Maybe I'm not understanding the issues here, but aren't the "providers" providing content to BellSouth customers through their network? I pay for a DSL connection and then stream video or have Vonage or some other use of the bandwidth, aren't I paying for the access already?
Isn't this just BellSouth double-billing for the same service? Why not just recover cost from their already paying customers? I assume the answer is that they can't, either for regulatory issue or because they have already maxed out what they think their customers are willing to put up with.
Here's a sneaky/evil idea. If you are an Apple sized company and you recieve this sort of extortion request, degrade the network performance TO BellSouth networks with a big old link to a notice as to why! Let your customers fight their ISP's for you!
OK, did anyone else notice that the author of this peice, VeryVito, uses himself as a reference. The "some say" link is to his own blog. Come on, if your going to plug yourself, be open about it!
Oh, and the portable apps site seems to be 403. Slashdotted, maybe?
There seems to be too much acceptance in the public of the idea that the market is more important than the commons. We accept that too much government is a bad thing, but have we entirely forgotten or ignored that exceedingly large business is even worse?
And I recognize that "too much" and "exceedingly large" are subjective terms, but I'm concerned with the balance. When news goes corporate before public good have we lost the battle for our rights? You can say that these companies don't have a political agenda, but money IS an agenda, and unfortunatly, our government revolves around money. This is were finance reform becomes and issue of your rights vs. company rights.
I'm sorry to say it, but they will win that one. The reign of government are held by the same people who have held the reigns of business, and they are hacking away at anything that will slow them down.
I'm not nieve enough to think that OSS will solve all the worlds problems, but it at least has the advantage of giving the people control (should they accept it). Letting businesses write the laws (which many lobbyists do before handing it to a congressman) is designed to keep the revenue stream flowing, the public good be damned!
Not to MS bash (which I admit I do from time to time), but what about vulnerabilities that are not vendor-confirmed?
What I'm concerned about is that the "study" relies on vulnerabilities that the vendor acknowledges. If one vendor is faster at, or more accepting of those vulnerabilities, then they will be seen to be "less secure".
OTOH, if the vendor rejects them more often, regardless of their merit (which MS has been known to do) the product seems "more secure".
I'm sorry, but if I disagree with the premise, I would not trust the results.
Wow! I JUST picked up the 10yr anniversery set with Myst, Riven and Exile. I had played (never beaten) all three in the past, and thought I'd pick them up for the PC.
I had forgotten how much I loved playing these games.
Oooh, that is a bad image to get stuck with... sorry. Yeah, I think I can see Grumpy bashing in her head with a big statue of a penis. Dopey is wearing a jockstrap... Now they are all dancing to a bit of Ludwig Van.
I generally agree your point about rehashing old shows into todays fodder, and not just scifi. Movies can't seem to come up with anything new either.
BUT (huge but)
This show is the exception. After watching this, seeing the old show would be like watching a disney version of "A Clockwork Orange". The new BSG is so much more than the old show. I'm sorry, Glen Larsen had great ideas, but the production never lived up. This is how the show should have been done from the beginning! Dramatic, epic, lots of intrigue and suspense.
And I don't think Dr. Who is a remake. More of a continuation. There have been, like, a bajillion of those guys. I think the BBC just took it out of mothballs and brushed it off. Kinda like what "Enterprise" was to "Star Trek".
Whoa, calm down boy. Breathe in, breathe out. Go to your happy place. That's it. Calm...
You make a good point, actually. I think having to annotate all those option everytime we mention a "Linux" system is dumb, but simply calling 500 pieces of software, all written by 300 different people under 479 different license by the name of only 1 of those pieces is kinda dumb, like saying a car is made of tires, because that's what it rides on.
Linux is not a generic term, nor is it an OS. It is trademarked word of a specific work, a kernel.
Try this: try running any of the non-gnu software on a Linux system without any of the gnu stuff. Shells, libraries, compiler, tools. Anything that is GNU, remove it.
You'll see my point quickly. Apache is as much linux as it is gnu. You don't need either to run Apache on solaris, but try running on linux alone, or with GNU and no kernel.
Gnu and Linux don't need each other. Run a different kernel (like herd, or BSD) or write your own OS tools, but when was the last time you encountered a Linux box that did not have a single GNU tool on it? Hmmm...
Not to be flip, but who gets to choose which choices?
Choice in desktops: Good. GNOME or KDE
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the desktop: Bad. gconf or conf files?
Choice in applications: Good. OpenOffice or Koffice
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the applications: Bad. RPM or install script?
People choose for themselves in an open environment. That's why it's called open. You start telling people they have to write the code to support RPM and gconf, even though they want OpenOffice integration in KDE on Ubuntu, you'll get blank stares. Now you have to take away KDE and Ubuntu for not supporting gconf and RPM.
Choice in hardware supported: Good. Choice in the steps needed to maintain the hardware supported: Bad.
This is the place where standardzation is really Bad. Hardware X is using proprietary code. Company X says "No specs for you! Trade secret!" and provides crappy drivers. That becomes the standard. Not because of technical or political reasons, but simply because you have no choice.
The different distros exist because someone didn't like the choices forced on them by an existing one, so they created their own. That is what happens when people are told they have to do something a certain way and they don't agree. They choose to create their own. Sometimes that choice is bad and it becomes abandon-ware. Other times it get lots of attention and you have competing choices... Like KDE and GNOME! I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have standards. I'm arguing that they won't work.
Yes, yes, I know. "They won't work because people like me won't go along with them!" They only way to fix that little problem is: take away my ability to choose.
In short, choice where choice means something, not choice for it's own sake. You can have everything you want, just as long it's what I give you.
I think the issue is what you term a "universal method". It just doesn't exist in "Linux". Not because of technical or political reasons, but because someone can and will write another "universal" method to compete.
The distros are a great example. RPM and DEB do essentially the same thing, but in different ways. That's because someone said "I think this way is better" and wrote it that way. Even those are just apps that can be compiled on many platforms.
is Linux as a whole trying to supplant Windows or not?
That depends on who you ask. The zealots who say Linux is better and everyone should use it tend to forget that it is harder than windows. Those who say we must make Linux easier are forgetting that not everyone wants to give up the choices that ease will force. The desktop is the prime example. Which is best? Which should be forced on all Linux desktop users? Which should be flushed and forgotten?
I understand what you're saying and completely agree. Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop unless it gets a lot simpler for the average user. That means standards and universal methods.
What I am saying is that it wont happen. Not because I don't want it to, but because people will continue to write a better method than the agreed upon one and they will compete. It will be KDE and GNOME all over again.
Linux zealots argue simply to argue.
I'm not arguing to simply argue. Nor am I a zealot who said any of these things. I happen to agree with your main point. What I disagree with is your idea of a solution. You can't standardize and have choice. The community will have to give up one or the other, and I don't see a community that has prided itself on choice and openess changing that.
This is an old arguement we are about to embark upon. Choice vs conveneince. I think I'll use the old house metaphor this time:
Windows is a prefab. It's not too expensive, simple to work with. It may not be what everybody wants, but everyone can tolerate it.
Gnu/Linux is like have your own Home Depot (or other uber-large hardware store). You'll need to know how to build and maintain it, but you can get exactly what you want and make any changes you feel.
I agree that the reason Gnu/Linux is not killing MS is because there is no unified direction, but that's because people all want something a little different. If Linus, or RH, or someother group came along and said "Linux is THIS", that would eventually become like MS; a large corporation that makes something everyone can live with, not no one really likes.
Another analogy I like is democracy vs despotism. If you want to force others to do what you want them to, and say it's for the good of all, then you can't really say it's about choice and freedom anymore.
Every "Linux" app can be compiled to run on some other OS. If that is true, then they really aren't part of "Linux" at all. KDE, GNOME, Apache, Firefox, Gimp, etc. I have run all of them on Solaris and Windows.
If you are so focused on turning "Linux" into something that will destroy MS that you want to turn it into Windows, then you don't really know why you use "Linux".
I'm not normally a rabid Gnu-phile, but I do agree that there should be a distiction between discussing the OS's that are based on the Linux kernel and the kernel itself. Context isn't always enough, and while Linus is a super code monkey, he did not create an OS, just a kernel. (Well, not these OS's, anyway).
True, but it is illegal for a gov't agency to use SSN as a form of identification (military exempted). Someone had forethought, but noone has had enforcement.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda? The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do, not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Try talking about the theory of the sub-ether to a physic group sometime. You'll learn quickly why some theories are supported and some aren't. The thoery of aliens seeding earth is just as probable, so why not teach that is school?
Evolution (and science) is about discovering new things, ID is about maintaining the old.
We hate PEOPLE who try and ram thier personal belief system down other peoples throats and then whine when people start objecting to being told that they are somehow inferior and worthless as people if they don't agree.
I love Christians. Of all the people I know and care about, about 5% are non-christians, which is likely true for a lot of people.
But SOME "Christian" these days are making it a "crusade" to ensure that not only do they get special treatment in every sphere (public, private, corporate, political) and then cry "persecution" when other don't bow down and clear the path, that Christians get a bad reputation.
Forcing a bad imitation of science upon kids who are trying to learn how to think is evil! Giving kids facts and showing the true connections that lead to a real theory is helping them become people, not serfs and mindless little clones of your warped version of the great Christian faith.
And the word "theory" is special. As in atomic thoery, electron theory, theory of electricity. Where are the "alternate" theories for those? The same science that came up with those came up with evolution. Science is a process, not an answer. "Intelligent Design" is an answer looking for a process.
This is interesting. It looks altered, as do the two buildings to the east and west. Also, this is nicely blurred. I wonder what else is of national security worth looking at?
Sun is getting more and more vocal about the fact that they want to crush Linux. I think this is a calculated event in which they are beginning to spread FUD just as MS does. All their work to "support" Linux apps, like thier new tools in Solaris 10 that runs linux compiled apps natively, is really just a way to get people to run Solaris again.
They are not talking to the "Open Source Community" here. They know they are not the people who make the big money decisions at big companies.
As far as Sun being Open Source friendly, they only do so as far as it works towards their bottom line. Ask them if they will ever open source ZFS and you will find out.
NPR did an interview with him a couple years ago. He talked about how people were surprised that he did the Spy Kids movies after such fare as "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" and "El Mariachi" (sp?). He said he always wanted to do the Spy Kids type movies, the others were just to make the money.
My point is I see him as a kind of George Lucas, he made "Star Wars" and everyone thought he was going to be this great scifi director, when in fact all he wanted to do was make cheezy kids movies with puppets and "Little People" in fuzzy costumes.
I'm not saying I don't like Rodriguez. He's very honest about what he makes. He doesn't try to pass "Spy Kids 3D" off as some great epic. I didn't like it, but my kids did and I think that's all that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm not understanding the issues here, but aren't the "providers" providing content to BellSouth customers through their network? I pay for a DSL connection and then stream video or have Vonage or some other use of the bandwidth, aren't I paying for the access already?
Isn't this just BellSouth double-billing for the same service? Why not just recover cost from their already paying customers? I assume the answer is that they can't, either for regulatory issue or because they have already maxed out what they think their customers are willing to put up with.
Here's a sneaky/evil idea. If you are an Apple sized company and you recieve this sort of extortion request, degrade the network performance TO BellSouth networks with a big old link to a notice as to why! Let your customers fight their ISP's for you!
OK, did anyone else notice that the author of this peice, VeryVito, uses himself as a reference. The "some say" link is to his own blog. Come on, if your going to plug yourself, be open about it!
Oh, and the portable apps site seems to be 403. Slashdotted, maybe?
Would I be overstating the obvious with this:
There seems to be too much acceptance in the public of the idea that the market is more important than the commons. We accept that too much government is a bad thing, but have we entirely forgotten or ignored that exceedingly large business is even worse?
And I recognize that "too much" and "exceedingly large" are subjective terms, but I'm concerned with the balance. When news goes corporate before public good have we lost the battle for our rights? You can say that these companies don't have a political agenda, but money IS an agenda, and unfortunatly, our government revolves around money. This is were finance reform becomes and issue of your rights vs. company rights.
I'm sorry to say it, but they will win that one. The reign of government are held by the same people who have held the reigns of business, and they are hacking away at anything that will slow them down.
I'm not nieve enough to think that OSS will solve all the worlds problems, but it at least has the advantage of giving the people control (should they accept it). Letting businesses write the laws (which many lobbyists do before handing it to a congressman) is designed to keep the revenue stream flowing, the public good be damned!
*sigh* I don't think that made much sense.
</RAMBLE>
I think people in the IT industry have a name for this sort of software: Virus
I know, I know: modded troll, modded flamebait
Not to MS bash (which I admit I do from time to time), but what about vulnerabilities that are not vendor-confirmed?
What I'm concerned about is that the "study" relies on vulnerabilities that the vendor acknowledges. If one vendor is faster at, or more accepting of those vulnerabilities, then they will be seen to be "less secure".
OTOH, if the vendor rejects them more often, regardless of their merit (which MS has been known to do) the product seems "more secure".
I'm sorry, but if I disagree with the premise, I would not trust the results.
Wow! I JUST picked up the 10yr anniversery set with Myst, Riven and Exile. I had played (never beaten) all three in the past, and thought I'd pick them up for the PC.
I had forgotten how much I loved playing these games.
I mourn the loss.
First Dupe... I mean POST... Oh Damn!
Oooh, that is a bad image to get stuck with... sorry.
Yeah, I think I can see Grumpy bashing in her head with a big statue of a penis. Dopey is wearing a jockstrap... Now they are all dancing to a bit of Ludwig Van.
Oh the horror! The unmitigated horror!
Even though I haven't seen it, I dount the latest Dr Who will kill off the franchise, just as I doubt Enterprise was the last ever Star Trek series.
Well, that's just called Hollywood.
But come on, a talking super car was a GREAT idea! Or "Manimal"!
Ok, seriously though, I loved "Fall Guy"
I generally agree your point about rehashing old shows into todays fodder, and not just scifi. Movies can't seem to come up with anything new either.
BUT (huge but)
This show is the exception. After watching this, seeing the old show would be like watching a disney version of "A Clockwork Orange". The new BSG is so much more than the old show. I'm sorry, Glen Larsen had great ideas, but the production never lived up. This is how the show should have been done from the beginning! Dramatic, epic, lots of intrigue and suspense.
And I don't think Dr. Who is a remake. More of a continuation. There have been, like, a bajillion of those guys. I think the BBC just took it out of mothballs and brushed it off. Kinda like what "Enterprise" was to "Star Trek".
Whoa, calm down boy. Breathe in, breathe out. Go to your happy place. That's it. Calm...
You make a good point, actually. I think having to annotate all those option everytime we mention a "Linux" system is dumb, but simply calling 500 pieces of software, all written by 300 different people under 479 different license by the name of only 1 of those pieces is kinda dumb, like saying a car is made of tires, because that's what it rides on.
Linux is not a generic term, nor is it an OS. It is trademarked word of a specific work, a kernel.
Try this: try running any of the non-gnu software on a Linux system without any of the gnu stuff. Shells, libraries, compiler, tools. Anything that is GNU, remove it.
You'll see my point quickly. Apache is as much linux as it is gnu. You don't need either to run Apache on solaris, but try running on linux alone, or with GNU and no kernel.
Gnu and Linux don't need each other. Run a different kernel (like herd, or BSD) or write your own OS tools, but when was the last time you encountered a Linux box that did not have a single GNU tool on it? Hmmm...
Not to be flip, but who gets to choose which choices?
Choice in desktops: Good.
GNOME or KDE
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the desktop: Bad.
gconf or conf files?
Choice in applications: Good.
OpenOffice or Koffice
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the applications: Bad.
RPM or install script?
People choose for themselves in an open environment. That's why it's called open. You start telling people they have to write the code to support RPM and gconf, even though they want OpenOffice integration in KDE on Ubuntu, you'll get blank stares. Now you have to take away KDE and Ubuntu for not supporting gconf and RPM.
Choice in hardware supported: Good.
Choice in the steps needed to maintain the hardware supported: Bad.
This is the place where standardzation is really Bad. Hardware X is using proprietary code. Company X says "No specs for you! Trade secret!" and provides crappy drivers. That becomes the standard. Not because of technical or political reasons, but simply because you have no choice.
The different distros exist because someone didn't like the choices forced on them by an existing one, so they created their own. That is what happens when people are told they have to do something a certain way and they don't agree. They choose to create their own. Sometimes that choice is bad and it becomes abandon-ware. Other times it get lots of attention and you have competing choices... Like KDE and GNOME! I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have standards. I'm arguing that they won't work.
Yes, yes, I know. "They won't work because people like me won't go along with them!" They only way to fix that little problem is: take away my ability to choose.
In short, choice where choice means something, not choice for it's own sake. You can have everything you want, just as long it's what I give you.
I think the issue is what you term a "universal method". It just doesn't exist in "Linux". Not because of technical or political reasons, but because someone can and will write another "universal" method to compete.
The distros are a great example. RPM and DEB do essentially the same thing, but in different ways. That's because someone said "I think this way is better" and wrote it that way. Even those are just apps that can be compiled on many platforms.
is Linux as a whole trying to supplant Windows or not?
That depends on who you ask. The zealots who say Linux is better and everyone should use it tend to forget that it is harder than windows. Those who say we must make Linux easier are forgetting that not everyone wants to give up the choices that ease will force. The desktop is the prime example. Which is best? Which should be forced on all Linux desktop users? Which should be flushed and forgotten?
I understand what you're saying and completely agree. Linux will never go anywhere on the desktop unless it gets a lot simpler for the average user. That means standards and universal methods.
What I am saying is that it wont happen. Not because I don't want it to, but because people will continue to write a better method than the agreed upon one and they will compete. It will be KDE and GNOME all over again.
Linux zealots argue simply to argue.
I'm not arguing to simply argue. Nor am I a zealot who said any of these things. I happen to agree with your main point. What I disagree with is your idea of a solution. You can't standardize and have choice. The community will have to give up one or the other, and I don't see a community that has prided itself on choice and openess changing that.
This is an old arguement we are about to embark upon. Choice vs conveneince. I think I'll use the old house metaphor this time:
Windows is a prefab. It's not too expensive, simple to work with. It may not be what everybody wants, but everyone can tolerate it.
Gnu/Linux is like have your own Home Depot (or other uber-large hardware store). You'll need to know how to build and maintain it, but you can get exactly what you want and make any changes you feel.
I agree that the reason Gnu/Linux is not killing MS is because there is no unified direction, but that's because people all want something a little different. If Linus, or RH, or someother group came along and said "Linux is THIS", that would eventually become like MS; a large corporation that makes something everyone can live with, not no one really likes.
Another analogy I like is democracy vs despotism. If you want to force others to do what you want them to, and say it's for the good of all, then you can't really say it's about choice and freedom anymore.
Every "Linux" app can be compiled to run on some other OS. If that is true, then they really aren't part of "Linux" at all. KDE, GNOME, Apache, Firefox, Gimp, etc. I have run all of them on Solaris and Windows.
If you are so focused on turning "Linux" into something that will destroy MS that you want to turn it into Windows, then you don't really know why you use "Linux".
I'm not normally a rabid Gnu-phile, but I do agree that there should be a distiction between discussing the OS's that are based on the Linux kernel and the kernel itself. Context isn't always enough, and while Linus is a super code monkey, he did not create an OS, just a kernel. (Well, not these OS's, anyway).
True, but it is illegal for a gov't agency to use SSN as a form of identification (military exempted). Someone had forethought, but noone has had enforcement.
Show me an ID proponant using "honest inquiry", and I'll show you you same thing... nothing.
- Call me troll, but don't say I'm lying!
Talk about context mining.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda? The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do, not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Try talking about the theory of the sub-ether to a physic group sometime. You'll learn quickly why some theories are supported and some aren't. The thoery of aliens seeding earth is just as probable, so why not teach that is school?
Evolution (and science) is about discovering new things, ID is about maintaining the old.
Wrong.
We hate PEOPLE who try and ram thier personal belief system down other peoples throats and then whine when people start objecting to being told that they are somehow inferior and worthless as people if they don't agree.
I love Christians. Of all the people I know and care about, about 5% are non-christians, which is likely true for a lot of people.
But SOME "Christian" these days are making it a "crusade" to ensure that not only do they get special treatment in every sphere (public, private, corporate, political) and then cry "persecution" when other don't bow down and clear the path, that Christians get a bad reputation.
Forcing a bad imitation of science upon kids who are trying to learn how to think is evil! Giving kids facts and showing the true connections that lead to a real theory is helping them become people, not serfs and mindless little clones of your warped version of the great Christian faith.
And the word "theory" is special. As in atomic thoery, electron theory, theory of electricity. Where are the "alternate" theories for those? The same science that came up with those came up with evolution. Science is a process, not an answer. "Intelligent Design" is an answer looking for a process.
Oh man... I just fed a troll, didn't I.
This is interesting. It looks altered, as do the two buildings to the east and west. Also, this is nicely blurred. I wonder what else is of national security worth looking at?
That was the 1st thing I thought... Do it... Do it NOW before one of the millions of unscrupulious Slashdotters does it first.
Man, I could play with that for HOURS.
Sun is getting more and more vocal about the fact that they want to crush Linux. I think this is a calculated event in which they are beginning to spread FUD just as MS does. All their work to "support" Linux apps, like thier new tools in Solaris 10 that runs linux compiled apps natively, is really just a way to get people to run Solaris again.
They are not talking to the "Open Source Community" here. They know they are not the people who make the big money decisions at big companies.
As far as Sun being Open Source friendly, they only do so as far as it works towards their bottom line. Ask them if they will ever open source ZFS and you will find out.
Agreed!
NPR did an interview with him a couple years ago. He talked about how people were surprised that he did the Spy Kids movies after such fare as "From Dusk 'Til Dawn" and "El Mariachi" (sp?). He said he always wanted to do the Spy Kids type movies, the others were just to make the money.
My point is I see him as a kind of George Lucas, he made "Star Wars" and everyone thought he was going to be this great scifi director, when in fact all he wanted to do was make cheezy kids movies with puppets and "Little People" in fuzzy costumes.
I'm not saying I don't like Rodriguez. He's very honest about what he makes. He doesn't try to pass "Spy Kids 3D" off as some great epic. I didn't like it, but my kids did and I think that's all that matters.