In this document you'll find how untrue so much of what was written in the stolen document. No scripting support in windows 2000 because it also includes a GUI? Are you fucking stupid or what? There is complete scripting control in windows 2000, always has been. You can control every part of windows 2000 networking and services and disks and users and security through scripting. Sure, you can use the GUI too. Does the fact that Linux can run a GUI mean that suddenly it's scripting goes away?
Complete scripting control? Bullshit. Windows has NOTHING that compares to awk, Bourne shell, sed, find, sort, expect, etc. Anyone who says windows has complete scripting control has a limited understanding of what Unix scripting can do.
Good grief... you just have no clue...
CompactPCI manufacturers are already building boxes that support ethernet on the bus instead of dedicated old-style signalling. They are already talking about possibly achieving 20Gb/s within the next 2 years.
What's cool about this? Each board basically operates as a single-board computer connected to each other using ethernet. The boards would be
inherently hot-swappable because ethernet is. It would remove one of the main obstacles for Linux
entering the telecom equipment market.
Companies have already replaced the concept of a parallel bus by putting ethernet over the
backplane in the compactPCI world! They are talking about 20Gb/s+ speeds and no more OS-specific or architecture-specific device drivers! Plus a single box can hold multiple distinct CPUs running distinct operating systems.
Big players like Lucent, Sun, Motorola are already on board to begin developing boxes that use ethernet over the bus.
See www.pt.com and check out the stuff on the PICMG 2.16 standard.
Well for starts, it's a science fair. It's not like this is an institute of high research squelching the a proper, methodical and ethical scientific advancement of knowledge. These are kids and science fairs rarely advance scientific understanding. Prepubescents and teenagers don't do real science.
Secondly, no one is infringing on her ability to express her ideas or view or "science". A science fair is a platform and freedom of speech doesn't mean someone else has to provide you with a platform or an audience.
Very few of you would be barking if little Johnny wasn't allowed to present his project "Do girls enjoy being raped?" or "The relative effectiveness of suicide techniques".
Race has a strong sociological meaning in many parts of the world, but it is not an objective scientific measurement. Within the context of a particular experiment, one needs to be extremely clear and precise as to what one means when they categorize a subject as "black" or "white". Would an experiment whose results were categorized according to "fruits that taste like apples" and "fruits that taste like bananas" be useful?
Check out the fortune database
on
Solaris
·
· Score: 1
Do a grep of "Stanislaw" in/usr/share/games/fortunes/* and you'll see
a dozen or so excerts of his work. Here's my fav:
Not far from here, by a white sun, behind a green star, lived the
Steelypips, illustrious, industrious, and they hadn't a care: no spats in
their vats, no rules, no schools, no gloom, no evil influence of the
moon, no trouble from matter or antimatter -- for they had a machine, a
dream of a machine, with springs and gears and perfect in every respect.
And they lived with it, and on it, and under it, and inside it, for it
was all they had -- first they saved up all their atoms, then they put
them all together, and if one didn't fit, why they chipped at it a bit,
and everything was just fine...
What's more, Every asserts that calling a kernel (plus services) an operating system was "pretty anachronistic [by the late 1980s]".
Ok, take a trip back to 1988 with me and answer this question: Which opertaing system offers messaging, a scheduler and memory management?
MS-DOS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry!
MS Windows 2.0? bzzzzzzt, sorry!
Mac OS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry!
Apple GS-OS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry!
Apple ProDOS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry!
Now, who's being anachronistic?
KDE Team Steps Up Marketing Effort
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
It's noteworthy that the press release differs from earlier press releases in the way it emphasises the technical and functional capabilities of KDE. Earlier press releases had a casual, informal feel to them. This one sounds hauntingly "corporate" and hammers home the main reasons why they feel that people should be excited by KDE.
Speaking of seeming "corporate". Have you noticed how the KDE 2.0 release date keeps moving back?
This would actually be relatively easy to do
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
If a group (of, say, 12 sites) created their own root name servers that contained the records for the delegated TLDs from the root servers, you would have at least the beginnings of the system you are advocating. I don't think that ISPs would have many objections to using these "alternative" root name servers since they wouldn't have to pay the registration fees anymore.
This could be done quite transparently. Whatever group (the FSF or whoever) is co-ordinating this could then introduce new DNS record types or drop the BIND architecture completely.
Many of the suggestions for novel ways of distributing the DeCSS code are not flagrant disregard for the law. I think many of these ideas are completely legal and are intended to demonstrate the contradictions in the law.
...they've gone on record saying that compatibility is not a priority. This is just
ludicrous...
It's not ludicrous, it's practical. I'm sure if someone handed them a chunk of code that did a good job of interpreting Word or Powerpoint formats, the KOffice folks would jump at it. But M$ has never made it easy for anyone to parse their convoluted and secret file formats. Even big money vendors like Corel, Adobe and Sun do a lousy job of importing Word documents (not their fault).
I think you are out of line by criticizing the amazing work that's been accomplished by the KOffice team.
Getting back to the main thread, its a shame that M$ denies they are willing to open source windows because its the most sensible, most feasible and least disruptive remedy possible. It directly addresses the root of M$' anti-competitive behaviour, frees up OEMs and other vendors from undue pressure from Microsoft, and forces them to conform to standards. Without expensive and blunt government intervention, I'm sure dozens of MS employees will spin off their own companies to produce a better, cheaper Windows. And it leaves Microsoft in place as a *ahem* premiere software developer.
It would also mean the Gates wouldn't get richer off baby-Microsofts that the government would break off.
I hope the slashdot community becomes vocal advocates of this solution.
Now lets be facing it, Bob Metcalfe is not a stupid man.
Perhaps not stupid, but he is certainly blinded by his own biases. Despite the fact that ESR, the leading advocate of open source, is a true blue American libertarian (not to mention a gun freak), Metcalfe is convinced that the OS community is either an Animal Farm (ie. communist) or Utopian (ie. fascist). In short, he really wants the "open source movement" to be something it's not.
From the article:
So what I want to know is, if open-source software is so cool, and if Torvalds "gets it," why isn't Crusoe open source? For a start, why aren't the Crusoe chip's mask sources published for modification and manufacture by anyone?
No one in the OS movement has ever demanded that companies that use OS software must make all of their software OS as well. (Why else would there be support for NT in so many OS and GNU tools?) Nor have we demanded that people use OS exclusively (the FSF would never have been able to write the GNU utilities without functioning proprietary UNIX machines).
What you don't get, Mr Metcalfe, is that there are two ways to support and encourage the open source "movement" (in order of importance):
Use open-source software
Write open-source software
Transmeta does both. The fact is, it's next to impossible to find a company on the planet that doesn't use open source software. This, more than anything, is what made OSS a success.
Someone should explain to this guy that when talking about encryption technology, the term "key" is a metaphor. It's not really a key. It's an item of data. Someone coined the term "ecnryption key" because it was a colorful way of abstracting the complexity behind this kind of data.
And a computer "file" isn't really a file like you'd find in someone's office cabinet.
And Microsoft "Office" isn't really an office. And StarOffice isn't really an office suite.
And email isn't really mail. It's just data and a handful of protocols. In the old days, it was just a file on disk. I expect my mail to be private. No one seriously expects their email to be private.
Unless of course you encrypt your email and someone hasn't stolen the key to your... um... envelope. (See the danger of thinking in metaphors only?)
Ok. Let's accept as fact the statement that open source developers are "unable to roduce innovative interfaces". The author states that the reason for this situation is "[t]he Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users".
Does this logic make sense? How much did "end users" contribute to Xerox's innovative graphic interfaces? Was it the end user's that demanded the UI that Apple put on their Lisa and later their Macintosh? Was there an end-user revolution that said "We need a graphical hypertext interface to all the various documents and resources on the internet?". Did end-users contribute to the design of Visicalc?
Even if you accept that end user communication contributes to innovation and that open source development lacks that communication, what examples would the author cite for being "innovative interfaces"?
Was there anything particularly innovative about MS DOS or MS Windows or OS/2 or MacOS or BeOS or CDE or Motif or OpenWindows? Maybe each had a couple of innovations but nothing that stands out.
Emacs (which I rarely use) stands out to me an example of an open source program with an extremely innovative interface.
Perhaps the author wants to use a different word than "innovative".
I think I'm starting to understand. Kinda. This is for people who want like HTML but want some of the xtensibility that XHTML provides. Hmm.
I can think of a lot of reasons why someone would stick with HTML. I can think of even more reasons why someone would move to various XML schemas/DTDs. The XHTML is kinda of a weird in-between hybrid that doesn't satisfy any particular set of requirements over and above what XML or HTML would provide.
The documentation I'm writing (other than POD in the Perl modules) is being done with the DocBook DTD, which lets me write in one common format and publish in HTML, Word doc format, etc... all from one document.
I've spent a lot of time research XML/SGML solutions for my company and the word the picture painted by vendors (despite the hype) is that XML has not yet established itself in the market. It hasn't yet unseated SGML and, compared to SGML, is not yet ready for prime time.
The most widely used application for XML I've seen are the examples you've specified (web clipping and inter-application file formats). *Yawn*. The previous poster is right -- a CSV (colon-separated-value;-) file is as good a technology as XML.
BTW, what tool are you generating MS Word.doc files with? I've seen db2rtf publishers before but never one that generated db2doc.
I was at XML '99 and asked several people what the point of XHTML was and never got a satisfactory answer. Maybe the/. audience will help me out some.
What's the point of XHTML?
It's not backwards compatible with HTML
Old (existing) browsers can't parse it properly
Compared to what general XML can offer, it's a pretty lame DTD
Is it meant as a stop-gap between full XML support on the web? Or is it meant to leverage the existing HTML code base? Or is it meant to be a simpler migration to XML for people who know HTML?
Or let's put it this way: If a new browser comes out with full support for XML plus a compatibility mode for regulat (SGML-based) HTML, what's the benefit to having XHTML?
I didn't want to say this to anyone's face at XML '99, but I don't get why people are spending so much time and energy on XHTML for. Who will use it?
Does this mean RedHat will be taking over the role of the AlphaWorks site for distributing Linux Java stuff? Or is this a licensing agreement for including IBM's JVM with RedHat's distro?
I know you can get a lot of IBM's source code at their Alphaworks site but does their licensing OSI certifiable?
How does this affect RH-based distros like Mandrake (or the lowly LinuxOne)? Can they bundle IBM's JVM? Can KDE? Does this leave Caldera, Corel and Suse out in the cold?
It just occurred to me (even though it was obvious) that the main reason they arrested him was to get his computers. They presumably had information identifying other hackers who built DeCSS.
I assume that he was running Linux. I wonder if that will make it harder for the agents of authority to extract "evidence" from it.
Maybe they'll keep turning it off, then on, then off... waiting for the Win95 screen to come up. I hope they mangle the superblock =)
For those of you who aren't reading the long posts, I'd like to re-iterate the most salient point from the last poster:
DeCSS is not "a crack that allows copying of DVDs", but "a crack that allows _playing_ of DVDs"
I hope the moderators moderater this post up so that the world press can report accurately how terrible wrong this whole situation is. He's only 16 years old for Christ's sake. And he did nothing wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
Complete scripting control? Bullshit. Windows has NOTHING that compares to awk, Bourne shell, sed, find, sort, expect, etc. Anyone who says windows has complete scripting control has a limited understanding of what Unix scripting can do.
Good grief... you just have no clue...
I lost my last job because the TCO of using "grep" bled my employer dry.
Much cooler is this:
http://www.pt.com/cpsb/index.html
CompactPCI manufacturers are already building boxes that support ethernet on the bus instead of dedicated old-style signalling. They are already talking about possibly achieving 20Gb/s within the next 2 years.
What's cool about this? Each board basically operates as a single-board computer connected to each other using ethernet. The boards would be
inherently hot-swappable because ethernet is. It would remove one of the main obstacles for Linux
entering the telecom equipment market.
Companies have already replaced the concept of a parallel bus by putting ethernet over the
backplane in the compactPCI world! They are talking about 20Gb/s+ speeds and no more OS-specific or architecture-specific device drivers! Plus a single box can hold multiple distinct CPUs running distinct operating systems.
Big players like Lucent, Sun, Motorola are already on board to begin developing boxes that use ethernet over the bus.
See www.pt.com and check out the stuff on the PICMG 2.16 standard.
Well for starts, it's a science fair. It's not like this is an institute of high research squelching the a proper, methodical and ethical scientific advancement of knowledge. These are kids and science fairs rarely advance scientific understanding. Prepubescents and teenagers don't do real science. Secondly, no one is infringing on her ability to express her ideas or view or "science". A science fair is a platform and freedom of speech doesn't mean someone else has to provide you with a platform or an audience. Very few of you would be barking if little Johnny wasn't allowed to present his project "Do girls enjoy being raped?" or "The relative effectiveness of suicide techniques". Race has a strong sociological meaning in many parts of the world, but it is not an objective scientific measurement. Within the context of a particular experiment, one needs to be extremely clear and precise as to what one means when they categorize a subject as "black" or "white". Would an experiment whose results were categorized according to "fruits that taste like apples" and "fruits that taste like bananas" be useful?
What's more, Every asserts that calling a kernel (plus services) an operating system was "pretty anachronistic [by the late 1980s]". Ok, take a trip back to 1988 with me and answer this question: Which opertaing system offers messaging, a scheduler and memory management? MS-DOS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry! MS Windows 2.0? bzzzzzzt, sorry! Mac OS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry! Apple GS-OS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry! Apple ProDOS? bzzzzzzzzt, sorry! Now, who's being anachronistic?
It's noteworthy that the press release differs from earlier press releases in the way it emphasises the technical and functional capabilities of KDE. Earlier press releases had a casual, informal feel to them. This one sounds hauntingly "corporate" and hammers home the main reasons why they feel that people should be excited by KDE.
Speaking of seeming "corporate". Have you noticed how the KDE 2.0 release date keeps moving back?
If a group (of, say, 12 sites) created their own root name servers that contained the records for the delegated TLDs from the root servers, you would have at least the beginnings of the system you are advocating. I don't think that ISPs would have many objections to using these "alternative" root name servers since they wouldn't have to pay the registration fees anymore.
This could be done quite transparently. Whatever group (the FSF or whoever) is co-ordinating this could then introduce new DNS record types or drop the BIND architecture completely.
Many of the suggestions for novel ways of distributing the DeCSS code are not flagrant
disregard for the law. I think many of these ideas are completely legal and are intended to demonstrate the contradictions in the law.
I think you are out of line by criticizing the amazing work that's been accomplished by the KOffice team.
Getting back to the main thread, its a shame that M$ denies they are willing to open source windows because its the most sensible, most feasible and least disruptive remedy possible. It directly addresses the root of M$' anti-competitive behaviour, frees up OEMs and other vendors from undue pressure from Microsoft, and forces them to conform to standards. Without expensive and blunt government intervention, I'm sure dozens of MS employees will spin off their own companies to produce a better, cheaper Windows. And it leaves Microsoft in place as a *ahem* premiere software developer.
It would also mean the Gates wouldn't get richer off baby-Microsofts that the government would break off.
I hope the slashdot community becomes vocal advocates of this solution.
Perhaps not stupid, but he is certainly blinded by his own biases. Despite the fact that ESR, the leading advocate of open source, is a true blue American libertarian (not to mention a gun freak), Metcalfe is convinced that the OS community is either an Animal Farm (ie. communist) or Utopian (ie. fascist). In short, he really wants the "open source movement" to be something it's not.
From the article:
No one in the OS movement has ever demanded that companies that use OS software must make all of their software OS as well. (Why else would there be support for NT in so many OS and GNU tools?) Nor have we demanded that people use OS exclusively (the FSF would never have been able to write the GNU utilities without functioning proprietary UNIX machines).What you don't get, Mr Metcalfe, is that there are two ways to support and encourage the open source "movement" (in order of importance):
- Use open-source software
- Write open-source software
Transmeta does both. The fact is, it's next to impossible to find a company on the planet that doesn't use open source software. This, more than anything, is what made OSS a success.The chix are cuter at the H&C but the Celtic Cross is a lot more homey and authentic.
Return to this page tomorrow for your daily
does of reality</EM>
Wouldn't it be ironic if the script-kiddies
pointed their arsenal at that page tomorrow?
But aren't you interested to see if someone
else has hacked into your computer?
I was shagrined to find two new root accounts
added to my computer this weekend. Luckily,
they didn't run pwconv so they weren't able
to use them.
Someone should explain to this guy that when talking about encryption technology, the term "key" is a metaphor. It's not really a key. It's an item of data. Someone coined the term "ecnryption key" because it was a colorful way of abstracting the complexity behind this kind of data.
... um... envelope. (See the danger of thinking in metaphors only?)
And a computer "file" isn't really a file like you'd find in someone's office cabinet.
And Microsoft "Office" isn't really an office. And StarOffice isn't really an office suite.
And email isn't really mail. It's just data and a handful of protocols. In the old days, it was just a file on disk. I expect my mail to be private. No one seriously expects their email to be private.
Unless of course you encrypt your email and someone hasn't stolen the key to your
This is a peculiar article.
Ok. Let's accept as fact the statement that open source developers are "unable to roduce innovative interfaces". The author states that the reason for this situation is "[t]he Open Source movement has no feedback loop to end-users".
Does this logic make sense? How much did "end users" contribute to Xerox's innovative graphic interfaces? Was it the end user's that demanded the UI that Apple put on their Lisa and later their Macintosh? Was there an end-user revolution that said "We need a graphical hypertext interface to all the various documents and resources on the internet?". Did end-users contribute to the design of Visicalc?
Even if you accept that end user communication contributes to innovation and that open source development lacks that communication, what examples would the author cite for being "innovative interfaces"?
Was there anything particularly innovative about MS DOS or MS Windows or OS/2 or MacOS or BeOS or CDE or Motif or OpenWindows? Maybe each had a couple of innovations but nothing that stands out.
Emacs (which I rarely use) stands out to me an example of an open source program with an extremely innovative interface.
Perhaps the author wants to use a different word than "innovative".
Is there a good commandline player for MP3's? It seems kind of silly that a pre-requisite for listening to MP3s is X....
I think I'm starting to understand. Kinda. This is for people who want like HTML but want some of the xtensibility that XHTML provides. Hmm.
I can think of a lot of reasons why someone would stick with HTML. I can think of even more reasons why someone would move to various XML schemas/DTDs. The XHTML is kinda of a weird in-between hybrid that doesn't satisfy any particular set of requirements over and above what XML or HTML would provide.
I've spent a lot of time research XML/SGML solutions for my company and the word the picture painted by vendors (despite the hype) is that XML has not yet established itself in the market. It hasn't yet unseated SGML and, compared to SGML, is not yet ready for prime time.
The most widely used application for XML I've seen are the examples you've specified (web clipping and inter-application file formats). *Yawn*. The previous poster is right -- a CSV (colon-separated-value
BTW, what tool are you generating MS Word
What's the point of XHTML?
Is it meant as a stop-gap between full XML support on the web? Or is it meant to leverage the existing HTML code base? Or is it meant to be a simpler migration to XML for people who know HTML?
Or let's put it this way: If a new browser comes out with full support for XML plus a compatibility mode for regulat (SGML-based) HTML, what's the benefit to having XHTML?
I didn't want to say this to anyone's face at XML '99, but I don't get why people are spending so much time and energy on XHTML for. Who will use it?
...this would mean immortality through virtual clones...
But does the phrase "immortality through virtual clones" mean anything?
Does this mean RedHat will be taking over the role of the AlphaWorks site for distributing Linux Java stuff? Or is this a licensing agreement for including IBM's JVM with RedHat's distro?
I know you can get a lot of IBM's source code at their Alphaworks site but does their licensing OSI certifiable?
How does this affect RH-based distros like Mandrake (or the lowly LinuxOne)? Can they bundle
IBM's JVM? Can KDE? Does this leave Caldera, Corel and Suse out in the cold?
I'm confused.
It just occurred to me (even though it was obvious) that the main reason they arrested him
... waiting for the Win95 screen to come up.
was to get his computers. They presumably had information identifying other hackers who built DeCSS.
I assume that he was running Linux. I wonder if that will make it harder for the agents of authority to extract "evidence" from it.
Maybe they'll keep turning it off, then on, then off
I hope they mangle the superblock =)
I hope the moderators moderater this post up so that the world press can report accurately how terrible wrong this whole situation is. He's only 16 years old for Christ's sake. And he did nothing wrong!