to petty and dishonestYes, they can be fined.
Yes, they can buy "Directors Insurance", which means they don't personally pay those fines anyway...
Modification of the front side bus speed is now a fairly trivial affair, it can be done by software whilst the system is running. Increasing it by 2% is very unlikely to cause the system to fail, but will give you a few dollars more on your benchmark result.
Various BIOS settings are also able to be changed on the fly, checking all these values whilst the benchmark is running will alter the results of the benchmark, but the difference they can make requires any true benchmarker to monitor them...
I think "sloppy" and "follow mouse" focus are the same thing.
AFAIK KDE (and Windows) always gives focus to new windows, no matter what focus policy you select. I've tried everything short of hacking the source to get KDE to not do this, as I quite like it but I can't stand this window behaviour.
My video card came with nview, which allows up to 32 virtual desktops for Windows...
Thanks for mentioning "multitask" as an opening for one of my long standing rants.
Neither Windows or KDE support a sensible multi-tasking window focus model. My definition of sensible is a model which will raise new windows, but not give them focus. If I'm typing in a window and a new window appears, I want my keystrokes to keep going to the same old window. Mouse clicks are trickier but if I click on a window and a new window appears as I'm clicking, the new window should become focused but not process the click.
Without this sort of focus model, running lots of interactive tasks at once can become a random game of chance and wasted moments undoing errant keystrokes.
Windows that pop-up from other virtual desktops are just as annoying.
Out of 60 Linux testers, 83% liked the design. Out of 20 XP testers, 100% liked the design.
Therefore, over twice as many testers prefered KDE to XP (50 vs 20)...
I think the "It's cheaper" aspect gets prominence because it is something everyone understands.
Start saying "proprietary vendor lock-in for legacy data" and watch your listeners eyes glaze over...
So politicians emphasis the point "it's cheaper" and the media rehashes the point because its something they and their audience can follow.
No.
Given that other companies in the same business have all the required "testing" equipment already, the act of reverse engineering a competitors equipment would be trivial.
I think it is because they fear public review, far more so then software producers.
If someone finds a flaw in say a northbridge and announces it to the world, they are stuffed.
a) It damages their brandname.
b) No-one would want that northbridge (version) anymore. All motherboards with that northbridge would be de-valued. That is a large chumk of stock to write down(off).
You can't "flash/patch" a northbridge (or an inkjet printer controller, etc), if something doesn't work like it should, you just have to hope the software driver can fake it (and releasing that driver in binary-only format helps keep your dirty little secrets).
Many motherboards utilise third party chips (eg LAN, temp sensors, PLL clock chips, etc). There is nothing saying they have to make the most of those chips. It may be embarassing for them if someone pointed out that users are missing out on feature X of chip Y because the northbridge doesn't support it.
First, the Linux Desktop doesn't exist. It's a myth.
Err, it ain't no myth, time to stop living in the 90's
I think the rest of your points are valid, the fifth being perhaps worded a bit harshly.