2. Use Firefox to visit www.slashdot.org, go to Tools > Adblock > List All Blockable Elements > a) http://.falkag.net/* b) http://.tacoda.net/* =I'm not sure if this is ad site, but the first one is for sure
3. Right-click and block individual image-type ads, if any.
> And also Microsoft can steal the code and use it Windows Linux.
If it's published under BSD license, it can't be stolen, stupid.
And if MS uses it (in) Windows Linux (Microsoft Linux, it's going to compatible with Linux (or BSD). What's wrong with that. If they want to invest resources in further code development and fork it, it's their money...
And if you dont' want to use their stuff, just use the original/free BSD code.
> Except that probably any search engine could have uncovered the facts listed in that CNet article.
First, Google is #1 and as such most likely to contain most links to someone's private (if you consider any of that info private) information. So if you wanted to make a point, you wouldn't write about Altavista's CEO (nobody knows who that is, and nobody gives a damn about that search engine either).
Second, by being #1, Google is most likely to exhibit problems with caching and making easily searchable potentially private or personal info.
Therefore they're a legitimate target for an article like that.
>But very little of their "privacy issues" aren't duplicated by every major online resource.
Why didn't Mr. Schmidt google himself, find the URLs which provide that info and banish the original sources instead of the one that collected them (CNet)? Actually what CNet did is very similar to what Google does all the time - collect publicly available info and present it in a user-friendly way. If there wasn't for Google, there probably wouldn't have been this CNet's article.
>Just because information is available doesn't mean journalists shouldn't think about what they are reporting on.
Oh, really? And when the same asshole was asked this question at a press conference few months ago, he said that Google is just making already available information easier to find.
And now that *he* goot googled, that is objectionable reporting. Fuck him.
>It has to do with reporting personal information about a person in a way that is objectionable to said person
Instead they could have made a "story" composed of Google links to search results on this guy. How would that be different from actually writing up a story?
>Unfortunately, in your case and mine, there's piss all we could do about it.
They (CNet) just demonstrated how there's piss he can do about it as well. If anyhthing (as The Register noted), now CNet can freely bash Google until the ban expires, which will actually help their business.
>I say kudos to Google for standing up to asshole reporting.
> (though I suppose those servers they sell to companies for internal searches must count as redistribution).
Good point, I hope someone asks them to provide the source code. Then again, does "leasing" of appliances count as redistribution (in case that's what they call it)?
>Anyhow, does anyone know if/what Google has contributed?
If anything came out, it'd probably be contributions to the kernel, which can be searched, grepped and "wc -l"-ed. I don't have the source at hand, though.
>The whole virtualization thing in SAN is far from the OS level. >The OS emulation part of vmware workstation really has nothing to do with storage.
On the contrary - every OS has a system disk (and probably some data disks too). If you have an app that makes it easy to move shitloads of OS to EMC (boot from SAN for the OS part + virtualizable storage provisioning for the data part), it's of course a very attractive combo.
As the other response to your post said, it's very convenient to provide a disk array with a single (or clustered) VMWare box which provides Physical 2 Virtual storage and server consolidation.
> In the end people end up with HDS, HP.
TagmaStor (the original high end version) is what you really can call overkill (except for the largest sites). The recent mid-end editions are a bit more reasonable. HP storage? Oh, well, they barely managed to pull a refresh of what they've inherited from Compaq.
Another enterprise ready virtualization technology! So many free, enterprise-ready virtualization technologies, so litle time....
In real life VMWare has a great advantage over the competitors; it's stable, mature, supports heterogenous OS, snapshots and the latest Clariion's virtualization features can be combined with VMWare's features (don't ask me how, I just read the press release; I guess VMWare can make use of Clariion's virtualization features to create virtual physical disks on the fly). In case you didn't know, these are some major features that enterprise-ready VM software needs to have.
As far as *enterprise* features are concerned, in comparison with VMWare, UML and Xen are *currently* a joke. Xen could pick up next year, but it's got a lot of catching up to do. Microsoft will do quite well once they start supporting Linux (next year, I think).
How's that? This software has 0% market share (and that was with all the IBM's sales, support and development efforts). They couldn't make a dent in the market (why do you think they're releasing it to open source if it's so good)?
>And google finally could have a nice open source competitor.
I don't think so. Those search engine guys are mean mother fuckers - thousands and thousands of full-time engineers working on solely one task - imporoving their search products/services. On the other hand, IBM tosses out a semi-working product to the loosely connected community to debug. My guess is that they simply realized they're unable to compete so now they just hope to prop up DB2 or WebSphere sales.
Come on, have you ever tried to find anything on IBM's own site? It's laughable - they can't make it work on their own fucking web site! When was the last time you heard about their open source ViaVoice (or whatever that thing they released to open source few years ago was)?
>This will increase innovation in giant leaps and ofcourse would make it hard for microsoft ever to beat Google.
Oh - the open source search software will finally push Google to innovate, which in turn will leave MS in dust. Until that happens (and while Yahoo indexes 2.5 times more docs than Google), Google's engineers will be on collective vacation, taking it easy while allowing this open source search engine to get its shit together.
This year I've been getting increasingly annoyed with crappy sites occupying top spots in Google results.
I tried different search engines but couldn't get used to their GUI.
Then recently I installed Greasemonkey and Customize Google (www.customizegoogle.com) script that automatically inserts search links to Yahoo and other major sites on every page of Google results (Does this sound too confusing? What happens is that when you search for something on Google.com, CustomizeGoogle inserts a line of links to competing search engines positioned around the Sponsored Search Results area of Google result pages. Then one can click on those links to open new tabs with search results from other search engines, all without re-entering the term(s). It's semi-automatic, that is).
Now I use Yahoo search engine much more often as I don't have to copy-paste and/or re-enter search terms. And I still keep the Google GUI as my main search GUI. And finally, there are some other cool Customize Google features - it can mask/block all Google ads and anonymize your Google cookie.
Now I rarely use MS IE for searching - I also un-installed my Google search bar from MS IE and Firefox. I still use MS IE for reading some particular sites, though.
>Sounds more like Tommy Hilfiger Corp. got a really good deal on hardware and software in return for being willing to help out on the advertising front.
How is that different from any pro-Linux PR that comes from IBM, Novell, RH and others?
Just today I read about this Australian company that plans to provide **live** satellite feeds (Google Earth in real time). And of course there's Virtual Earth and a bunch of other sources.
But, if the cops one day find Google Earth printouts in some terrorist's bag, well... that won't be good for their PR.
Actually I'd be surprised if the government already didn't have Google Earth backdoor with alerts set on sensitive locations worldwide.
At $500/school, if Linspire plans to survive, they can give them like 1 hour of support or 2 phone calls a year. Not to mention the development costs - I don't know how they plan to cover that?
>1.This monopoly means you have to tread very carefully not to fall foul of competition law.
Who does NOT have to do that? I thought laws apply equally to both convicted and non-convicted entities.
>2.This means that the EU political center is much further to the left than the US.
Companies, not governments, spend on Windows *probably* because it helps them get shit done.
> 3. European governments are starting to wise up that transfering as much as 0.3% of GDP to the United States in Windows licenses is not a smart move.
First, those percentages aren't controlled by the government (except to a small extent). So what they think is irrelevant. And yes, let's switch everyone to non-commercial Linux distros and lose 1% of GDP due to lower productivity! And even if they switch to Red Hat or Novell, the money's still gonna flow in the same direction.
>I am confident of one thing: the future of Microsoft will not be dictated by how well it fares in the US market but how well it fares in the EU market.
You're plain wrong. It's going to depend on India and China.
>Linux is quickly becoming intrenched in these countries
What the fuck do you know? Do you live in any of those countries?
>these companies can't really afford to prop up the American economy.
"These companies" don't give a shit about the American economy. They buy computers and software to have the optimum means of making money. As it turns out, currently Windows (especially on desktop) is an okay choice. Before they had probably tried OS/2, before that calculators and even the pencil/paper bundle - too fucking bad, it didn't work out.
Perhaps later they might try some other OS, but to think they're going to get something for nothing is ludicrous. Nothing is free - they'll have to spend more on support and training, so I don't think that overall they can save much (especially considering the piracy levels - they pay very little for the MS software) before 2010.
They should add "quick path" buttons to the remote controllers: a) collect GPS readouts of the subject's path b) provide way to create macros (manually navigate her from sofa to fridge, then use the system to automatically create a macro for reverse navigation fridge to sofa) c) control your wife with few easy to use buttons
Sorry, but I am not finishing this with a "profit" list item...
> Who's going to buy that DVD when they know ahead of time that a better version will be released?
Well when one can't get anything comparable on the market, I think many people will buy whatever is available. Even with Sony's console comes out earlier, it will most likely be more expensive than the 360 + add-on HD-DVD. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ps3+expensive &btnG=Google+Search
Where are now all those PS3 Cell zealots? If Apple dumped IBM earlier, perhaps Sony would have gotten a clue. Heh, heh....
It's not, but for different reasons (in my view). IBM, in my view, is selling snake oil (give you a "free" Linux, then rip you off on everything else). Red Hat is probably the only noteworthy example.
Tivo is making money not from Linux but from their product (which incidentally runs on Linux), but could have made money using any other OS (BSD or even some commercial embedded OS). The same goes for Google (just look at Yahoo - I think they're big on *BSD).
I think making money on open source is one thing and using open source components in one's product/service is another.
Also, note that some of Red Hat's best-selling and money-making products used to be closed source. They're giving them away now (and they've become GPL/OSS in the meantime) in exchange for maintenance. If the development doesn't pick up properly, these will dry up. As far as the OS is concerned, their best hope is that Linuces remain fucked up as they are right now so companies get locked in their enterprise distro.
And then there's Fedora and other communities who work for Red Hat for free.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Get the Adblock Firefox extension at:
http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Install it and restart Firefox.
2. Use Firefox to visit www.slashdot.org, go to Tools > Adblock > List All Blockable Elements >
a) http://.falkag.net/*
b) http://.tacoda.net/* =I'm not sure if this is ad site, but the first one is for sure
3. Right-click and block individual image-type ads, if any.
> And also Microsoft can steal the code and use it Windows Linux.
If it's published under BSD license, it can't be stolen, stupid.
And if MS uses it (in) Windows Linux (Microsoft Linux, it's going to compatible with Linux (or BSD). What's wrong with that. If they want to invest resources in further code development and fork it, it's their money...
And if you dont' want to use their stuff, just use the original/free BSD code.
> Except that probably any search engine could have uncovered the facts listed in that CNet article.
First, Google is #1 and as such most likely to contain most links to someone's private (if you consider any of that info private) information.
So if you wanted to make a point, you wouldn't write about Altavista's CEO (nobody knows who that is, and nobody gives a damn about that search engine either).
Second, by being #1, Google is most likely to exhibit problems with caching and making easily searchable potentially private or personal info.
Therefore they're a legitimate target for an article like that.
>But very little of their "privacy issues" aren't duplicated by every major online resource.
Why didn't Mr. Schmidt google himself, find the URLs which provide that info and banish the original sources instead of the one that collected them (CNet)?
Actually what CNet did is very similar to what Google does all the time - collect publicly available info and present it in a user-friendly way.
If there wasn't for Google, there probably wouldn't have been this CNet's article.
>Just because information is available doesn't mean journalists shouldn't think about what they are reporting on.
Oh, really? And when the same asshole was asked this question at a press conference few months ago, he said that Google is just making already available information easier to find.
And now that *he* goot googled, that is objectionable reporting. Fuck him.
>It has to do with reporting personal information about a person in a way that is objectionable to said person
Instead they could have made a "story" composed of Google links to search results on this guy.
How would that be different from actually writing up a story?
>Unfortunately, in your case and mine, there's piss all we could do about it.
They (CNet) just demonstrated how there's piss he can do about it as well.
If anyhthing (as The Register noted), now CNet can freely bash Google until the ban expires, which will actually help their business.
>I say kudos to Google for standing up to asshole reporting.
Screw Google.
> (though I suppose those servers they sell to companies for internal searches must count as redistribution).
Good point, I hope someone asks them to provide the source code. Then again, does "leasing" of appliances count as redistribution (in case that's what they call it)?
>Anyhow, does anyone know if/what Google has contributed?
If anything came out, it'd probably be contributions to the kernel, which can be searched, grepped and "wc -l"-ed.
I don't have the source at hand, though.
Gee, man - sounds like you should give Windows XP a try! :-)
>The whole virtualization thing in SAN is far from the OS level.
>The OS emulation part of vmware workstation really has nothing to do with storage.
On the contrary - every OS has a system disk (and probably some data disks too). If you have an app that makes it easy to move shitloads of OS to EMC (boot from SAN for the OS part + virtualizable storage provisioning for the data part), it's of course a very attractive combo.
As the other response to your post said, it's very convenient to provide a disk array with a single (or clustered) VMWare box which provides Physical 2 Virtual storage and server consolidation.
> In the end people end up with HDS, HP.
TagmaStor (the original high end version) is what you really can call overkill (except for the largest sites). The recent mid-end editions are a bit more reasonable.
HP storage? Oh, well, they barely managed to pull a refresh of what they've inherited from Compaq.
>with enterprise-ready UML,
Enterprise? Ready? UML? Nice joke.
> Xen et al.
Another enterprise ready virtualization technology!
So many free, enterprise-ready virtualization technologies, so litle time....
In real life VMWare has a great advantage over the competitors; it's stable, mature, supports heterogenous OS, snapshots and the latest Clariion's virtualization features can be combined with VMWare's features (don't ask me how, I just read the press release; I guess VMWare can make use of Clariion's virtualization features to create virtual physical disks on the fly). In case you didn't know, these are some major features that enterprise-ready VM software needs to have.
As far as *enterprise* features are concerned, in comparison with VMWare, UML and Xen are *currently* a joke.
Xen could pick up next year, but it's got a lot of catching up to do.
Microsoft will do quite well once they start supporting Linux (next year, I think).
> Now I think Microsoft has a big problem...
How's that?
This software has 0% market share (and that was with all the IBM's sales, support and development efforts).
They couldn't make a dent in the market (why do you think they're releasing it to open source if it's so good)?
>And google finally could have a nice open source competitor.
I don't think so. Those search engine guys are mean mother fuckers - thousands and thousands of full-time engineers working on solely one task - imporoving their search products/services.
On the other hand, IBM tosses out a semi-working product to the loosely connected community to debug.
My guess is that they simply realized they're unable to compete so now they just hope to prop up DB2 or WebSphere sales.
Come on, have you ever tried to find anything on IBM's own site? It's laughable - they can't make it work on their own fucking web site!
When was the last time you heard about their open source ViaVoice (or whatever that thing they released to open source few years ago was)?
>This will increase innovation in giant leaps and ofcourse would make it hard for microsoft ever to beat Google.
Oh - the open source search software will finally push Google to innovate, which in turn will leave MS in dust.
Until that happens (and while Yahoo indexes 2.5 times more docs than Google), Google's engineers will be on collective vacation, taking it easy while allowing this open source search engine to get its shit together.
This year I've been getting increasingly annoyed with crappy sites occupying top spots in Google results.
I tried different search engines but couldn't get used to their GUI.
Then recently I installed Greasemonkey and Customize Google (www.customizegoogle.com) script that automatically inserts search links to Yahoo and other major sites on every page of Google results
(Does this sound too confusing? What happens is that when you search for something on Google.com, CustomizeGoogle inserts a line of links to competing search engines positioned around the Sponsored Search Results area of Google result pages.
Then one can click on those links to open new tabs with search results from other search engines, all without re-entering the term(s). It's semi-automatic, that is).
Now I use Yahoo search engine much more often as I don't have to copy-paste and/or re-enter search terms. And I still keep the Google GUI as my main search GUI. And finally, there are some other cool Customize Google features - it can mask/block all Google ads and anonymize your Google cookie.
Now I rarely use MS IE for searching - I also un-installed my Google search bar from MS IE and Firefox. I still use MS IE for reading some particular sites, though.
>Sounds more like Tommy Hilfiger Corp. got a really good deal on hardware and software in return for being willing to help out on the advertising front.
How is that different from any pro-Linux PR that comes from IBM, Novell, RH and others?
I know it's redundant, but I have to provide that line from Out of Sight:
"Andy, honestly, who gives a shit?"
>My question is this: why haven't US and UK based hackers taken action against these sites?
And mine is for those running GPL OS and apps, why haven't the authors cancelled their EULA?
Unless, of course, there are doubts as to Al Q's real intentions (maybe they're just a human rights group)?
Google aren't the only ones.
Just today I read about this Australian company that plans to provide **live** satellite feeds (Google Earth in real time).
And of course there's Virtual Earth and a bunch of other sources.
But, if the cops one day find Google Earth printouts in some terrorist's bag, well... that won't be good for their PR.
Actually I'd be surprised if the government already didn't have Google Earth backdoor with alerts set on sensitive locations worldwide.
WTF? RTFA.
The guy is complaining about Google providing imagery of his nuclear site. Nothing to do with Googlebot.
The article criticizes security researchers, which is aparently easier than spending energy on introspect.
And all that from a company that marketed its product as "Unbreakable" despite dozens of security problems every year.
Scum.
>There are still people using Netscape 4 for some unknown reason.
UNIX workstations and servers.
> Maybe if a sensor implimentation came as an optional standard with server software.
Sounds good until you consider that with massive deployment of sensors (especially those bundled with OS) it'd be impossible to manage them properly.
We could easily end up with compromised sensor network, hacker-induced fake alerts and god-know-what.
> Support dude, support.
You must be kidding, right?
At $500/school, if Linspire plans to survive, they can give them like 1 hour of support or 2 phone calls a year.
Not to mention the development costs - I don't know how they plan to cover that?
What a bunch of bullshit!
>1.This monopoly means you have to tread very carefully not to fall foul of competition law.
Who does NOT have to do that?
I thought laws apply equally to both convicted and non-convicted entities.
>2.This means that the EU political center is much further to the left than the US.
Companies, not governments, spend on Windows *probably* because it helps them get shit done.
> 3. European governments are starting to wise up that transfering as much as 0.3% of GDP to the United States in Windows licenses is not a smart move.
First, those percentages aren't controlled by the government (except to a small extent). So what they think is irrelevant.
And yes, let's switch everyone to non-commercial Linux distros and lose 1% of GDP due to lower productivity!
And even if they switch to Red Hat or Novell, the money's still gonna flow in the same direction.
>I am confident of one thing: the future of Microsoft will not be dictated by how well it fares in the US market but how well it fares in the EU market.
You're plain wrong. It's going to depend on India and China.
>Linux is quickly becoming intrenched in these countries
What the fuck do you know? Do you live in any of those countries?
>these companies can't really afford to prop up the American economy.
"These companies" don't give a shit about the American economy. They buy computers and software to have the optimum means of making money. As it turns out, currently Windows (especially on desktop) is an okay choice.
Before they had probably tried OS/2, before that calculators and even the pencil/paper bundle - too fucking bad, it didn't work out.
Perhaps later they might try some other OS, but to think they're going to get something for nothing is ludicrous. Nothing is free - they'll have to spend more on support and training, so I don't think that overall they can save much (especially considering the piracy levels - they pay very little for the MS software) before 2010.
They should add "quick path" buttons to the remote controllers:
a) collect GPS readouts of the subject's path
b) provide way to create macros (manually navigate her from sofa to fridge, then use the system to automatically create a macro for reverse navigation fridge to sofa)
c) control your wife with few easy to use buttons
Sorry, but I am not finishing this with a "profit" list item...
Gee, this should be posted in Your Rights Online :-)
And send that woman right to my bed!
I haven't heard much of flawed data in highly esteemed printed encyclopedia (though I'm quite sure there must be some mistakes in such media as well).
On the other hand, I've seen lots of ludicrous examples from Wikipedia.
These are history data and it's more likely the trends will continue than that they will not.
> Who's going to buy that DVD when they know ahead of time that a better version will be released?
e &btnG=Google+Search
Well when one can't get anything comparable on the market, I think many people will buy whatever is available.
Even with Sony's console comes out earlier, it will most likely be more expensive than the 360 + add-on HD-DVD.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ps3+expensiv
Where are now all those PS3 Cell zealots?
If Apple dumped IBM earlier, perhaps Sony would have gotten a clue. Heh, heh....
>Is that really a fair thing to say?
It's not, but for different reasons (in my view). IBM, in my view, is selling snake oil (give you a "free" Linux, then rip you off on everything else). Red Hat is probably the only noteworthy example.
Tivo is making money not from Linux but from their product (which incidentally runs on Linux), but could have made money using any other OS (BSD or even some commercial embedded OS).
The same goes for Google (just look at Yahoo - I think they're big on *BSD).
I think making money on open source is one thing and using open source components in one's product/service is another.
Also, note that some of Red Hat's best-selling and money-making products used to be closed source. They're giving them away now (and they've become GPL/OSS in the meantime) in exchange for maintenance. If the development doesn't pick up properly, these will dry up. As far as the OS is concerned, their best hope is that Linuces remain fucked up as they are right now so companies get locked in their enterprise distro.
And then there's Fedora and other communities who work for Red Hat for free.