There are serious differences here.
You can just act like every OS is as secure as then next.
I'll take unpatched OpenBSD over unpatched Win2k any day.
To make informed statements, you have to conside the severity of a security flaw. Ex: a buffer overflow, vs a string formatting error. One theoretically allows you access, if you are a skilled assembly programmer, the othermakes it trivially easy to get access.
Patching your boxes is important, but so is security by design.
it's member companies are.
If you completely obliterated RIAA headquarters tomorrow, Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner Brothers and BMG would just create another RIAA type organization.
It works really well for them the RIAA gets all the bad press and the public doesn't even (usually) realize who is behind something like the DMCA.
Their expalation of jitter is total misinformation.
First, no significant difference is going to be seen in the jitter caused by two different 75 ohm coaxial cables (or fiber optic cables). Second, any data sent across a TOSLINK cable gets synched up to an amplifiers internal clock before being d/a converted, so my first point doesn't even matter. In a fair test, using lab equipment, instead of hearsay, they would not be able to tell the difference between a "standard" coaxial or optical toslink cable and moster cable. That's why the data is sent in digital format in the first place.
This: Even so, while I was able to identify the Monster Cable with statistical significance with 95% confidence, it was barely perceptible and I could only distinguish between the two optical cables with one track. Or this: when we put in an audiophile-grade TOSLINK cable (that retails for just under $200 for three meters), our blind testing concluded that there was a slight improvement in transparency and a reduction in boominess on a wide-range of source material is a total lie. In a double-blind test there is no diffrence.
I think saying that people switching to Linux would not want a UI change is questionable. I switched to Linux because I like the UI better. I use KDE and I love the way it handles things. I like that the middle mouse button opens a link in a new window. I love being able to hit ALT-F2 and then type in a command, open a link or browse a directory, and the tab completion makes this even easier.
I'm willing to learn a new UI as long as it's better.
I use my computer many hours per week, and if 10 minutes of learning pays off as 10 minutes less a week, that learning is definately worth it.
I think if someone is going to try openoffice or mozilla, it shows that their willing to try something different.
I'm not saying Linux is god in terms of usability (a lot of apps admittedly suck on this front), but the way Linux does some things is better and shouldn't be changed just because MS's UI isn't as good. Ex: KDE by default gives me 4 virtual desktops. This is good. I like this. It gives me more space for my programs. It confuses a first time user, but if you explain it to them, it really doesn't take them more than 2 minutes to comprehend. The same thing for the "Group similar tasks" option, it's not the same as windows, and requires a 2 minute explanation, but one you've got it, you don't want to go back to the old way of doing things.
Do you have a link about the $70M for price fixing, sounds like a story I'd like to read.
Great illustration of their stupidity!
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As an EE student, I have to say that I love this idea! If this bill ever passed, it would make my job VERY hard. Just consider the following example:
Sure it may be easy to compute fourier transforms (or whatever) in realtime for a 44KHz singal, checking for some sort of watermark, but what about high bitrate systems? A 96KHz 24bit 6 channel stream of audio amounts to 13.8 Mbits/sec of data. A computer to check all that data in for copyright infringement in realtime is going to be pretty expensive. What if all I'm asking is a digital delay box for that data? All I'd nomrally need inside the box is some RAM and something to read and write to that RAM. Now that all of a sudden, I need to do real computation on that data the cost of my device would skyrocket. It might suddenly become cheaper to get 1ms of delay, by using 100' of wire than by doing it in the digital domain!
What about Digital Storage Oscilloscopes? Does a 1GHz DSO have to check all that data (A ton of data, even if it doesn't caputre at that rate continuously) before letting me download it to a PC? I could easily hook that oscilloscope up to the output of a protected device and caputure the signal.
What about FPGAs? Are they goiung to be regulated devices? Right now one could co nnect one to the coax SPDIF out on their DVD Player and program it to run an FIR filter to remove the watermark. It would be pretty much impossible to make it so that I couldn't program it to filter a watermark and still have it be a useful device.
Last week, I had a pretty interesting discussion with on eof the professors for a DSP course I'm taking, just talking about all the stupid thing that hollywood was tried to get pused through. They actually tried to get a law passed so that your audio device would not copy music if it contained a certain frequency! Not even a combination of frequerncies, but one single frequency! A single distorted guitar, would probably be enough to set that off!
Hopefully certain companies (TI for instance makes audio ICs, and DSP chips, but doesn't own a record label.) understand how much this law would increase their costs and get it killed, fast.
This patent clause sounds really interesting...
Let's see if I have this right:
If I write some software package think "infringes" on a patent, and the patent owner sues me, the patent owner is never granted any rights by any of these liscenses. This sounds like a really innovative way to combat all the patent b.s. that's been going on. If enough important things were to adopt this liscense, it might just make the economic cost for filing such a patent higher than the benfit.
Example:
Linux adopts one of these new liscenses.
Software package XYZ adopts one of these liscenses and violates IBM's patent on determine bra cup size via direct measurement (US Patent 5,965,809).
If IBM sues XYZ, they can never use linux.
Seems to have some interesting implications...
Is my interpretion correct?
You claim to have this vast experience with linux, but it still sounds like you've never you a current major distro.
If you use a current version of RH you can get away without compiling anything. You implied that the best approach that has existed to date is "keep track of all the patches yourself, download them, and rebuild your apps..." I'm saying there are better ways. If you're as experienced as you say you are, you should know this.
Even if you're only talking about applications and not distributions, there are usually precompiled packages availible for download, and if there aren't then the project usually hasn't yet reached a state where it would be useful to those who needed them. I said you have no idea what you're talking about, because you implied something that just isn't true. If you have gripes with things like Red Hat Network I'd be interested to hear them. Howevery, your post made it seem like they just don't exist.
I can schedule software updates on my pc from any computer with a decent web browser and an internet connection. I don't ever have to compile anything but a small handful of programs and most of these are alpha or pre-alpha and I use linux as my desktop os.
Question: And who is going to use this software package?
Answer: Engineers
I use all kinds of software to get things done (I'm a 4th year EE), but that software isn't going to do crap without me using it. This is kinda like saying photoshop is going to replace photographers.
You're missing my take on this whole thing completely.
I think that distinction is really splitting hairs. In my view, because linux distros are named after the linux kernel, asking them to change their name is essentially like asking to have the kernel renamed. Because linux is named after the kernel, a change to GNU/Linux, would give many the mistaken impression the the linux kernel was part of the GNU project.
I know you think he has some point, but I consider his point to be pretty silly. I don't want to say I use GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE/Mozilla/Gaim/GNOME/every other fricking piece of software on my system. I respect Stallmann for his contributions to the FSF, but I don't think he has much of a point.
When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).
If someone asks what programs I have, then that's a different story. I'll tell them I have gcc installed, and a bunch of other stuff, but gcc isn't what talks to my drives or my screen. Get a clue. The GNU utilites are seperate from the linux kernel. They're really important, but that doesn't mean the name of another seperate component of the system should be changed. They're not the same. Stallman probably gets that (whether he'll admit it or not) but it sounds like you don't.
This thing is like Xfree86 demanding that KDE call itself, Xfree/KDE. They are two serperate things. They do different things. If the GNU utilites were being merged into the linux kernel the the name change could make sense, but they aren't.
In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong. I care, because Linus is the author. I call the GNU utilities, such because they are part of the GNU project. The linux kernel AKAIK isn't.
Agreed, there are a ton of factors that affect power consumption. Howevery, assuming IBM's and Intel's fabs have the same lambda, this should not really be a factor when comparing chips.
Linux has always been called Linux, therefore it is not newspeak. Check up on its history and the defintion of newspeak if you don't believe me.
The FSF is trying to change the name.
Linux is a kernel. You can use GNU tools on it if you want to, but those tools are not part of the kernel. Stallman should STFU and actually do something useful to the cause of free software instead of wasting everyone's time.
So they don't want to legally force people (Not that they could anyways)....
They still want to tell everyone else what to call it. They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.
You know, I usually agree with Stalmann.
I'm a pretty avid linux supporter and think that the GPL is great. But I really think he needs to come off it. Linux is named for Linus. Deal with it. Every piece of GPLed software doesn't need it's name to begin with G dammit! If I decided to write a program and call it "Foobareng" and I GPLed it and gave the copyright to the FSF, it would be nice if they kept the name. Adding GN to the front of everything is getting a little stupid. If there is a non-free eqivalent for the program that has the same name, by all means add GN or GNU to the front of the name. If not, the author's orignal name should be respected, when possible.
Linus wrote linux, he named and and he owns the trademark. Stallman should show some respect for the wishes of those besides himself. He really should acknowledge and respect to contributions of those besides himself, to the very minmal point where that author of a piece of software gets to name it. If anyone can decide to change the name of linux, it should be Linus.
Also, as another poster points out, not all versions of linux include gnu utilities.
Here's something you apparently don't know: Power consumption increases linearly with clock speed.
(This is an approximation, but it's a pretty damn good one when you're talking about the CMOS logic that all modern processors use)
If you've been keeping up with the developments in processors for laptops, you would know that a processor no longer has to run at its maximum clock rate all the time. This means that a 2GHz processor can run at 500MHz, saving power, until I actually do something that needs a 2GHz processor. Add a thermally controlled fan to this and you only have to listen to the fan when you're doing things that would be impossible/impractical on a crappier laptop. And what the hell is this "CPUs are fast enough b.s."? No computer will ever need more than 640K of ram too, right?
You do have to doublecheck every experiment. No one is going to believe your cold fusion experiment works if it can't be reproduced.
I'm not going to believe you unless you link some actual tests.
Common sense tells me the x86 PCs are faster than Macs just because so much more time and money goes into R&D for Intel and AMD's CPUs. You can try and prove me wrong, but you can't just say PPC is faster and expect me to take it on faith.
When you saw look better are you referring to the lower resolution that console games run at, or the lower refresh rate? As far a rendering speeds, a gf4 kicks the shit out of anything in any console right now. It's not some outrageous claim as you imply, it's fact.
Get real.
Slashdot Mirror
If the software isn't in english it wouldn't sell very well :)
There are serious differences here.
You can just act like every OS is as secure as then next.
I'll take unpatched OpenBSD over unpatched Win2k any day.
To make informed statements, you have to conside the severity of a security flaw. Ex: a buffer overflow, vs a string formatting error. One theoretically allows you access, if you are a skilled assembly programmer, the othermakes it trivially easy to get access.
Patching your boxes is important, but so is security by design.
it's member companies are.
If you completely obliterated RIAA headquarters tomorrow, Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner Brothers and BMG would just create another RIAA type organization.
It works really well for them the RIAA gets all the bad press and the public doesn't even (usually) realize who is behind something like the DMCA.
Their expalation of jitter is total misinformation.
First, no significant difference is going to be seen in the jitter caused by two different 75 ohm coaxial cables (or fiber optic cables). Second, any data sent across a TOSLINK cable gets synched up to an amplifiers internal clock before being d/a converted, so my first point doesn't even matter. In a fair test, using lab equipment, instead of hearsay, they would not be able to tell the difference between a "standard" coaxial or optical toslink cable and moster cable. That's why the data is sent in digital format in the first place.
This:
Even so, while I was able to identify the Monster Cable with statistical significance with 95% confidence, it was barely perceptible and I could only distinguish between the two optical cables with one track.
Or this:
when we put in an audiophile-grade TOSLINK cable (that retails for just under $200 for three meters), our blind testing concluded that there was a slight improvement in transparency and a reduction in boominess on a wide-range of source material
is a total lie. In a double-blind test there is no diffrence.
I think saying that people switching to Linux would not want a UI change is questionable.
I switched to Linux because I like the UI better. I use KDE and I love the way it handles things. I like that the middle mouse button opens a link in a new window. I love being able to hit ALT-F2 and then type in a command, open a link or browse a directory, and the tab completion makes this even easier.
I'm willing to learn a new UI as long as it's better.
I use my computer many hours per week, and if 10 minutes of learning pays off as 10 minutes less a week, that learning is definately worth it.
I think if someone is going to try openoffice or mozilla, it shows that their willing to try something different.
I'm not saying Linux is god in terms of usability (a lot of apps admittedly suck on this front), but the way Linux does some things is better and shouldn't be changed just because MS's UI isn't as good. Ex: KDE by default gives me 4 virtual desktops. This is good. I like this. It gives me more space for my programs. It confuses a first time user, but if you explain it to them, it really doesn't take them more than 2 minutes to comprehend. The same thing for the "Group similar tasks" option, it's not the same as windows, and requires a 2 minute explanation, but one you've got it, you don't want to go back to the old way of doing things.
Do you have a link about the $70M for price fixing, sounds like a story I'd like to read.
As an EE student, I have to say that I love this idea! If this bill ever passed, it would make my job VERY hard. Just consider the following example:
Sure it may be easy to compute fourier transforms (or whatever) in realtime for a 44KHz singal, checking for some sort of watermark, but what about high bitrate systems? A 96KHz 24bit 6 channel stream of audio amounts to 13.8 Mbits/sec of data. A computer to check all that data in for copyright infringement in realtime is going to be pretty expensive. What if all I'm asking is a digital delay box for that data? All I'd nomrally need inside the box is some RAM and something to read and write to that RAM. Now that all of a sudden, I need to do real computation on that data the cost of my device would skyrocket. It might suddenly become cheaper to get 1ms of delay, by using 100' of wire than by doing it in the digital domain!
What about Digital Storage Oscilloscopes? Does a 1GHz DSO have to check all that data (A ton of data, even if it doesn't caputre at that rate continuously) before letting me download it to a PC? I could easily hook that oscilloscope up to the output of a protected device and caputure the signal.
What about FPGAs? Are they goiung to be regulated devices? Right now one could co nnect one to the coax SPDIF out on their DVD Player and program it to run an FIR filter to remove the watermark. It would be pretty much impossible to make it so that I couldn't program it to filter a watermark and still have it be a useful device.
Last week, I had a pretty interesting discussion with on eof the professors for a DSP course I'm taking, just talking about all the stupid thing that hollywood was tried to get pused through. They actually tried to get a law passed so that your audio device would not copy music if it contained a certain frequency! Not even a combination of frequerncies, but one single frequency! A single distorted guitar, would probably be enough to set that off!
Hopefully certain companies (TI for instance makes audio ICs, and DSP chips, but doesn't own a record label.) understand how much this law would increase their costs and get it killed, fast.
Do those work on XP and 2k? (just wondering)
Let's see if I have this right:
If I write some software package think "infringes" on a patent, and the patent owner sues me, the patent owner is never granted any rights by any of these liscenses. This sounds like a really innovative way to combat all the patent b.s. that's been going on. If enough important things were to adopt this liscense, it might just make the economic cost for filing such a patent higher than the benfit.
Example:
- Linux adopts one of these new liscenses.
- Software package XYZ adopts one of these liscenses and violates IBM's patent on determine bra cup size via direct measurement (US Patent 5,965,809).
- If IBM sues XYZ, they can never use linux.
Seems to have some interesting implications...Is my interpretion correct?
Hey IBM has a patent on determining bra cup size via direct measurement (US Patent 5,965,809).
If they got a patent for that, anything is patentable.
You claim to have this vast experience with linux, but it still sounds like you've never you a current major distro.
If you use a current version of RH you can get away without compiling anything. You implied that the best approach that has existed to date is "keep track of all the patches yourself, download them, and rebuild your apps..." I'm saying there are better ways. If you're as experienced as you say you are, you should know this.
Even if you're only talking about applications and not distributions, there are usually precompiled packages availible for download, and if there aren't then the project usually hasn't yet reached a state where it would be useful to those who needed them. I said you have no idea what you're talking about, because you implied something that just isn't true.
If you have gripes with things like Red Hat Network I'd be interested to hear them. Howevery, your post made it seem like they just don't exist.
I can schedule software updates on my pc from any computer with a decent web browser and an internet connection. I don't ever have to compile anything but a small handful of programs and most of these are alpha or pre-alpha and I use linux as my desktop os.
Question: And who is going to use this software package?
Answer: Engineers
I use all kinds of software to get things done (I'm a 4th year EE), but that software isn't going to do crap without me using it. This is kinda like saying photoshop is going to replace photographers.
You're missing my take on this whole thing completely.
I think that distinction is really splitting hairs. In my view, because linux distros are named after the linux kernel, asking them to change their name is essentially like asking to have the kernel renamed. Because linux is named after the kernel, a change to GNU/Linux, would give many the mistaken impression the the linux kernel was part of the GNU project.
I know you think he has some point, but I consider his point to be pretty silly. I don't want to say I use GNU/Linux/XFree86/KDE/Mozilla/Gaim/GNOME/every other fricking piece of software on my system. I respect Stallmann for his contributions to the FSF, but I don't think he has much of a point.
When I say "I use linux" or "I use Windows" I am describing the kernel. I could have the GNU utilities installed on a windows box, BSD, or many others. I am saying my computer executes code written and compiled to run on Linux (the kernel).
If someone asks what programs I have, then that's a different story. I'll tell them I have gcc installed, and a bunch of other stuff, but gcc isn't what talks to my drives or my screen.
Get a clue. The GNU utilites are seperate from the linux kernel. They're really important, but that doesn't mean the name of another seperate component of the system should be changed. They're not the same. Stallman probably gets that (whether he'll admit it or not) but it sounds like you don't.
This thing is like Xfree86 demanding that KDE call itself, Xfree/KDE. They are two serperate things. They do different things. If the GNU utilites were being merged into the linux kernel the the name change could make sense, but they aren't.
AFAIK Linus holds the copyright for Linux, not the FSF. His point would be that he thinks the FSF has no right to demand we call Linux anything else.
In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.
I care, because Linus is the author. I call the GNU utilities, such because they are part of the GNU project. The linux kernel AKAIK isn't.
Agreed, there are a ton of factors that affect power consumption. Howevery, assuming IBM's and Intel's fabs have the same lambda, this should not really be a factor when comparing chips.
Linux has always been called Linux, therefore it is not newspeak. Check up on its history and the defintion of newspeak if you don't believe me.
The FSF is trying to change the name. Linux is a kernel. You can use GNU tools on it if you want to, but those tools are not part of the kernel. Stallman should STFU and actually do something useful to the cause of free software instead of wasting everyone's time.
Something can be licensed under the GPL without being part of the GNU project. GNU != GPL
So they don't want to legally force people (Not that they could anyways)....
They still want to tell everyone else what to call it. They should support Linus' freedom to name the software he created and maintains.
You know, I usually agree with Stalmann.
I'm a pretty avid linux supporter and think that the GPL is great. But I really think he needs to come off it. Linux is named for Linus. Deal with it.
Every piece of GPLed software doesn't need it's name to begin with G dammit! If I decided to write a program and call it "Foobareng" and I GPLed it and gave the copyright to the FSF, it would be nice if they kept the name. Adding GN to the front of everything is getting a little stupid. If there is a non-free eqivalent for the program that has the same name, by all means add GN or GNU to the front of the name. If not, the author's orignal name should be respected, when possible.
Linus wrote linux, he named and and he owns the trademark. Stallman should show some respect for the wishes of those besides himself. He really should acknowledge and respect to contributions of those besides himself, to the very minmal point where that author of a piece of software gets to name it. If anyone can decide to change the name of linux, it should be Linus.
Also, as another poster points out, not all versions of linux include gnu utilities.
Here's something you apparently don't know:
Power consumption increases linearly with clock speed.
(This is an approximation, but it's a pretty damn good one when you're talking about the CMOS logic that all modern processors use)
If you've been keeping up with the developments in processors for laptops, you would know that a processor no longer has to run at its maximum clock rate all the time. This means that a 2GHz processor can run at 500MHz, saving power, until I actually do something that needs a 2GHz processor. Add a thermally controlled fan to this and you only have to listen to the fan when you're doing things that would be impossible/impractical on a crappier laptop.
And what the hell is this "CPUs are fast enough b.s."? No computer will ever need more than 640K of ram too, right?
You do have to doublecheck every experiment.
No one is going to believe your cold fusion experiment works if it can't be reproduced.
I'm not going to believe you unless you link some actual tests.
Common sense tells me the x86 PCs are faster than Macs just because so much more time and money goes into R&D for Intel and AMD's CPUs. You can try and prove me wrong, but you can't just say PPC is faster and expect me to take it on faith.
I doubt that. Ever hear of the USS Cole?
Now if THEY we in a submarine, it might be a different story.
When you saw look better are you referring to the lower resolution that console games run at, or the lower refresh rate? As far a rendering speeds, a gf4 kicks the shit out of anything in any console right now. It's not some outrageous claim as you imply, it's fact.
Get real.