>Which makes me wonder, what brand of laptop do the engineers at Quanta use?
My guess: a) their own (i.e. something they make for one of their customers but without a logo) b) different brands (i.e. stuff they make for OEMs and that is OK but they either churned out too many of them or had small QA problems so couldn't be shipped)
> Thank god someone else realizes the absurdity of licensing after the fact. Once money exchanges hands, that's it.
So what? You can try the game out in most stores, you can see screenshots and reviews all over the Net. It's not like you're buying a $300K house that hasn't been built yet. It's a cheap game; info you can get prior to purchase is sufficient for making a qualified decision. Or would you like to be able to return the game if you're a lame player (in it) you keep getting killed all the time?
In any case, they kicked those pirates' ass and they have the full right to do so. No pay no play. Nothing unreasonable.
>I don't know how many times I've heard clueless admins tell me that they aren't patching for something because its only exploitable locally...
Yeah, why would they fuck with a perfectly working system that's exploitable only locally if they have no system accounts except root? For example, any app that keeps user accounts and passwords in OpenLDAP or mySQL. Could be mail server, or Samba, or pretty much anything these days.
Clueless people like... someone (and I have a few customers do that) run rpm -Uvh as soon as they see a new RPM. One suffered three hours of downtime on a very important system because RPM upgrade re-applied default conf file for the service.
>If you wish to tightly control your software, go ahead, invent a machine to run it and patent that.
So you're saying it's okay to modify GPL software, embed it (say into an MP3 player) and not provide means for customers to obtain the modified source code? And if you install the same code on HDD via Web download, then that is NOT OK?
Physical representation has nothing to do with patentability of someone's intellectual effort (as you say it's an approach - meaning there are multiple ways (for example to embed and to not embed)).
A number of technologies are available in embedded and non-embedded (CD-ROM, for example) shape. For example, Veritas Volume Manager is available as "bits" on CD-ROM and also (as of recently) embedded in some SAN switches with virtualization features. How can be the same code not protected (if it's shared as "bits" over P2P) and protected (if it's embedded in a switch's ROM).
>Perhaps you also heard about "standing upon the shoulders of giants"
That does not conflict with patents and royalties. Right now, to stand on giants' shoulders, one needs to chip in some money.
Who wants to be a GPL giant is welcome to do so, but why should we take away the right of non-GPL giants to collect some fees for their work? All other aspects (what is and should be patentable, etc.) remaining the same, I don't think anyone has the right to take away from innovative thinkers the only means they can make a living by - the ability to patent ideas and collect royalties.
Do you know how much money from patent royalties they make every year? If you think they'll support anti-software patent laws you are nuts. Whoever dared to try would get fired right away for destroying shareholder value.
>>Still, I think the default should be not to cache and people should enable it if they wanted to.
>Can you imagine a startup, fairly unheard of search engine who would only link to people who had a) heard of it and b) specifically allowed access by it. 'Google - searching 231 web pages!'
I think many people ignore the fact that many (actually, nearly all but kernel) GPL apps can be compiled on Solaris. If we assume that developer loyalty is with the applications they develop, and not OS, I do believe Sun's free OS will gain momentum, especially after they achieve binary compatibility with Linux.
Is there a need to pay for Red Hat Linux if you can run your Oracle on Solaris? It's a big question (for enterprises, of course).
> I believe the courts have upheld google's image index is legal before.
Jesus! You believe! And I believe they have not. Can you point us to info on which you base your belief?
I've found these interesting pages: 1. Dubioius Nature of Google Cache: http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_m attrolls _archive.html 2. Similar Lawsuit and Discussion of Legality on CNet.com: http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234 .html?tag=f d_lede2_hed 3. How to Prevent Google From Caching Your Content: http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.htm l#cached
On a related note, while Google is benefitial to most sites, it does not give them the right to assist in piracy or content theft.
As it is possible to disable this "feature" for one's own site, noone has sued yet. Still, I think the default should be not to cache and people should enable it if they wanted to.
While we should be grateful for the work done by the reviewer, I cannot but notice that the results are hard to find out.
I, for one, would like to see some conclusion or recommendation or rating (Anti-Spyware A - goog; Anti-Spyware B - shit; Anti-Spyware C - excellent). I know the article focuses on falling efficiency, but still, it's a bit overwhelming to go over those huge tables.
That's just in time (or just a bit too late?) to save many a developed country's ass - if I'm not mistaken in 2005 WTO members must abolish textile quotas and Chinese and Indian manufacturers are poised to make a killing.
Products based on this technology will command premium prices (and have great features - I might finally become interested in shopping!).
Thanks. It's (replace USERNAME with your user name): C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.fz4\parent.l ock
> And if the vendor ever decides not to update the driver any more a few kernel minor versions later it won't work anymore.
It's not like we're buying 100TB of enterprise storage with virtualization that requires proprietary drivers so servers can see that storage - it's just a PC.
Even if nVidia stops updating drivers within a year (late 2005), people can stick with the then-current 2.6 kernel which will be good for at another year or so. And by late 2006, nForce4 systems will be outdated so badly that people (at least those who like the word "latest") will want to replace them anyway.
And what is the probability of discontinoued Linux support now that they'll triple shipments of nForce4 chipsets (after having reached a cross-licensing agreement with Intel)? Miniscule.
What is the worst case scenario? You get stuck with a so-so kernel 2.6 which can't be updated to latest something. Not exactly a disaster. Not to mention that one will be able to run _any_ Linux kernel on top of VMWare Workstation running on Windows XP or 2003. Compared to time-wasting fooling around with other chipsets/drivers, that's an acceptable risk to take.
>I suppose you mean extensions. May I suggest an open source spellchecker? Perhaps aspell?
What? Yet another download? I think he'll pass. Besides as long as you're here it's easier to have you spellcheck his mistakes:-)
It's true that Firefox 1.0 is less stable (I'm writing this in it); the POS crashed on me last night and locked my Default Profile so I had to create another profile (appropriately called "Fuck Firefox") just to be able to continue using it without rebooting Windows.
In its current release it's no better than MS IE. Actually it's worse because most extensions that made it useful don't work with the current release.
Didn't mean to offend Debian fans, I actualy like it (that's why I mentioned it). I meant "comparatively smaller" (in comparison with Red Hat).
> (Of course, that's always the hard part).
Sometimes I think it's like being a mouse running on that constantly spinning wheel - the moment you stop you're gone! As you say it's going to be hard(er).
Those interested in Enterprise Linux can just use CentOS 3.1 (includes yum). Those who installed RH Enterprise ISOs somewhere and are now stuck with no updates (or have to get them by compiling SPRMS) can switch from RH EL 3.0 to CentOS by installing CentOS 3.1's Yum RPM.
> I'm a geek. I like to tinker, but I still want a working computer where I can run an installation program, and everything is configured for me, ready to go.
Is this cut-and-paste from some Lindows brochure? If you're a developer it should be easy for you to build a custom distribution for yourself and your friends (based on whatever distro you like) and post a kickstart file somewhere on your server. In a DHCP environment your friends could boot the CD with boot: linux ks=http://www.myserver.org/myconfig.ks
In the kickstart file you would do everything (partitioning, package selection, etc). Even better, the kickstart file would be self-contained (on CD-ROM) and used automatically.
I don't see how clicking around for half hour and burning a bunch of CD-ROMs is user-friendly.
With the process I described, the user selects the minimum install, then logs in and # wget ks=http://www.myserver.org/yumscript.sh && bash yumscript.sh In yumscript.sh you install the yum RPM off the Internet, yum all the X packages, Open Office, whatever other shit you need and reboot. This can also be included in post-install part of the kickstart file.
Before I used to build custom distros for personal use (as I liked to install and re-install) but later I realized that a 5-min install followed by single yum line (long one, though) is less error prone and requires nearly zero attention.
Being a "geek who likes to tinker" I can't stand stupid distro upgrades that happen every six months so I refuse to use non-value added code such as GUI installers.
>If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?
That's true right now but if all the distros start standardize and support same binaries, I think Oracle won't be able to say "Oh, we only certified RHEL and SLES". If for example they support SLES and SLES is binary-compatible with Mandrake Linux, then one should be capable of installing and running Oracle 10g on Mandrake Linux in the same way it's done on SLES.
Right now Oracle charges a lot for certification, but then in return distros make money since there are only two vendors (RH and Novell) and as you said people generally don't try to fool around trying to save 500 bucks, but once SuSE achieves binary compatibility with other distros via LSB, Oracle's certification system will collapse. That's my guess, anyway. And by the way, as an illustration of how bad it is - if you run Oracle on Red Hat with EMC PowerPath, Oracle will support you only if you can duplicate the bug without PowerPath. Now imagine disabling PowerPath on production SAN and production database just in order to try to duplicate a bug without it! Unbelievable. As everyone's environment has something that's not supported, I wonder how much value is there in running any particular distro as long as one has a non-supported (by Oracle) environment.
Slashdot Mirror
>Which makes me wonder, what brand of laptop do the engineers at Quanta use?
My guess:
a) their own (i.e. something they make for one of their customers but without a logo)
b) different brands (i.e. stuff they make for OEMs and that is OK but they either churned out too many of them or had small QA problems so couldn't be shipped)
> I imagine being surrounded is a recipe for a puke-fest.
You're a describing a new game, Duke Puk'em 180D(egrees), here!
> Thank god someone else realizes the absurdity of licensing after the fact. Once money exchanges hands, that's it.
So what? You can try the game out in most stores, you can see screenshots and reviews all over the Net. It's not like you're buying a $300K house that hasn't been built yet. It's a cheap game; info you can get prior to purchase is sufficient for making a qualified decision. Or would you like to be able to return the game if you're a lame player (in it) you keep getting killed all the time?
In any case, they kicked those pirates' ass and they have the full right to do so. No pay no play. Nothing unreasonable.
>I don't know how many times I've heard clueless admins tell me that they aren't patching for something because its only exploitable locally...
... someone (and I have a few customers do that) run rpm -Uvh as soon as they see a new RPM.
Yeah, why would they fuck with a perfectly working system that's exploitable only locally if they have no system accounts except root?
For example, any app that keeps user accounts and passwords in OpenLDAP or mySQL. Could be mail server, or Samba, or pretty much anything these days.
Clueless people like
One suffered three hours of downtime on a very important system because RPM upgrade re-applied default conf file for the service.
>If you wish to tightly control your software, go ahead, invent a machine to run it and patent that.
So you're saying it's okay to modify GPL software, embed it (say into an MP3 player) and not provide means for customers to obtain the modified source code?
And if you install the same code on HDD via Web download, then that is NOT OK?
Physical representation has nothing to do with patentability of someone's intellectual effort (as you say it's an approach - meaning there are multiple ways (for example to embed and to not embed)).
A number of technologies are available in embedded and non-embedded (CD-ROM, for example) shape.
For example, Veritas Volume Manager is available as "bits" on CD-ROM and also (as of recently) embedded in some SAN switches with virtualization features. How can be the same code not protected (if it's shared as "bits" over P2P) and protected (if it's embedded in a switch's ROM).
>Perhaps you also heard about "standing upon the shoulders of giants"
That does not conflict with patents and royalties. Right now, to stand on giants' shoulders, one needs to chip in some money.
Who wants to be a GPL giant is welcome to do so, but why should we take away the right of non-GPL giants to collect some fees for their work?
All other aspects (what is and should be patentable, etc.) remaining the same, I don't think anyone has the right to take away from innovative thinkers the only means they can make a living by - the ability to patent ideas and collect royalties.
>So IBM don't care about Linux, for instance?
No, they don't.
Do you know how much money from patent royalties they make every year?
If you think they'll support anti-software patent laws you are nuts. Whoever dared to try would get fired right away for destroying shareholder value.
>"New Europe" will do whatever the USPTO says.
Nonsense!
"New Europe" generally follow the U.S. because they dislike communism and socialism even more than the Republicans.
>>Still, I think the default should be not to cache and people should enable it if they wanted to.
>Can you imagine a startup, fairly unheard of search engine who would only link to people who had a) heard of it and b) specifically allowed access by it. 'Google - searching 231 web pages!'
I said "cache", not "search"!
I think many people ignore the fact that many (actually, nearly all but kernel) GPL apps can be compiled on Solaris.
If we assume that developer loyalty is with the applications they develop, and not OS, I do believe Sun's free OS will gain momentum, especially after they achieve binary compatibility with Linux.
Is there a need to pay for Red Hat Linux if you can run your Oracle on Solaris? It's a big question (for enterprises, of course).
> police (I give them money every year)
;-)
Ouch!
Hopefuly you favor cash so there's no need to worry - unless you use a laser printer to print their names and amounts on the evenlope!
> I believe the courts have upheld google's image index is legal before.
m attrolls _archive.html4 .html?tag=f d_lede2_hedm l#cached
Jesus! You believe!
And I believe they have not.
Can you point us to info on which you base your belief?
I've found these interesting pages:
1. Dubioius Nature of Google Cache:
http://mattrolls.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_
2. Similar Lawsuit and Discussion of Legality on CNet.com:
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-102423
3. How to Prevent Google From Caching Your Content:
http://www.google.com/webmasters/faq.ht
On a related note, while Google is benefitial to most sites, it does not give them the right to assist in piracy or content theft.
As it is possible to disable this "feature" for one's own site, noone has sued yet.
Still, I think the default should be not to cache and people should enable it if they wanted to.
While we should be grateful for the work done by the reviewer, I cannot but notice that the results are hard to find out.
I, for one, would like to see some conclusion or recommendation or rating (Anti-Spyware A - goog; Anti-Spyware B - shit; Anti-Spyware C - excellent).
I know the article focuses on falling efficiency, but still, it's a bit overwhelming to go over those huge tables.
That's just in time (or just a bit too late?) to save many a developed country's ass - if I'm not mistaken in 2005 WTO members must abolish textile quotas and Chinese and Indian manufacturers are poised to make a killing.
Products based on this technology will command premium prices (and have great features - I might finally become interested in shopping!).
Thanks.l ock
It's (replace USERNAME with your user name):
C:\Documents and Settings\USERNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.fz4\parent.
Truly annoying.
> It's called "DLL Hell".
I think you're right.
That was a serious problem...in Windows 3.1!
> And if the vendor ever decides not to update the driver any more a few kernel minor versions later it won't work anymore.
It's not like we're buying 100TB of enterprise storage with virtualization that requires proprietary drivers so servers can see that storage - it's just a PC.
Even if nVidia stops updating drivers within a year (late 2005), people can stick with the then-current 2.6 kernel which will be good for at another year or so. And by late 2006, nForce4 systems will be outdated so badly that people (at least those who like the word "latest") will want to replace them anyway.
And what is the probability of discontinoued Linux support now that they'll triple shipments of nForce4 chipsets (after having reached a cross-licensing agreement with Intel)? Miniscule.
What is the worst case scenario? You get stuck with a so-so kernel 2.6 which can't be updated to latest something. Not exactly a disaster. Not to mention that one will be able to run _any_ Linux kernel on top of VMWare Workstation running on Windows XP or 2003. Compared to time-wasting fooling around with other chipsets/drivers, that's an acceptable risk to take.
>I suppose you mean extensions. May I suggest an open source spellchecker? Perhaps aspell?
:-)
What? Yet another download? I think he'll pass.
Besides as long as you're here it's easier to have you spellcheck his mistakes
It's true that Firefox 1.0 is less stable (I'm writing this in it); the POS crashed on me last night and locked my Default Profile so I had to create another profile (appropriately called "Fuck Firefox") just to be able to continue using it without rebooting Windows.
In its current release it's no better than MS IE.
Actually it's worse because most extensions that made it useful don't work with the current release.
>If it doesn't run a Free Software operating sytem, we're not buying it.
It will run on a free OS, only the drivers will probably remain closed source.
Personally I couldn't care less, all I want is stable and well-performing X-Windows.
>Debian is small? ;)
Didn't mean to offend Debian fans, I actualy like it (that's why I mentioned it). I meant "comparatively smaller" (in comparison with Red Hat).
> (Of course, that's always the hard part).
Sometimes I think it's like being a mouse running on that constantly spinning wheel - the moment you stop you're gone! As you say it's going to be hard(er).
> Keep using yum, or install apt.
Those interested in Enterprise Linux can just use CentOS 3.1 (includes yum).
Those who installed RH Enterprise ISOs somewhere and are now stuck with no updates (or have to get them by compiling SPRMS) can switch from RH EL 3.0 to CentOS by installing CentOS 3.1's Yum RPM.
http://www.centos.org/
>They both sound like they're out to accomplish the same exact thing. I could not spot any real differences,
This is the first "protein forking" I've ever seen
> I think the general idea is that the users won't even know about the updates -- only the company providing the service.
That's why it's so hard to get them to pay for such service - one can't tell if anything's actually being done!
> I'm a geek. I like to tinker, but I still want a working computer where I can run an installation program, and everything is configured for me, ready to go.
Is this cut-and-paste from some Lindows brochure?
If you're a developer it should be easy for you to build a custom distribution for yourself and your friends (based on whatever distro you like) and post a kickstart file somewhere on your server.
In a DHCP environment your friends could boot the CD with
boot: linux ks=http://www.myserver.org/myconfig.ks
In the kickstart file you would do everything (partitioning, package selection, etc).
Even better, the kickstart file would be self-contained (on CD-ROM) and used automatically.
I don't see how clicking around for half hour and burning a bunch of CD-ROMs is user-friendly.
With the process I described, the user selects the minimum install, then logs in and
# wget ks=http://www.myserver.org/yumscript.sh && bash yumscript.sh
In yumscript.sh you install the yum RPM off the Internet, yum all the X packages, Open Office, whatever other shit you need and reboot.
This can also be included in post-install part of the kickstart file.
Before I used to build custom distros for personal use (as I liked to install and re-install) but later I realized that a 5-min install followed by single yum line (long one, though) is less error prone and requires nearly zero attention.
Being a "geek who likes to tinker" I can't stand stupid distro upgrades that happen every six months so I refuse to use non-value added code such as GUI installers.
>If someone pays a lot of money for an Oracle license with support, why would they then install it on a platform that Oracle will not support?
That's true right now but if all the distros start standardize and support same binaries, I think Oracle won't be able to say "Oh, we only certified RHEL and SLES". If for example they support SLES and SLES is binary-compatible with Mandrake Linux, then one should be capable of installing and running Oracle 10g on Mandrake Linux in the same way it's done on SLES.
Right now Oracle charges a lot for certification, but then in return distros make money since there are only two vendors (RH and Novell) and as you said people generally don't try to fool around trying to save 500 bucks, but once SuSE achieves binary compatibility with other distros via LSB, Oracle's certification system will collapse.
That's my guess, anyway.
And by the way, as an illustration of how bad it is - if you run Oracle on Red Hat with EMC PowerPath, Oracle will support you only if you can duplicate the bug without PowerPath. Now imagine disabling PowerPath on production SAN and production database just in order to try to duplicate a bug without it! Unbelievable. As everyone's environment has something that's not supported, I wonder how much value is there in running any particular distro as long as one has a non-supported (by Oracle) environment.