I'd say all major distributions are about the same.
The thing that keeps Red Hat and SuSE on the top is certifications, validations and things like that, which aren't free.
Is Debian enterprise ready? Yes. Would I recommend it to enterprise customers? No.
First, very few application vendors explicitly support it. I've had bad experience with Red Hat 8 (a vendor who "supported it" until we run into a RH8-specific bug they couldn't fix, then they recommended RH Enterprise Server) so I would be very very careful about that. This has nothing to do with "skillz" - sometimes to make things work you'd need to change the application or do something which isn't possible.
Second, if you happen to need to connect it to SAN or such hardware (or install Oracle on it), you'll be in big trouble - not because it can't be installed (it can) but because the customer would kill if they knew their 100K of h/w or s/w has been rendered unsupported because you've used an unsupported OS.
Third, in many situations, OS cost is about 1% of total TCO, so why bother?
Debian needs certifications and h/w vendor support. I hope some big Linux user will donate this money to Debian to get couple of important certifications for enterprise h/w and software.
Actually these aren't my arguments - I don't think I could come up with any on my own.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.ht ml
Somewhere I read that our universe would require about 10^40 operations per second to simulate (maybe in the URL above, I am lazy to go thru it again) which won't be out of human reach by 2050.
There's no special explanation for that question, though - _if_ it was a good simulation, how would you know?
The moment objects inside a simulation become aware that they're simulated, one would usually stop the simulation since awareness of being simulated would ruin the basic asumption of causality. I, for one, would just quit my job and start thinking how I can hack the system instead.
First, you yourself say that Sender ID will make Microsoft less money from support and services. Then why would they promote it? (Actually it won't influence services spending at all - customers will reassign that money to other critical matters. There's never enough money to fix all IT problems, so it's not that they'll use that money to buy new carpet for the meeting room).
Second, customers who're still with Exchange 5.5 are more likely to change to Linux, so it's a double-edged sword, to say the least.
And finally, all that Exchange sites need is one Linux box with Sendmail + Sender ID gateway, they don't have to touch their Exchange servers except route all outgoing traffic to the internal interface of the Linux box.
>Wouldn't a suscription method mean that we are going into the direction of a free software method in which we only pay for support and other related services?
It would if you think it would.
Joe Looser used to pay $90 for bundled Windows XP OEM Edition before, now he'll pay $10/month with a special 25% discount if he buys 12 months at once. And IBM won't even allow you to buy less than 6 months of service...
All in all - the same shit in a different package.
Some people will feel great about it, others will frown on it (especially those who used to get pirated client-side software which later becomes server-side only).
You do realize that they have the potential to satisfy your requirements at a resonable cost despite being Microsoft? Then why worry if they'll make it OS or whatever specific?
Besides, I'm sure their stuff will be cheaper than IBM's. Also - if they don't join (with proprietary technology or not) prices will be higher and choices will be less.
>Microsoft is prohibiting any GPL or similarly licensed software from including a Sender ID implementation.
I don't think that's what the FAQs say, but since we already stated our positions I won't repeat myself:-)
>If you take a GPL project and add a Sender ID code to it you cannot distribute it under any licence at all.
You can't if you're not the author - as a user when you get something under the GPL you must keep it that way (GPL). If the author releases his code under both GPL and non-GPL, then everyone who gets a copy of the non-GPL code with Sender ID can keep distributing the software. The problem is one of the GPL - it's totalitarian and hence inflexible (which I don't consider "free" as it limits rights of users - similar to commercial software but just in a different way).
Distribution without modifications (redistribution) doesn't require another license - at least judgning by MS FAQs pointed out by the grandparent post.
I did some more reading last night - it seems that the main objection is that if the licensee created non-email software using Sender-ID technology, then they would need to re-license Microsoft patents commercially. That's less free than it is with the GPL which allows software to be modified any way possible and remains free of most restrictions. Then they (Apache guys) seem to complain about some other details. I still think they could support it with dual licenses to their software. I know that an attribution requirement is incompatible with the GPL - but it's not Microsoft that created the GPL; they open source community should release their software under dual license so that it can support Sender ID while at the same time keep promoting SPS if they want to.
It is reasonable to expect that commercial entities would like to preserve certain rights over technologies developed internally; the open source community first complained about closed "standards", now they complain about open standards - tomorrow they'll complain about anything non-GPL.
>Microsoft intentionally sabotaged the proposed standard to prohibit full deployment by inserting exclusionary patent terms.
No - FAQs say specifically that all GPL software can include royalty-free implementation of Sender-ID for mail-related purposes. They only need to include patent attribution to Microsoft. Since the license allows redistribution, end users don't have to sign anything or pay anything. So how exactly does that prohibit full deployment?
> Many mail servers are under the GPL licence or similar licences. Those mail servers would be prohibited from adopting the standard.
It should be possible to publish any GPL software under dual license (GPL and non-GPL) the latter supporting Sender-ID.
I still don't understand why Sender-ID add on (plugin, etc.) can't be used to make GPL MTAs work with SenderID standard? The plugin itself could be LPGL or whatever, it doesn't have to be GPL. That's what sendmail does (via milton) and that's what Postfix could do as well. I still see no reason for refusing to support this standard.
Furthermore, many mail servers have daemons that do filtering and anti-virus scanning so that MTAs themselves do not actually talk to external SMTP servers - they only talk to the anti-spam or anti-virus daemon on 127.0.0.1 (or other port on an external interface). In such cases GPL MTAs wouldn't need support Sender-ID for incoming email.
>Any mail server which could and did adopt the standard (and thus Microsoft's poison pill) would then begin rejecting any mail from GPL (or similar) mail servers. The excluded mail servers, being unable to serve mail, would be exterminated.
In the worst case, only SMTP GPL servers would be exterminated; POP3/IMAP would not be affected. In the medium-worst case, each enterprise would need to have a Microsoft SMTP gateway, while internal SMTP servers could be GPL MTAs.
In reality, though, how could GPL MTAs be exterminated when among themselves they'll be using SPF?
>adopt the standard (and thus Microsoft's poison pill)
I don't see how is Microsoft's standard a poison pill? If this pill exists it's made by GPL folks - it's called a "GPL suicide pill". A great argument was made on Slashdot some 3 weeks ago how GPL isn't really free since one cannot do with the software whatever he wants (unlike FreeBSD) - how true!
By the way, Qmail is not licensed under GPL; right now it's still unclear how compatible will it be with Sender-ID license but it is possible it will, which is great for those trying to get rid of those GPL maniacs.
And I quote "Unfortunately, SPF isn't the only game in town" - believe it or not, this comes from a proponent of the free software! (http://www.distrowatch.com/weekly.php? issue=20040 802 - "SPF - Embrace or Extend?") In the ideal (free) world, there would be only one game in town and that would be GPL software - how sweet is that! You're free to choose - do you want GPL software or GPL software?
What Apache and Debian did is laughable; I hope other distributions will decide otherwise.
Did you guys know that U.S. Patent No. 5255452 explains "Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion"? The patent holder is Michael Jackson et al.
Recently I've read couple of articles speculating the possibility of gravity being faster than the speed of light and also that Kopeikin-Fomalot work on measuring speed of gravity (or rather propagation of gravitational force) is rather controversial.
At the same time, I find this observation by Van Flaudern very interesting and logical (although logical isn't a necessary requirement here): "Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons." (http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/g ravityspeed. html)
I guess this means if gravity was tied to light, it wouldn't change outside back holes. What would be the reason for that unless gravity propagation independent of light (and therefore unrelated to its speed of propagation)?
First it is likely that it is (see Simulation Argument paper on the Web).
Secondly, it's not going to be the funding but the increasing computing power inside the simulated universe that will make the simulating computer unable to keep up with Moore's law active within simulated universe(s).
From the article (*) and what I think about it (-):
* DCE endpoint resolution (epmap), port 135. This is basically the UNIX/BSD/Linux portmap daemon, and unnecessary on home machines. - unnecessary but not dangerous
* NetBIOS name service, port 137. This is the WINS (Windows Internet Naming Service) server for a NetBIOS network, and unnecessary on home machines. - so fucking what - ADSL links makes NetBIOS not listen on the Internet network interface - that's the default without SP2
* NetBIOS datagram service, port 138. This is used by the SMB (Server Message Block) browser service, and is unnecessary on home machines. - bullshit - I have 3 PCs at home and I share data all the time. Besides, the port is closed to outside (the Internet)
* Microsoft-ds (Server Message Block), port 445. SMB can run directly over TCP/IP, without NetBT by using this service, which is unnecessary on home machines. - yeah, riiight, almost everyone with 2 PCs need it and it's closed on the Internet interface
* NetBIOS Session, port 139. This is used for Windows File and Printer Sharing, unnecessary on most home machines, and extremely dangerous on any machine connected to the Internet unless the owner knows how to run it securely. - bullshit it's off by default on that network interface and possibly protected by the firewall (I haven't tried SP2 yet)
* Error Reporting is on by default. However, there is no reason why a machine should phone home every time it encounters an error. This is better left disabled. - that's like, your opionion. if it was off, someone would surely complain about that too....
WTF do you care if someone makes money? It's like saying people should get over flu without using any medicine because buying it makes pharmaceutical companies make money.
The idea is if sommeone is REALLY bothered by that little spam that gets past their Spam Assassin or whatever you use, they can pay 25 bucks a year and get rid of that 1% or so that goes past the filters.
If you think it's cheaper to use some other way or delete manually, do it that way. For many a company 25 bucks is well worth the benefit.
I have complained about editorial policy in several of my posts, but (silly me) haven't ever suspected that ownership of Slashdot could have to do with what gets posted here.
I have also complained about low quality FUD troll articles by michael and suggested that articles be moderated, too, so that we can filter out that cheap propaganda that pollutes the site. Of course, it seems it'd be "complicated" (suddenly it became hard to tinker with/. source code - where is that often lamented upside of the free software), but cheesy color schemas are never in short supply.
This year has been really bad. I my opinion, some 40% of all articles and 80% of all comments are of miserable quality. Sometimes one has to browse four pages of comments to find 3-4 insightful posts. And as the parent post says, you can't get rid of worthless comments because totally stupid articles get modded insightful or funny. As articles can't be modded or filtered ("michael filter" anyone?) either, it's becoming quite unbearable.
Sadly, that is the new Slashdot - perhaps it's "If you don't like it - leave!", so I've been thinking if I should still visit Slashdot.org any more or perhaps join one of commercial tech sites with quality articles and forums.
Truly pathetic.
P.S. In past months I've been getting to moderate ONLY anonymous posts - now I have started to suspect that happens because I've voiced my dissatisfaction too many times... Anyone else gets only to moderate only posts by anonymous cowards?
I don't think it will happen on Linux for the reason that it is "too free".
o Gentoo - builds from sources so you can't ship binary diffs o RPM based - symlinking and nature of open source (lots of individuality between systems running the same version of OS; such as workarounds and such) o APT-GET - similar to RPM o Others - wouldn't know but it just doesn't sound feasible
Some may call this insignificant but when you have to patch kernel for vulnerability then every minute could be important. Downloading a 30MB RPM to hundreds of systems, I don't like that... Well, binary diffs are definitively a better idea.
On Windows this comes extremely useful with anti-virus definitions - I know before Norton used to have huge downloads whereas Sopohos used binary diffs that would significantly shorten exposure ot new viruses (especially for big corporations with hundreds and thousands of desktops).
On Linux it's certainly possible but because of the way it is, it may take years before that can be done reliably...
That's a standardization advantage that closed and semi-closed OS'es enjoy.
I'd add that coding definitively seems to be his stronger side. Some parts of the article are BS.
From the article: "The consequences of intellectual property action" laments how IP protection will drive the technology out of the U.S.
If anything, the consequences of intellectual property action is that everyone will start using OSS _sooner_than they would otherwise - for example, in countries without IP protection people use Windows for free, so there's less incentive to change. Commercial software developers, on the other hand, have more incentive to stay in the U.S. because there they can protect their IP.
That's cute but it doesn't work that way because to backup shit to tapes and read it off those tapes you'd definitively need more time than network copy.
>Anyone else a little nervous that they haven't gotten around to writing a privacy policy? That seems a bit disturbing, to say the least.
What is disturbing about privacy if you get some MP3s and MP4s play them using their player?
People came up with a decent piece of software; now that there's nothing major to complain about, there's this stupid privacy FUD.
If the privacy policy was published, they'd complain about the content. Now it's missing, so complaints are about the fact it's not there. Will editors cut down on this conspiracy crap for once?
I wonder what they're going to do with Gmail users - say you are a Chinese user, someone sends you pr0n spam (keyword: fuck) or some travel spam (keyword: Tibet) and there you go - sex and independence ads instantly appear on the side!
If they can block those from HTML content (shouldn't be too hard to eliminate contents of that table cell with ads), perhaps they can commercialize the technology:-)
On the other hand it's going to be fun to see how Google reacts to this type of control - if it weren't for their don't be evil stuff, they'd still want to protect revenue from ads - even now, if only 3% of searches time out, they lose some advertising money. And the visitors get the idea that "Google sucks".
The list of blocked words is really funny - "naive" is considered dangerous, but "biatch" is not on the list... I wonder if it makes any sense - it's only 1000 words...
I find your sarcastic tone humorous. A few comments: - I don't consider myself superior. And you're probably richer than me. But I don't complain about it - I'm trying harder and working 12 hr days (true, it's office work, but still). Read Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad, it's very inspirational. - As far as credit cards are concerned, years ago I've found that the fewer I have, the better off I am. If you're a parent and you know this, how can you let your kids stack up five credit cards? If you don't know this and one day you get a suprise call from the bank, well, I'm sorry - you should have known better. - Your call for social justice, that's fine, maybe you're right, but that's off topic on this forum. I just agreed with the grandparent's view that it's the kids' fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say all major distributions are about the same.
The thing that keeps Red Hat and SuSE on the top is certifications, validations and things like that, which aren't free.
Is Debian enterprise ready? Yes.
Would I recommend it to enterprise customers? No.
First, very few application vendors explicitly support it. I've had bad experience with Red Hat 8 (a vendor who "supported it" until we run into a RH8-specific bug they couldn't fix, then they recommended RH Enterprise Server) so I would be very very careful about that. This has nothing to do with "skillz" - sometimes to make things work you'd need to change the application or do something which isn't possible.
Second, if you happen to need to connect it to SAN or such hardware (or install Oracle on it), you'll be in big trouble - not because it can't be installed (it can) but because the customer would kill if they knew their 100K of h/w or s/w has been rendered unsupported because you've used an unsupported OS.
Third, in many situations, OS cost is about 1% of total TCO, so why bother?
Debian needs certifications and h/w vendor support. I hope some big Linux user will donate this money to Debian to get couple of important certifications for enterprise h/w and software.
Actually these aren't my arguments - I don't think I could come up with any on my own.
t ml
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.h
Somewhere I read that our universe would require about 10^40 operations per second to simulate (maybe in the URL above, I am lazy to go thru it again) which won't be out of human reach by 2050.
There's no special explanation for that question, though - _if_ it was a good simulation, how would you know?
The moment objects inside a simulation become aware that they're simulated, one would usually stop the simulation since awareness of being simulated would ruin the basic asumption of causality.
I, for one, would just quit my job and start thinking how I can hack the system instead.
That's a totally misguided troll attempt.
First, you yourself say that Sender ID will make Microsoft less money from support and services. Then why would they promote it?
(Actually it won't influence services spending at all - customers will reassign that money to other critical matters. There's never enough money to fix all IT problems, so it's not that they'll use that money to buy new carpet for the meeting room).
Second, customers who're still with Exchange 5.5 are more likely to change to Linux, so it's a double-edged sword, to say the least.
And finally, all that Exchange sites need is one Linux box with Sendmail + Sender ID gateway, they don't have to touch their Exchange servers except route all outgoing traffic to the internal interface of the Linux box.
>Wouldn't a suscription method mean that we are going into the direction of a free software method in which we only pay for support and other related services?
It would if you think it would.
Joe Looser used to pay $90 for bundled Windows XP OEM Edition before, now he'll pay $10/month with a special 25% discount if he buys 12 months at once.
And IBM won't even allow you to buy less than 6 months of service...
All in all - the same shit in a different package.
Some people will feel great about it, others will frown on it (especially those who used to get pirated client-side software which later becomes server-side only).
You do realize that they have the potential to satisfy your requirements at a resonable cost despite being Microsoft?
Then why worry if they'll make it OS or whatever specific?
Besides, I'm sure their stuff will be cheaper than IBM's.
Also - if they don't join (with proprietary technology or not) prices will be higher and choices will be less.
Yes, but if they use REALLY BIG FONT SIZE, that takes up more storage space!
>Microsoft is prohibiting any GPL or similarly licensed software from including a Sender ID implementation.
:-)
I don't think that's what the FAQs say, but since we already stated our positions I won't repeat myself
>If you take a GPL project and add a Sender ID code to it you cannot distribute it under any licence at all.
You can't if you're not the author - as a user when you get something under the GPL you must keep it that way (GPL).
If the author releases his code under both GPL and non-GPL, then everyone who gets a copy of the non-GPL code with Sender ID can keep distributing the software. The problem is one of the GPL - it's totalitarian and hence inflexible (which I don't consider "free" as it limits rights of users - similar to commercial software but just in a different way).
Distribution without modifications (redistribution) doesn't require another license - at least judgning by MS FAQs pointed out by the grandparent post.
I did some more reading last night - it seems that the main objection is that if the licensee created non-email software using Sender-ID technology, then they would need to re-license Microsoft patents commercially.
That's less free than it is with the GPL which allows software to be modified any way possible and remains free of most restrictions.
Then they (Apache guys) seem to complain about some other details. I still think they could support it with dual licenses to their software.
I know that an attribution requirement is incompatible with the GPL - but it's not Microsoft that created the GPL; they open source community should release their software under dual license so that it can support Sender ID while at the same time keep promoting SPS if they want to.
It is reasonable to expect that commercial entities would like to preserve certain rights over technologies developed internally; the open source community first complained about closed "standards", now they complain about open standards - tomorrow they'll complain about anything non-GPL.
>Microsoft intentionally sabotaged the proposed standard to prohibit full deployment by inserting exclusionary patent terms.
? issue=20040 802 - "SPF - Embrace or Extend?")
No - FAQs say specifically that all GPL software can include royalty-free implementation of Sender-ID for mail-related purposes. They only need to include patent attribution to Microsoft.
Since the license allows redistribution, end users don't have to sign anything or pay anything.
So how exactly does that prohibit full deployment?
> Many mail servers are under the GPL licence or similar licences. Those mail servers would be prohibited from adopting the standard.
It should be possible to publish any GPL software under dual license (GPL and non-GPL) the latter supporting Sender-ID.
I still don't understand why Sender-ID add on (plugin, etc.) can't be used to make GPL MTAs work with SenderID standard? The plugin itself could be LPGL or whatever, it doesn't have to be GPL.
That's what sendmail does (via milton) and that's what Postfix could do as well. I still see no reason for refusing to support this standard.
Furthermore, many mail servers have daemons that do filtering and anti-virus scanning so that MTAs themselves do not actually talk to external SMTP servers - they only talk to the anti-spam or anti-virus daemon on 127.0.0.1 (or other port on an external interface). In such cases GPL MTAs wouldn't need support Sender-ID for incoming email.
>Any mail server which could and did adopt the standard (and thus Microsoft's poison pill) would then begin rejecting any mail from GPL (or similar) mail servers. The excluded mail servers, being unable to serve mail, would be exterminated.
In the worst case, only SMTP GPL servers would be exterminated; POP3/IMAP would not be affected. In the medium-worst case, each enterprise would need to have a Microsoft SMTP gateway, while internal SMTP servers could be GPL MTAs.
In reality, though, how could GPL MTAs be exterminated when among themselves they'll be using SPF?
>adopt the standard (and thus Microsoft's poison pill)
I don't see how is Microsoft's standard a poison pill? If this pill exists it's made by GPL folks - it's called a "GPL suicide pill".
A great argument was made on Slashdot some 3 weeks ago how GPL isn't really free since one cannot do with the software whatever he wants (unlike FreeBSD) - how true!
By the way, Qmail is not licensed under GPL; right now it's still unclear how compatible will it be with Sender-ID license but it is possible it will, which is great for those trying to get rid of those GPL maniacs.
And I quote "Unfortunately, SPF isn't the only game in town" - believe it or not, this comes from a proponent of the free software!
(http://www.distrowatch.com/weekly.php
In the ideal (free) world, there would be only one game in town and that would be GPL software - how sweet is that! You're free to choose - do you want GPL software or GPL software?
What Apache and Debian did is laughable; I hope other distributions will decide otherwise.
Noone forces Debian to accept the license - they can just support it from the technical perspective.
A guy from sendmail consortium said he didn't see a reason why Sendmail should accept any license - they can just support it through milter.
Debian did it because Apache did it and Apache did it because they think they're smarter than Microsoft.
Not supporting something that _might_ cut down on spam for reasons they give is stupid.
Did you guys know that U.S. Patent No. 5255452 explains "Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion"? The patent holder is Michael Jackson et al.
g ravityspeed. html)
Recently I've read couple of articles speculating the possibility of gravity being faster than the speed of light and also that Kopeikin-Fomalot work on measuring speed of gravity (or rather propagation of gravitational force) is rather controversial.
At the same time, I find this observation by Van Flaudern very interesting and logical (although logical isn't a necessary requirement here):
"Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons."
(http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/
I guess this means if gravity was tied to light, it wouldn't change outside back holes.
What would be the reason for that unless gravity propagation independent of light (and therefore unrelated to its speed of propagation)?
First it is likely that it is (see Simulation Argument paper on the Web).
Secondly, it's not going to be the funding but the increasing computing power inside the simulated universe that will make the simulating computer unable to keep up with Moore's law active within simulated universe(s).
You're right, thanks, I filtered him out.
Of course - the article is full of shit.
....
From the article (*) and what I think about it (-):
* DCE endpoint resolution (epmap), port 135.
This is basically the UNIX/BSD/Linux portmap daemon, and unnecessary on home machines.
- unnecessary but not dangerous
* NetBIOS name service, port 137. This is the WINS (Windows Internet Naming Service) server for a NetBIOS network, and unnecessary on home machines.
- so fucking what - ADSL links makes NetBIOS not listen on the Internet network interface - that's the default without SP2
* NetBIOS datagram service, port 138. This is used by the SMB (Server Message Block) browser service, and is unnecessary on home machines.
- bullshit - I have 3 PCs at home and I share data all the time. Besides, the port is closed to outside (the Internet)
* Microsoft-ds (Server Message Block), port 445. SMB can run directly over TCP/IP, without NetBT by using this service, which is unnecessary on home machines.
- yeah, riiight, almost everyone with 2 PCs need it and it's closed on the Internet interface
* NetBIOS Session, port 139. This is used for Windows File and Printer Sharing, unnecessary on most home machines, and extremely dangerous on any machine connected to the Internet unless the owner knows how to run it securely.
- bullshit it's off by default on that network interface and possibly protected by the firewall (I haven't tried SP2 yet)
* Error Reporting is on by default. However, there is no reason why a machine should phone home every time it encounters an error. This is better left disabled.
- that's like, your opionion. if it was off, someone would surely complain about that too
etc..
WTF do you care if someone makes money?
It's like saying people should get over flu without using any medicine because buying it makes pharmaceutical companies make money.
The idea is if sommeone is REALLY bothered by that little spam that gets past their Spam Assassin or whatever you use, they can pay 25 bucks a year and get rid of that 1% or so that goes past the filters.
If you think it's cheaper to use some other way or delete manually, do it that way. For many a company 25 bucks is well worth the benefit.
Excellent post.
/. source code - where is that often lamented upside of the free software), but cheesy color schemas are never in short supply.
I have complained about editorial policy in several of my posts, but (silly me) haven't ever suspected that ownership of Slashdot could have to do with what gets posted here.
I have also complained about low quality FUD troll articles by michael and suggested that articles be moderated, too, so that we can filter out that cheap propaganda that pollutes the site.
Of course, it seems it'd be "complicated" (suddenly it became hard to tinker with
This year has been really bad.
I my opinion, some 40% of all articles and 80% of all comments are of miserable quality. Sometimes one has to browse four pages of comments to find 3-4 insightful posts. And as the parent post says, you can't get rid of worthless comments because totally stupid articles get modded insightful or funny.
As articles can't be modded or filtered ("michael filter" anyone?) either, it's becoming quite unbearable.
Sadly, that is the new Slashdot - perhaps it's "If you don't like it - leave!", so I've been thinking if I should still visit Slashdot.org any more or perhaps join one of commercial tech sites with quality articles and forums.
Truly pathetic.
P.S. In past months I've been getting to moderate ONLY anonymous posts - now I have started to suspect that happens because I've voiced my dissatisfaction too many times... Anyone else gets only to moderate only posts by anonymous cowards?
I don't think it will happen on Linux for the reason that it is "too free".
o Gentoo - builds from sources so you can't ship binary diffs
o RPM based - symlinking and nature of open source (lots of individuality between systems running the same version of OS; such as workarounds and such)
o APT-GET - similar to RPM
o Others - wouldn't know but it just doesn't sound feasible
Some may call this insignificant but when you have to patch kernel for vulnerability then every minute could be important. Downloading a 30MB RPM to hundreds of systems, I don't like that... Well, binary diffs are definitively a better idea.
On Windows this comes extremely useful with anti-virus definitions - I know before Norton used to have huge downloads whereas Sopohos used binary diffs that would significantly shorten exposure ot new viruses (especially for big corporations with hundreds and thousands of desktops).
On Linux it's certainly possible but because of the way it is, it may take years before that can be done reliably...
That's a standardization advantage that closed and semi-closed OS'es enjoy.
I'd add that coding definitively seems to be his stronger side.
Some parts of the article are BS.
From the article: "The consequences of intellectual property action" laments how IP protection will drive the technology out of the U.S.
If anything, the consequences of intellectual property action is that everyone will start using OSS _sooner_than they would otherwise - for example, in countries without IP protection people use Windows for free, so there's less incentive to change.
Commercial software developers, on the other hand, have more incentive to stay in the U.S. because there they can protect their IP.
>You can get patents for things that are so common sense
Why don't you patent those common sense things that haven't been patented yet and not charge any royalties for their use?
That's cute but it doesn't work that way because to backup shit to tapes and read it off those tapes you'd definitively need more time than network copy.
>Anyone else a little nervous that they haven't gotten around to writing a privacy policy? That seems a bit disturbing, to say the least.
What is disturbing about privacy if you get some MP3s and MP4s play them using their player?
People came up with a decent piece of software; now that there's nothing major to complain about, there's this stupid privacy FUD.
If the privacy policy was published, they'd complain about the content. Now it's missing, so complaints are about the fact it's not there.
Will editors cut down on this conspiracy crap for once?
> Sure, I know that I can completely trust a monkey that works for a completely unbiased software company ;-)
;-)
Sure, like someone can completely trust a user comment made on a completely biased site
Of course - after all, how would they know when they've never been to the Moon ;-)
Joking aside - to quote a China-friendly source, their first astronaut said it indeed wasn't visible when he was up in the space.
I wonder what they're going to do with Gmail users - say you are a Chinese user, someone sends you pr0n spam (keyword: fuck) or some travel spam (keyword: Tibet) and there you go - sex and independence ads instantly appear on the side!
:-)
If they can block those from HTML content (shouldn't be too hard to eliminate contents of that table cell with ads), perhaps they can commercialize the technology
On the other hand it's going to be fun to see how Google reacts to this type of control - if it weren't for their don't be evil stuff, they'd still want to protect revenue from ads - even now, if only 3% of searches time out, they lose some advertising money. And the visitors get the idea that "Google sucks".
The list of blocked words is really funny - "naive" is considered dangerous, but "biatch" is not on the list...
I wonder if it makes any sense - it's only 1000 words...
I find your sarcastic tone humorous. A few comments:
- I don't consider myself superior. And you're probably richer than me. But I don't complain about it - I'm trying harder and working 12 hr days (true, it's office work, but still). Read Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad, it's very inspirational.
- As far as credit cards are concerned, years ago I've found that the fewer I have, the better off I am. If you're a parent and you know this, how can you let your kids stack up five credit cards? If you don't know this and one day you get a suprise call from the bank, well, I'm sorry - you should have known better.
- Your call for social justice, that's fine, maybe you're right, but that's off topic on this forum. I just agreed with the grandparent's view that it's the kids' fault.
Don't sue McDonalds for making hot coffee.