Though, to be fair, it'd probably be easier for Taco if HTTP *were* stateful, and easier for the Gamespot people if they were using a stateful protocol.
WTF do they do that, anyway? I mean, UDP makes plenty of sense for the in-game engine in Quake or something, but has little point for just transmitting server lists.
If they're trying to do traffic reduction, I'd think they'd be better off implementing advanced queries, so that the *server* can return only the list of servers you're interested in, instead of the client having to do filtering on an enormous dataset all the time. Most people have some pretty easy-to-fit contraints (no more than a certain ping time, usually same continent, usually a specific game type...)
You seem to be totally missing the point. There's not a chance in hell that the whole world will just pick a day and switch to LInux. You have to do it damn near one person at a time.
I realize that. That's why I said that it's a public-good problem.
I think that change really needs to start at the business end, though, where change *can* trickle in (require open document formats, start dual-supporting Open Office and MS Office). An educator's responsibility is to help their charges do as well as they can, not hurt them to help a revolution. If I were a teacher and an ardent creationist, I may really honestly believe that the world was created two thousand years ago. I may think that the evolution of man from ape is a load of horseshit. But my responsibility as an educator is not to use my students as tools to enact change, but to do what will best prepare them for the professional world. And it's not great for biology students to be burdened with creationist dogma.
First this school does it (they're not first, I know), then another school sees it and does it. Especially if this school starts spewing out higher test scores because their students are using an OS that respects them. It's called a "snowball" or a "domino" effect, and it's the only way change can be enacted.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but I think that the schools should be the last to adapt. Schools shouldn't have a political or ideological agenda -- they should simply be on the "side of the students", sappy as that sounds. Let businesses realize the benefits and change, and the schools adjust to fit the world.
Actually, it does.:) Just like once upon a time DOS hackers instantly became transformed into "experts".
I've always felt that much of this is because only people that were technically adept ended up *using* the systems heavily. I know a lot of people with user-level abilities in the DOS world, but not admin-level. People that were required by work to use ODS, instead of simply hobbists, weren't really better off. You had secretaries using WordPerfect for DOS. Sure, they learned a lot of key combinations for the program (just as they do in Word XP), but they couldn't fix a misinstalled driver. You had a far smaller proportion of people dicking around with computers -- they tended to be the techies.
Inevitably, you *will* run a GNOME app under KDE or vice versa. ANd this is where it happens that people who use GNU/Linux automatically learn how to adapt to changing interfaces.
So they should install Linux, KWord and Open Office, and require students to alternate between the two programs? I'm kind of dubious. If someone is *really* experienced with a program, there's a fair amount of time when the person acquires a similar skill set in the other program (say, a Microstation guru moving to AutoCAD). Perhaps they don't like using the new program because they're so good at the first that it's annoying to switch. But it's certainly doable -- I just watched said Microstation to AutoCAD transition occur with people that had been working with Microstation for years and years. It takes a while to come up to speed, but it's not like they take *longer* to learn AutoCAD because they knew Microstation.
This last point is mostly irrelevant, however, because you forgot the most important thing this school is doing. It's teaching kids about their freedom by showing them a free OS. Whether or not the kids learn it is up to them, but the school is making the information available. You don't even have *that* in a windows-dominated school. Furthermore, it's freeing the kids as individuals to chose their own OS, their own platform in general, and showing them *how* to stand up for themselves. (I realize it's different than standing up to the playground bully)
Mmm...I'm not saying that there isn't a sliver of value here, but there are (IMHO) far more valuable ways to do this. One day in history class on, say, the Revolutionary War or the Civil War should really teach students more about "freedom" than a whole K-12 of using Linux.
I mean, the computer issue is near and dear to our hearts, so it's hard to be objective. Let me put it this way -- do we switch school buses around to give students "experience with foreign-built buses, so they know that American-made vehicles may not be the best?" There are people who really get up in arms about how uneducated people are about their vehicle purchases, and how much they fall into marketing bullshit -- much like we complain about with MS. But to most people, a computer is just another tool, just like a car is to me.
I disagree that a school's purpose is to prepare kids for the workplace, because that smacks of slavery to me.
Naturally, that isn't its only purpose. But students *are* going to end up familiar with *some* software package. Why not make it something that they are mostly like to be able to take advantage of later on in life?
We should all be preparing our kids to live as responsible, free adults. Education is the single most valuable tool we can give them, and that is what school is for. It's not about just teaching them how to be good worker drones. We also have to teach our kids how to cook, clean their homes, mend their pants (it's not always possible to buy new pants), make and maintain relationships, and so forth. We have to hand this world down to our kids when they reach adulthood, and we fuckin' better prepare them.
Sure (come to think of it, nobody ever taught me to mend pants, dammit, and I remember a home ec class in there somewhere).:-) I'm just dubious that all this can be achived by using KWord instead of MS Word.
Speaking as a parent of two, with a third on the way.:)
One more thing. We're arguing over whether Windows application familiarity or Linux application familiarity are more useful. Look at your own resume on your web site:
Languages: C, C++, Macromedia Flash, Javascript, HTML, TI and Visual Basic, Applications: Microsoft Office, Word, Excel, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, UltraEdit, 65 WPM Operating Systems: Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat Linux, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, Palm OS, Windows 98, 95, ME, NT, 2000, XP
But with 90% of the world's computers running a MS operating system, it is obvious that the school isn't giving them Linux experience instead of windows but augmenting their windows life(tm) with something different.
But whether they ever *see* Windows and Office doesn't really have that much impact. Where are they to get serious experience? Most people use computers in school, and if they have one, at home, and little elsewhere until they go to college/get a job.
I've seen several posts agreeing that Windows experience is valuable, but claiming that one will get it at home. Are we then to discriminate against all those students that cannot afford a computer, or perhaps use Mac OS at home? They can be sacrificed upon the altar of "wider experience" for all the students that run Windows at home?
The purpose of public education is to provide a basic, useful foundation that is available to everyone. It is not simply to help out the children of the privileged. So I cannot agree based only on these grounds.
And adaptation to different computing environments is a very important skill, something which appears to be sorely underrepresented in today's education. Elementary school kids should be switched from Mac, Linux, Windows, BSD, SUN, and any other environment they can get their hands on, as the computer interface they will use in 15 years when they make it to the work force will represent windows as much as XP resembles dos.
Is it? Should the re-learn their application set all all the associated features? Sure, that's second nature to most Slashdot readers. You've already spent the down time learning a few operating systems, and switching around has a benefit to you (you likely use non-Windows operating systems) and little cost (you don't remember how much pain and time you went through to acquire all that knowledge). It's hard to phrase the question in a reasonable way, but let me try this. Suppose for the next four years, your editor was switched under you once a year to give you valuable general skills. First year nano, second year nedit, third year emacs, fourth year vi. Would that really benefit you all that much, or would you burn time (and possibly resent) having to learn something that you are less likely to actually use after this four-year program?
Sorry, it's pretty insignificant, compared to being able to offer a programming elective.
It comes down to computer science again. *I* am CS. I like software development. But too many people on Slashdot lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of people simply are not in IS/IT/CS/etc. Yes, *I* would have loved to have Linux on the systems at school (or at least a Linux server with accounts for everyone, which I think is a more feasible solution). It would have been lovely for me. But is it really what's best for the *other* students? It simply doesn't seem to be that it is.
You're probably trolling too
[shrug] I'm making an argument that's fairly controversial on Slashdot. It's one that I feel to be true. I don't think that you can call that "trolling".
(as judging from your previous comments you don't seem to be experienced)
I knew pushing GNOME over KDE would come back to bite me one day.;-) I dunno, there are people on Slashdot that I'd consider both more and less experienced than I am, but I think I've the grounds to make a reasonable judgement call here.
But this is exactly the sort of argument that you hear from many computer-illiterate managers who are struggling to learn the "industry standard" interface. To the next generation, Office is a 4-th grade computer literacy level. We can do better.
This is not a question of "ignore or do not ignore Linux" or "general computing skills or a single package". Heck, if someone wants to set up dual boot machines, and someone is willing to donate time and admin the Linux side of things, I think making KWord available is fine too. It's a question of "familiarity with which package is more likely to be of use to a student". And based on those grounds, I'd have to say that students are best off using MS software.
Though it'd be nice if teachers didn't try to *force* people to use MS software -- if you want an assignment on disk (which none of *my* elementary/junior high/high school teachers did, but things may have changed since I was there), requiring that it be in Word format seems like a bad idea).
You are dead wrong. Windows skills is seen as a given. Stating that you know how to use Word is like enclosing your 200 yard swimming certificate, or stating that you know how to ride a bike.
I disagree. In the IT field, perhaps. The overwhelming majority of IT, CS, and people in other tech-specific disciplines have at least good user-level knowledge of Windows, if not the Microsoft suite (I can figure out how to pull something off in the MS suite, but I've never owned it, and I certainly couldn't answer qustions about subtleties about style sheets, and someone hiring me for an office job would likely be better served by someone with reasonable experience with MS Office).
This is not the case for much of the rest of the world, though. I remember when I was getting recommendations for college a few years back. I needed several letters of recommendation. One was from a high school history teacher that used Word much like a typewriter, putting a hard carrige return after each line, which didn't interact particularly well with Word's automatic capitalization of the first letter in the first word of each paragraph.
And that's from someone that's at least somewhat educated and has regular access to Windows *and* the MS office suite. A good third of the US population doesn't have a computer of any sort at home.
Most of the non-tech 45+ year old people in non-tech fields I know can manage to cope with a word processor reasonably well, but don't deal well with things like setting tabs, don't understand things like tables, and *definitely* don't use things like stylesheets. They aren't stupid people. They simply grew up with typewriters, and have a good skillset in that area -- *I* am not very familiar with conventions for spacing and correction on typewriters, to be honest. There are conventions for how to space tables in formal documents on a typewriter, there are number-of-spaces rules that I simply do not know. Put me in front of a typewriter, and I will produce output that is significantly inferior to theirs.
So I have to say that good competency, the ability to quickly interact with MS applications to produce good output (yes, I realize that can be difficult for anyone:-) ) isn't quite as taken-for-granted as you put in.
Also, in many cases the reason you can take it for granted is *because* these people get exposure to it in schools...you know, "business computer literacy" classes and the like. This guy is trying to substitute Linux and free office software for MS software, possibly the one place where they get exposure to and good experience with MS software before a job. While his goals are laudable, I still think that some skills of the students are being sacrificed.
Stating linux skills and alternative applications is a good way to show that you can think for yourselves and at least for now makes you stand out.
Sure, having *more* skills is always good. The problem is whether they're also as skilled as MS's software as someone that used MS software regularly through school, since I suspect that the MS software is more likely to be used by them.
When little Johnny kindergartener makes it all the way up to 12th grade at this school, do you really think the computing world will be the same?
No, that's true. But you have a choice of being comfortably familiar with either MS products or, say, KWord.
And given that:
* MS products are currently the most used. * We know that, no matter what, there still *will* be pretty significant market penetration by MS for a few years. Even if MS screws up monumentally and commits suicide, they still have enough inertia to be around for a while. I'd say that if you have to familiarize everyone with one product, do so with Office -- it's a more likely bet than any one of KWord, AbiWord, Open Office, etc.
it seems like MS stuff is currently the best bet for the *students* (not for me -- *I'd* like to see everyone transition to GNOME from Windows tomorrow if I could:-) ).
It would not suprise me that 12 years down the road Microsoft will be a bad memory and most folks will be running OS X or Linux or something else.
Sure, me either. But first of all, MS will still be there, and we don't know *what* the other competitor will be. KDE? GNOME? OS X? Enlightenment 17? Some new player? I'm just think that the single best *bet* is MS, not that they're certain to be around. Furthermore, there are so many people familiar with Office that any replacement is likely to look, work, and operate verrry much like Office does today. Open Office might be modified to operate more like Word does to appeal to current businesses, for example.
I'd say general computing skills and adaptability to different software packages is far more valuable a skill than "knowing" Word, Excel, or PowerPoint.
Sure, I agree. But I don't think that you automatically get general computing skills from becoming familiar with KWord instead of becoming familiar with MS Word.
Between having a Microsoft or Mac environment at home and using linux at school, I'd say these students will be far better equipped for the future than kids who haven't seen anything other than Windows. Adaptability, and willingness to learn (especially to learn quickly) is the best skill you can have, period.
Potentially, yes. But the rationale for taxing everyone and forcing them to pay for computers that *all* students have access too (and computers in public libraries) is that everyone can be placed on roughly the same basic footing. How fair is it to students in, say, inner-city LA to have to say "well, I didn't own a computer at home, and I don't know Word, but I do know another similar program called KWord" when most employers are hiring word, and only students who have families that *own* a Windows computer have an edge at that job?
The same goes for Mac OS -- my family owns a set of Macs at home. Frankly, my little siblings are better off using Windows at school and becoming familiar with it than they would be learning Linux. *I* use Linux, and I think it's great. I haven't had Windows installed on my computer for years. But I'm also working with CS, and I do enough computer-related work that I'm reasonably comfortable with Windows (well, not Fortune-500-netadmin familiar, but certainly user-level competent). If you become a sales rep, how likely is it that you're going to be *able* to use KWord (given IT departments and "required application sets"...grr), much less never have to interact with Word?
Hmm. I'm not sure whether that's the right term. I meant a broader spectrum. Business students, yes, but also non-managerial office workers, professional workers that need to interact with non-specialized computer systems, that sort of thing.
Yeah, all those twelve-year-olds leaving GHCA to join the job market will suffer greatly.
Where do you propose they start learning Windows and MS apps? Junior high? High school? College? Should they tell a business that they'll need on-the-job training with the software packages? Sure, it'd be nice to find a job where you *don't* use MS apps, but to be honest, the majority of them do.
At worst, all that this will mean is an awkward year of adjustment when they first get to college, though even there, a solid knowledge of Linux will, in fact, give them other edges including better odds of getting junior IT work (such as helping out in the labs for work-study or managing some department's local server problems) during college. Hmmmm, other kids trying to get jobs as waiters, these kids already qualified for minor sysadmin work; sounds like a win-win to me.
No, this I have to disagree with. I tried to mention this in my original post. Slapping Joe User on a Linux box in a user-level environment where they see windows and icons simply doesn't automatically make them a sysadmin -- having "used Linux" isn't a magic wand that makes people technically competent. Sure, lots of Linux users *are* technically competent -- but that's because technically competent users often graviate to Linux. The cause and effect is, I'd argue, more in the other direction.
Finally, I also mentioned that I'm not talking about IS or CS students. They may possibly (and keep in mind, there are still a lot more Windows-based jobs out there...I'd like to work at Red Hat, but I suspect it's a bitch to get in) be better off using Linux. However, they are also a small minority.
I love how the Redmond-damaged always pull that one out when somebody suggests anything but Windoze.
I can't say that really applies -- I *have* used Windows before, and people ask me to help me with their Windows computers, but I've really had a Windows only box for about six months, between years of Mac OS only and years of Linux only. I don't think Linux is a bad thing, and it's great if you're into software development or sysadmin work. I just don't think it's currently the best thing to be teaching all elementary school students (from the students' perspective).
Especially in a case like this where the article points out that most of their students already use Win. at home. If you'ld read it you would know that.
What, so the economically-privileged, most-likely-to-be-college-bound should be the only ones to have Windows experience? The whole idea of putting computers in public schools was so that the US population had mass, applicable experience with computer usage, so we don't have masses being turned out each year that have to be trained on the job or deal with things in college.
So, I'm curious, 0x0d0a, should I put you down as sloppy, bigoted, or foolish?
Well, I guess it's kind of hard for me to argue against slanted terms like those. I don't think I'm particularly bigoted. *I* use LaTeX when I write documents, have only Linux on my computer (and have for years), use Open Office to deal with MS documents, try to convince people I interact with to use open file formats like RTF instead of Word documents, use gnumeric, develop with the GNU suite even when I'm stuck working on Windows, and have contributed plenty of patches to Linux software. I really think that any argument about bigotry would have to be that I'm biased towards Linux. I just don't think that it's in the best interest of the kids at this school to be using Linux instead of becoming familiar with the MS suite and Windows.
Blocking port 25 is not the answer. It creates more problems than it solves. I am a senior sysadmin at a mid size hosting center, and we run mail services for a lot of our customers. The single biggest problem with mail is dealing with ISP's that block port 25.
Very true. Blocking 25 outbound has little to no effect. You *cannot* secure all points of access to the Internet. *Every* ISP in the world would need to do this for this to work, which is *not* going to happen -- there are too many ISPs around the world.
On the other hand, this *does* have serious issues from a user support point of view, and impacts technically savvy users that *do* want to use 25 outbound.
I have serious issues with port blocking at all, but if you want it to have *any* effect, 25 inbound is the only thing with any point.
25 outbound implies that *all* points of access must be secure to have any effect.
25 inbound implies that each ISP firewalling prevents relays from operating on their network.
That being said, port blocking tends to cause support issues and doesn't really do all that much in terms of security.
Ports were designed as a convenience, not as a strong security system.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of spam (that *I* get, at least), originates from worms that send mail from legitimate users' computers. Port blocking would have no effect.
If you really, honestly want to avoid spam, you can set up a whitelist with GPG or S/MIME support.
The reason suggestions like "run a mail server on another port if you really need it" come off as completely stupid to me is that that simply means that there is now another port (say, 5305) to block. You want to use simply random ports for each ISP? Now your security is that of the port number, which is essentially nothing.
The people making idiot suggestions (like the guy that posted this story) are looking for quick fixes that will reduce spam for maybe six months, and in the process make everyone miserable. If you really want to fix spam, you need something like whitelists and authentication. You can't make a change like this and expect it to work.
The only reason heuristics like "block !!! in subject line" work at all is because not everyone uses them. If MS shipped Outlook with a default rule to do so, spammers would simply avoid it.
So "using a different port" or similar suggestions are short term fixes that end up causing a lot of pain, much like people that firewall SSH or block egress DNS access. Screws users, buys nothing.
That's why I think the port 25 blocking needs to be for people on dynamic IP addresses (dialup, DHCP or PPPoE), and not for people on fixed IP addresses.
God, I hate people with your mindset.
Let's say I want a throwaway email address to deal with an idiot that requires an "email address for registration" that sends me a password. I can simply use aliasthatpointstome@dhcp125-24-32-12.myisp.net. If I use two ISPs (college and home), I don't have to remember to switch freaking mail gateways (and if you *do* forget, mail gateways these days have a habit of silently dropping email, not bouncing it, the bastards). This is *far* inferior to the approach of simply running a non-gatewayed mail server on my computer. I also get more detailed error messages, and faster, when I send an email that bounces.
Instead of fixing spam in reasonable ways (too painful to adopt PGP and require authenticated email, eh?) people like you run out, try for a quick fix, and massively inconvenience people like *me*.
I already had to deal with the idiot IT people at Compaq dropping my emails because I *happened* to be actually running a *gasp* box with my *own* mail server to send my emails from *gasp* a dynamic IP!
This will stop most luser spam, because most lusers don't have fixed IP internet connections.
Hell, why don't we make everyone use web mail, and give them only proxied port 80 access. Sure, it'll suck for *everyone* who wants to do anything more basic than browsing the web and reading simple emails, sure, it'll be easy as hell to monitor, sure, it'll be like older AOL access...but damn, that sure will solve the spam problem. At least coming *from* the ISPs that implement these draconian measures.
People like *you* are far more of an issue to me than spammers.
Whether it's an idiot running an open poxy or a moron who responsed to an ad in the Weekly Saver for "MAKE $75/HR WITH YOUR COMPUTER!", at least this will get rid of the harder to trace stuff.
"Harder to trace stuff". Yup, sure is fucking hard to look at a mail header, yessirriebob. Nice how you call *other* people morons.
The real problem is ISPs that just don't fscking care. The ISPs who would go out of their way to block port 25 for fixed IP customers were probably not the ones with much of an outbound spam problem in the first place.
Frankly, any ISP that blocks ports in *or* out is not one that's going to get any new service subscriptions from *me*, but that's just me.
It may be a minor inconvenience for legitimate users, but at least *I* would prefer that I not have any ports blocked at all, and am willing to pay more for an ISP that doesn't block 25/129, etc, inbound or outbound.
Trying to stop spam by preventing spammers from accessing the Internet is pretty much a braindead solution. It's not feasible. There are too many access points around the entire world.
This is the same thing people tried to do with firewalls. "Block everything except 80". Then all the people actually trying to get work done simply tunnel everything through 80, or use Web Services, and the problem is right back in your face, except now the whole damn network is less efficient.
The *real* solution is simply to use whitelists -- eventually, it *is* going to have to be done.
Anti-spammers have for years (ever since the fucking DUL started blocking the mail server that *I* ran, not because it was an open relay, but simply because I like to use a non-gatewayed mailserver on my machine and happen to be on a dialup connection) pissed me off far more than spammers. I can block spam to the point where I only get one every few months, but I can't do anything about the amount of idiots endorsing the more intrusive anti-spam measures.
Parent is not polite, but not wrong
on
Maine School & Linux
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This is a general school. It's not a computer science school in college -- it's teaching business students and the like. Its goal is to provide the most useful knowledge over the long term to its students. A student going into business is, frankly, better off with Windows experience than Linux. Heck, at this very moment (though I personally think things are shifting), most software developers are better off with Windows experience than Linux experience, and that's a pretty ideal set of people.
While I like Linux myself, using Linux over Windows is a public-good problem. Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
People these days put *applications* down as job skills. "Excel", "Word", etc. To not have your students be familiar with these when the vast majority of businesses use these (and likely will for at least a few more years) is doing the school's students a disservice. If you have a choice between hiring Jonny, who knows Word (which your company uses) and Jimmy, who knows KWord (which you've never heard of)...well, you're going to grab the one that's going to generate less support costs.
And simply using Linux does not turn students into experienced computer scientists or IT personnel, doesn't make them suddenly far more capable of learning to use different software packages.
I realize that there are budget issues involved, I realize that there are stability issues involved, and I still have to say that the majority of students are currently better off being familiarized with Microsoft's operating system and application suite than Open Office and Linux or KWord and Linux or AbiWord and Linux.
Finally, for the people that say that school is for teaching you general concepts, not a specific skill set -- yes, that's true. In twenty years, it's very unlikely if people will be using something much like the current iteration of MS Word *or* Open Office. But there is a not insignificant short-term benefit, and I don't think it's entirely fair to the students to deprive them of that edge. Word and Excel are nearly everwhere, whether we like it or not.
I agree that this doesn't really apply to the systems involved here. However, I have now run into *three* sound cards of different make that are supported by the current Linux kernel, but not supported in Windows XP or 2000 by their original manufacturer, and no longer work.
Heh, heh. Okay. That explains the bagpipes and ghostly knights rising to repel the Germans in WWII in Bedknob and Broomstick. The scene where you first see a few ghosts, and the Germans try to fight, then far-away strains of the bagpipes are heard, and the camera pans over a line of empty suits of armor marching to do battle, stretching far into the distance gave me a shiver up my spine when I first heard it.
I never understood why people dislike the bagpipes so much -- frankly, if I had a choice between listening to an acoustic piano solo or a bagpipes solo, I strongly suspect I'd prefer the bagpipes.
Even if it were linux... I wouldn't necessarily want an embedded OS.
I'm simplify it even more -- I want code in a car to be a simple and minimal as possible. Reliability decreases as complexity increases when humans are involved -- that's just the way things are. Frankly, I don't really care about a "flashy GUI" on the dash, and I do care very much about having absolutely perfect reliability, regardless of whether the GM engineers consider the radio or seat controls "mission critical" or not.
Hardware engineers have a better testing culture than software engineers.
How about because Microsoft's feature-oriented devel cycle (allocate a few weeks for feature implementation, implement feature, do not let programmers push back deadline if they need more time) isn't that healthy for reliability?
Solution to Subscription Emails
on
Spammers Busted
·
· Score: 1
The only email account I have that gets spam is my Hotmail account. I call this my "slutty" email because it's the one I use when I KNOW providing an email address will give me spam.
Occasionally, I run across email-address-requiring services too (IBM's free Linux compiler, Yahoo mail account, etc). If you only need to get one email, which contains a password or activation key or something, you have a pretty good alternative.
I run a mail server on my workstation. I have it set up with a couple of aliases that point to my username. So I feed Intel alias1@myworkstation.myisp.net. Sure, no MX entry for my "domain" myworkstation.myisp.net, but Intel tries directly delivering the email to my machine. I snag the email when it comes in in a few minutes. If I want to, I can either leave the alias around to see whether Intel is selling their mailing list (if I start getting spam on that alias), or delete it, so that any future mail simply gets bounced.
Furthermore, spam list sellers verify email addresses by looking for valid MX entries. I don't have one, so my used email address tends to simply get dropped.
I guess this also explains why Slashdot appears to have a tendency towards GNOME whilst the Linux community as a whole seems to prefer KDE.
The *Linux community as a whole* seems to prefer KDE? What are you *smoking*? Look at the quantities of software for each, look at what the most popular distribution is.
SuSE is almost dead (at least in the States), Borland simply isn't that significant any more, and Hancom is almost certainly not going to become a major player (at least with Open Office as a competitor). There was a short time when Opera could have taken over, but with competition on faster computers these days from Explorer, an ever-faster Mozilla, Konqueror and a couple of Mac browsers, I'd say that Opera has peaked and is starting the long slow descent into obsolescence.
With the exception of Hancom, all of those companies are dying stars.
Yup. People were excited about Be's web browser too, talked about how fast and lightweight it was...and it became a heavy anchor around Be's neck, because web page compatibility ended up sucking.
But there is a real difference when you try to install both environments from source code. I can compile and install all KDE in 1 day (in a PIII), with only 3 packages needed for the others.
I'd be more inclined to say that finely-grained packaging is a better idea than monolithic packaging.
There are large parts of GNOME that I'm don't use (Nautilus, Control Center, the Panel). I simply don't install those, and use the chunks that I want. With KDE, you're stuck with all kinds of crap that you may or may not want. RPM *should* be finely-grained.
Second, yes, it's painful to manually download and build each package. Which is why we have things like emerge and apt-get:
APT 0.5.4 implements a new command: apt-get build-dep. This command will try to retrieve every build dependency of a given source package. Support in APT-RPM was already implemented, which turns APT into a fantastic option for users of unsupported ports (like Conectiva for PowerPC), and general package building tasks.
Don't blame *GNOME* because they packaged things the way RPMs should be packaged and then you chose not to use the right tool to build them. That's completely unfair to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Though, to be fair, it'd probably be easier for Taco if HTTP *were* stateful, and easier for the Gamespot people if they were using a stateful protocol.
WTF do they do that, anyway? I mean, UDP makes plenty of sense for the in-game engine in Quake or something, but has little point for just transmitting server lists.
If they're trying to do traffic reduction, I'd think they'd be better off implementing advanced queries, so that the *server* can return only the list of servers you're interested in, instead of the client having to do filtering on an enormous dataset all the time. Most people have some pretty easy-to-fit contraints (no more than a certain ping time, usually same continent, usually a specific game type...)
You seem to be totally missing the point. There's not a chance in hell that the whole world will just pick a day and switch to LInux. You have to do it damn near one person at a time.
:) Just like once upon a time DOS hackers instantly became transformed into "experts".
:-) I'm just dubious that all this can be achived by using KWord instead of MS Word.
:)
I realize that. That's why I said that it's a public-good problem.
I think that change really needs to start at the business end, though, where change *can* trickle in (require open document formats, start dual-supporting Open Office and MS Office). An educator's responsibility is to help their charges do as well as they can, not hurt them to help a revolution. If I were a teacher and an ardent creationist, I may really honestly believe that the world was created two thousand years ago. I may think that the evolution of man from ape is a load of horseshit. But my responsibility as an educator is not to use my students as tools to enact change, but to do what will best prepare them for the professional world. And it's not great for biology students to be burdened with creationist dogma.
First this school does it (they're not first, I know), then another school sees it and does it. Especially if this school starts spewing out higher test scores because their students are using an OS that respects them. It's called a "snowball" or a "domino" effect, and it's the only way change can be enacted.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but I think that the schools should be the last to adapt. Schools shouldn't have a political or ideological agenda -- they should simply be on the "side of the students", sappy as that sounds. Let businesses realize the benefits and change, and the schools adjust to fit the world.
Actually, it does.
I've always felt that much of this is because only people that were technically adept ended up *using* the systems heavily. I know a lot of people with user-level abilities in the DOS world, but not admin-level. People that were required by work to use ODS, instead of simply hobbists, weren't really better off. You had secretaries using WordPerfect for DOS. Sure, they learned a lot of key combinations for the program (just as they do in Word XP), but they couldn't fix a misinstalled driver. You had a far smaller proportion of people dicking around with computers -- they tended to be the techies.
Inevitably, you *will* run a GNOME app under KDE or vice versa. ANd this is where it happens that people who use GNU/Linux automatically learn how to adapt to changing interfaces.
So they should install Linux, KWord and Open Office, and require students to alternate between the two programs? I'm kind of dubious. If someone is *really* experienced with a program, there's a fair amount of time when the person acquires a similar skill set in the other program (say, a Microstation guru moving to AutoCAD). Perhaps they don't like using the new program because they're so good at the first that it's annoying to switch. But it's certainly doable -- I just watched said Microstation to AutoCAD transition occur with people that had been working with Microstation for years and years. It takes a while to come up to speed, but it's not like they take *longer* to learn AutoCAD because they knew Microstation.
This last point is mostly irrelevant, however, because you forgot the most important thing this school is doing. It's teaching kids about their freedom by showing them a free OS. Whether or not the kids learn it is up to them, but the school is making the information available. You don't even have *that* in a windows-dominated school. Furthermore, it's freeing the kids as individuals to chose their own OS, their own platform in general, and showing them *how* to stand up for themselves. (I realize it's different than standing up to the playground bully)
Mmm...I'm not saying that there isn't a sliver of value here, but there are (IMHO) far more valuable ways to do this. One day in history class on, say, the Revolutionary War or the Civil War should really teach students more about "freedom" than a whole K-12 of using Linux.
I mean, the computer issue is near and dear to our hearts, so it's hard to be objective. Let me put it this way -- do we switch school buses around to give students "experience with foreign-built buses, so they know that American-made vehicles may not be the best?" There are people who really get up in arms about how uneducated people are about their vehicle purchases, and how much they fall into marketing bullshit -- much like we complain about with MS. But to most people, a computer is just another tool, just like a car is to me.
I disagree that a school's purpose is to prepare kids for the workplace, because that smacks of slavery to me.
Naturally, that isn't its only purpose. But students *are* going to end up familiar with *some* software package. Why not make it something that they are mostly like to be able to take advantage of later on in life?
We should all be preparing our kids to live as responsible, free adults. Education is the single most valuable tool we can give them, and that is what school is for. It's not about just teaching them how to be good worker drones. We also have to teach our kids how to cook, clean their homes, mend their pants (it's not always possible to buy new pants), make and maintain relationships, and so forth. We have to hand this world down to our kids when they reach adulthood, and we fuckin' better prepare them.
Sure (come to think of it, nobody ever taught me to mend pants, dammit, and I remember a home ec class in there somewhere).
Speaking as a parent of two, with a third on the way.
Congrats!
One more thing. We're arguing over whether Windows application familiarity or Linux application familiarity are more useful. Look at your own resume on your web site:
Languages: C, C++, Macromedia Flash, Javascript, HTML, TI and Visual Basic,
Applications: Microsoft Office, Word, Excel, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, UltraEdit, 65 WPM
Operating Systems: Debian, Mandrake, Red Hat Linux, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, Palm OS,
Windows 98, 95, ME, NT, 2000, XP
But with 90% of the world's computers running a MS operating system, it is obvious that the school isn't giving them Linux experience instead of windows but augmenting their windows life(tm) with something different.
;-) I dunno, there are people on Slashdot that I'd consider both more and less experienced than I am, but I think I've the grounds to make a reasonable judgement call here.
But whether they ever *see* Windows and Office doesn't really have that much impact. Where are they to get serious experience? Most people use computers in school, and if they have one, at home, and little elsewhere until they go to college/get a job.
I've seen several posts agreeing that Windows experience is valuable, but claiming that one will get it at home. Are we then to discriminate against all those students that cannot afford a computer, or perhaps use Mac OS at home? They can be sacrificed upon the altar of "wider experience" for all the students that run Windows at home?
The purpose of public education is to provide a basic, useful foundation that is available to everyone. It is not simply to help out the children of the privileged. So I cannot agree based only on these grounds.
And adaptation to different computing environments is a very important skill, something which appears to be sorely underrepresented in today's education. Elementary school kids should be switched from Mac, Linux, Windows, BSD, SUN, and any other environment they can get their hands on, as the computer interface they will use in 15 years when they make it to the work force will represent windows as much as XP resembles dos.
Is it? Should the re-learn their application set all all the associated features? Sure, that's second nature to most Slashdot readers. You've already spent the down time learning a few operating systems, and switching around has a benefit to you (you likely use non-Windows operating systems) and little cost (you don't remember how much pain and time you went through to acquire all that knowledge). It's hard to phrase the question in a reasonable way, but let me try this. Suppose for the next four years, your editor was switched under you once a year to give you valuable general skills. First year nano, second year nedit, third year emacs, fourth year vi. Would that really benefit you all that much, or would you burn time (and possibly resent) having to learn something that you are less likely to actually use after this four-year program?
Sorry, it's pretty insignificant, compared to being able to offer a programming elective.
It comes down to computer science again. *I* am CS. I like software development. But too many people on Slashdot lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of people simply are not in IS/IT/CS/etc. Yes, *I* would have loved to have Linux on the systems at school (or at least a Linux server with accounts for everyone, which I think is a more feasible solution). It would have been lovely for me. But is it really what's best for the *other* students? It simply doesn't seem to be that it is.
You're probably trolling too
[shrug] I'm making an argument that's fairly controversial on Slashdot. It's one that I feel to be true. I don't think that you can call that "trolling".
(as judging from your previous comments you don't seem to be experienced)
I knew pushing GNOME over KDE would come back to bite me one day.
But this is exactly the sort of argument that you hear from many computer-illiterate managers who are struggling to learn the "industry standard" interface. To the next generation, Office is a 4-th grade computer literacy level. We can do better.
This is not a question of "ignore or do not ignore Linux" or "general computing skills or a single package". Heck, if someone wants to set up dual boot machines, and someone is willing to donate time and admin the Linux side of things, I think making KWord available is fine too. It's a question of "familiarity with which package is more likely to be of use to a student". And based on those grounds, I'd have to say that students are best off using MS software.
Though it'd be nice if teachers didn't try to *force* people to use MS software -- if you want an assignment on disk (which none of *my* elementary/junior high/high school teachers did, but things may have changed since I was there), requiring that it be in Word format seems like a bad idea).
You are dead wrong. Windows skills is seen as a given. Stating that you know how to use Word is like enclosing your 200 yard swimming certificate, or stating that you know how to ride a bike.
:-) ) isn't quite as taken-for-granted as you put in.
I disagree. In the IT field, perhaps. The overwhelming majority of IT, CS, and people in other tech-specific disciplines have at least good user-level knowledge of Windows, if not the Microsoft suite (I can figure out how to pull something off in the MS suite, but I've never owned it, and I certainly couldn't answer qustions about subtleties about style sheets, and someone hiring me for an office job would likely be better served by someone with reasonable experience with MS Office).
This is not the case for much of the rest of the world, though. I remember when I was getting recommendations for college a few years back. I needed several letters of recommendation. One was from a high school history teacher that used Word much like a typewriter, putting a hard carrige return after each line, which didn't interact particularly well with Word's automatic capitalization of the first letter in the first word of each paragraph.
And that's from someone that's at least somewhat educated and has regular access to Windows *and* the MS office suite. A good third of the US population doesn't have a computer of any sort at home.
Most of the non-tech 45+ year old people in non-tech fields I know can manage to cope with a word processor reasonably well, but don't deal well with things like setting tabs, don't understand things like tables, and *definitely* don't use things like stylesheets. They aren't stupid people. They simply grew up with typewriters, and have a good skillset in that area -- *I* am not very familiar with conventions for spacing and correction on typewriters, to be honest. There are conventions for how to space tables in formal documents on a typewriter, there are number-of-spaces rules that I simply do not know. Put me in front of a typewriter, and I will produce output that is significantly inferior to theirs.
So I have to say that good competency, the ability to quickly interact with MS applications to produce good output (yes, I realize that can be difficult for anyone
Also, in many cases the reason you can take it for granted is *because* these people get exposure to it in schools...you know, "business computer literacy" classes and the like. This guy is trying to substitute Linux and free office software for MS software, possibly the one place where they get exposure to and good experience with MS software before a job. While his goals are laudable, I still think that some skills of the students are being sacrificed.
Stating linux skills and alternative applications is a good way to show that you can think for yourselves and at least for now makes you stand out.
Sure, having *more* skills is always good. The problem is whether they're also as skilled as MS's software as someone that used MS software regularly through school, since I suspect that the MS software is more likely to be used by them.
When little Johnny kindergartener makes it all the way up to 12th grade at this school, do you really think the computing world will be the same?
:-) ).
No, that's true. But you have a choice of being comfortably familiar with either MS products or, say, KWord.
And given that:
* MS products are currently the most used.
* We know that, no matter what, there still *will* be pretty significant market penetration by MS for a few years. Even if MS screws up monumentally and commits suicide, they still have enough inertia to be around for a while. I'd say that if you have to familiarize everyone with one product, do so with Office -- it's a more likely bet than any one of KWord, AbiWord, Open Office, etc.
it seems like MS stuff is currently the best bet for the *students* (not for me -- *I'd* like to see everyone transition to GNOME from Windows tomorrow if I could
It would not suprise me that 12 years down the road Microsoft will be a bad memory and most folks will be running OS X or Linux or something else.
Sure, me either. But first of all, MS will still be there, and we don't know *what* the other competitor will be. KDE? GNOME? OS X? Enlightenment 17? Some new player? I'm just think that the single best *bet* is MS, not that they're certain to be around. Furthermore, there are so many people familiar with Office that any replacement is likely to look, work, and operate verrry much like Office does today. Open Office might be modified to operate more like Word does to appeal to current businesses, for example.
I'd say general computing skills and adaptability to different software packages is far more valuable a skill than "knowing" Word, Excel, or PowerPoint.
Sure, I agree. But I don't think that you automatically get general computing skills from becoming familiar with KWord instead of becoming familiar with MS Word.
Between having a Microsoft or Mac environment at home and using linux at school, I'd say these students will be far better equipped for the future than kids who haven't seen anything other than Windows. Adaptability, and willingness to learn (especially to learn quickly) is the best skill you can have, period.
Potentially, yes. But the rationale for taxing everyone and forcing them to pay for computers that *all* students have access too (and computers in public libraries) is that everyone can be placed on roughly the same basic footing. How fair is it to students in, say, inner-city LA to have to say "well, I didn't own a computer at home, and I don't know Word, but I do know another similar program called KWord" when most employers are hiring word, and only students who have families that *own* a Windows computer have an edge at that job?
The same goes for Mac OS -- my family owns a set of Macs at home. Frankly, my little siblings are better off using Windows at school and becoming familiar with it than they would be learning Linux. *I* use Linux, and I think it's great. I haven't had Windows installed on my computer for years. But I'm also working with CS, and I do enough computer-related work that I'm reasonably comfortable with Windows (well, not Fortune-500-netadmin familiar, but certainly user-level competent). If you become a sales rep, how likely is it that you're going to be *able* to use KWord (given IT departments and "required application sets"...grr), much less never have to interact with Word?
"Business students"???????"
Hmm. I'm not sure whether that's the right term. I meant a broader spectrum. Business students, yes, but also non-managerial office workers, professional workers that need to interact with non-specialized computer systems, that sort of thing.
Yeah, all those twelve-year-olds leaving GHCA to join the job market will suffer greatly.
Where do you propose they start learning Windows and MS apps? Junior high? High school? College? Should they tell a business that they'll need on-the-job training with the software packages? Sure, it'd be nice to find a job where you *don't* use MS apps, but to be honest, the majority of them do.
At worst, all that this will mean is an awkward year of adjustment when they first get to college, though even there, a solid knowledge of Linux will, in fact, give them other edges including better odds of getting junior IT work (such as helping out in the labs for work-study or managing some department's local server problems) during college. Hmmmm, other kids trying to get jobs as waiters, these kids already qualified for minor sysadmin work; sounds like a win-win to me.
No, this I have to disagree with. I tried to mention this in my original post. Slapping Joe User on a Linux box in a user-level environment where they see windows and icons simply doesn't automatically make them a sysadmin -- having "used Linux" isn't a magic wand that makes people technically competent. Sure, lots of Linux users *are* technically competent -- but that's because technically competent users often graviate to Linux. The cause and effect is, I'd argue, more in the other direction.
Finally, I also mentioned that I'm not talking about IS or CS students. They may possibly (and keep in mind, there are still a lot more Windows-based jobs out there...I'd like to work at Red Hat, but I suspect it's a bitch to get in) be better off using Linux. However, they are also a small minority.
I love how the Redmond-damaged always pull that one out when somebody suggests anything but Windoze.
I can't say that really applies -- I *have* used Windows before, and people ask me to help me with their Windows computers, but I've really had a Windows only box for about six months, between years of Mac OS only and years of Linux only. I don't think Linux is a bad thing, and it's great if you're into software development or sysadmin work. I just don't think it's currently the best thing to be teaching all elementary school students (from the students' perspective).
Especially in a case like this where the article points out that most of their students already use Win. at home. If you'ld read it you would know that.
What, so the economically-privileged, most-likely-to-be-college-bound should be the only ones to have Windows experience? The whole idea of putting computers in public schools was so that the US population had mass, applicable experience with computer usage, so we don't have masses being turned out each year that have to be trained on the job or deal with things in college.
So, I'm curious, 0x0d0a, should I put you down as sloppy, bigoted, or foolish?
Well, I guess it's kind of hard for me to argue against slanted terms like those. I don't think I'm particularly bigoted. *I* use LaTeX when I write documents, have only Linux on my computer (and have for years), use Open Office to deal with MS documents, try to convince people I interact with to use open file formats like RTF instead of Word documents, use gnumeric, develop with the GNU suite even when I'm stuck working on Windows, and have contributed plenty of patches to Linux software. I really think that any argument about bigotry would have to be that I'm biased towards Linux. I just don't think that it's in the best interest of the kids at this school to be using Linux instead of becoming familiar with the MS suite and Windows.
Blocking port 25 is not the answer. It creates more problems than it solves. I am a senior sysadmin at a mid size hosting center, and we run mail services for a lot of our customers. The single biggest problem with mail is dealing with ISP's that block port 25.
Very true. Blocking 25 outbound has little to no effect. You *cannot* secure all points of access to the Internet. *Every* ISP in the world would need to do this for this to work, which is *not* going to happen -- there are too many ISPs around the world.
On the other hand, this *does* have serious issues from a user support point of view, and impacts technically savvy users that *do* want to use 25 outbound.
I have serious issues with port blocking at all, but if you want it to have *any* effect, 25 inbound is the only thing with any point.
25 outbound implies that *all* points of access must be secure to have any effect.
25 inbound implies that each ISP firewalling prevents relays from operating on their network.
That being said, port blocking tends to cause support issues and doesn't really do all that much in terms of security.
Ports were designed as a convenience, not as a strong security system.
Also, keep in mind that the majority of spam (that *I* get, at least), originates from worms that send mail from legitimate users' computers. Port blocking would have no effect.
If you really, honestly want to avoid spam, you can set up a whitelist with GPG or S/MIME support.
The reason suggestions like "run a mail server on another port if you really need it" come off as completely stupid to me is that that simply means that there is now another port (say, 5305) to block. You want to use simply random ports for each ISP? Now your security is that of the port number, which is essentially nothing.
The people making idiot suggestions (like the guy that posted this story) are looking for quick fixes that will reduce spam for maybe six months, and in the process make everyone miserable. If you really want to fix spam, you need something like whitelists and authentication. You can't make a change like this and expect it to work.
The only reason heuristics like "block !!! in subject line" work at all is because not everyone uses them. If MS shipped Outlook with a default rule to do so, spammers would simply avoid it.
So "using a different port" or similar suggestions are short term fixes that end up causing a lot of pain, much like people that firewall SSH or block egress DNS access. Screws users, buys nothing.
Require a deposit on setting up an account. They spam, they forfeit the deposit.
That's why I think the port 25 blocking needs to be for people on dynamic IP addresses (dialup, DHCP or PPPoE), and not for people on fixed IP addresses.
God, I hate people with your mindset.
Let's say I want a throwaway email address to deal with an idiot that requires an "email address for registration" that sends me a password. I can simply use aliasthatpointstome@dhcp125-24-32-12.myisp.net. If I use two ISPs (college and home), I don't have to remember to switch freaking mail gateways (and if you *do* forget, mail gateways these days have a habit of silently dropping email, not bouncing it, the bastards). This is *far* inferior to the approach of simply running a non-gatewayed mail server on my computer. I also get more detailed error messages, and faster, when I send an email that bounces.
Instead of fixing spam in reasonable ways (too painful to adopt PGP and require authenticated email, eh?) people like you run out, try for a quick fix, and massively inconvenience people like *me*.
I already had to deal with the idiot IT people at Compaq dropping my emails because I *happened* to be actually running a *gasp* box with my *own* mail server to send my emails from *gasp* a dynamic IP!
This will stop most luser spam, because most lusers don't have fixed IP internet connections.
Hell, why don't we make everyone use web mail, and give them only proxied port 80 access. Sure, it'll suck for *everyone* who wants to do anything more basic than browsing the web and reading simple emails, sure, it'll be easy as hell to monitor, sure, it'll be like older AOL access...but damn, that sure will solve the spam problem. At least coming *from* the ISPs that implement these draconian measures.
People like *you* are far more of an issue to me than spammers.
Whether it's an idiot running an open poxy or a moron who responsed to an ad in the Weekly Saver for "MAKE $75/HR WITH YOUR COMPUTER!", at least this will get rid of the harder to trace stuff.
"Harder to trace stuff". Yup, sure is fucking hard to look at a mail header, yessirriebob. Nice how you call *other* people morons.
The real problem is ISPs that just don't fscking care. The ISPs who would go out of their way to block port 25 for fixed IP customers were probably not the ones with much of an outbound spam problem in the first place.
Frankly, any ISP that blocks ports in *or* out is not one that's going to get any new service subscriptions from *me*, but that's just me.
It may be a minor inconvenience for legitimate users, but at least *I* would prefer that I not have any ports blocked at all, and am willing to pay more for an ISP that doesn't block 25/129, etc, inbound or outbound.
Trying to stop spam by preventing spammers from accessing the Internet is pretty much a braindead solution. It's not feasible. There are too many access points around the entire world.
This is the same thing people tried to do with firewalls. "Block everything except 80". Then all the people actually trying to get work done simply tunnel everything through 80, or use Web Services, and the problem is right back in your face, except now the whole damn network is less efficient.
The *real* solution is simply to use whitelists -- eventually, it *is* going to have to be done.
Anti-spammers have for years (ever since the fucking DUL started blocking the mail server that *I* ran, not because it was an open relay, but simply because I like to use a non-gatewayed mailserver on my machine and happen to be on a dialup connection) pissed me off far more than spammers. I can block spam to the point where I only get one every few months, but I can't do anything about the amount of idiots endorsing the more intrusive anti-spam measures.
This is a general school. It's not a computer science school in college -- it's teaching business students and the like. Its goal is to provide the most useful knowledge over the long term to its students. A student going into business is, frankly, better off with Windows experience than Linux. Heck, at this very moment (though I personally think things are shifting), most software developers are better off with Windows experience than Linux experience, and that's a pretty ideal set of people.
While I like Linux myself, using Linux over Windows is a public-good problem. Everyone is better off if everyone uses Linux over Windows, but if a single school gives students experience with Linux and the rest Windows, it's doing a worse job of helping its students.
People these days put *applications* down as job skills. "Excel", "Word", etc. To not have your students be familiar with these when the vast majority of businesses use these (and likely will for at least a few more years) is doing the school's students a disservice. If you have a choice between hiring Jonny, who knows Word (which your company uses) and Jimmy, who knows KWord (which you've never heard of)...well, you're going to grab the one that's going to generate less support costs.
And simply using Linux does not turn students into experienced computer scientists or IT personnel, doesn't make them suddenly far more capable of learning to use different software packages.
I realize that there are budget issues involved, I realize that there are stability issues involved, and I still have to say that the majority of students are currently better off being familiarized with Microsoft's operating system and application suite than Open Office and Linux or KWord and Linux or AbiWord and Linux.
Finally, for the people that say that school is for teaching you general concepts, not a specific skill set -- yes, that's true. In twenty years, it's very unlikely if people will be using something much like the current iteration of MS Word *or* Open Office. But there is a not insignificant short-term benefit, and I don't think it's entirely fair to the students to deprive them of that edge. Word and Excel are nearly everwhere, whether we like it or not.
I agree that this doesn't really apply to the systems involved here. However, I have now run into *three* sound cards of different make that are supported by the current Linux kernel, but not supported in Windows XP or 2000 by their original manufacturer, and no longer work.
Heh, heh. Okay. That explains the bagpipes and ghostly knights rising to repel the Germans in WWII in Bedknob and Broomstick. The scene where you first see a few ghosts, and the Germans try to fight, then far-away strains of the bagpipes are heard, and the camera pans over a line of empty suits of armor marching to do battle, stretching far into the distance gave me a shiver up my spine when I first heard it.
I never understood why people dislike the bagpipes so much -- frankly, if I had a choice between listening to an acoustic piano solo or a bagpipes solo, I strongly suspect I'd prefer the bagpipes.
Even if it were linux... I wouldn't necessarily want an embedded OS.
I'm simplify it even more -- I want code in a car to be a simple and minimal as possible. Reliability decreases as complexity increases when humans are involved -- that's just the way things are. Frankly, I don't really care about a "flashy GUI" on the dash, and I do care very much about having absolutely perfect reliability, regardless of whether the GM engineers consider the radio or seat controls "mission critical" or not.
Hardware engineers have a better testing culture than software engineers.
How about because Microsoft's feature-oriented devel cycle (allocate a few weeks for feature implementation, implement feature, do not let programmers push back deadline if they need more time) isn't that healthy for reliability?
The only email account I have that gets spam is my Hotmail account. I call this my "slutty" email because it's the one I use when I KNOW providing an email address will give me spam.
Occasionally, I run across email-address-requiring services too (IBM's free Linux compiler, Yahoo mail account, etc). If you only need to get one email, which contains a password or activation key or something, you have a pretty good alternative.
I run a mail server on my workstation. I have it set up with a couple of aliases that point to my username. So I feed Intel alias1@myworkstation.myisp.net. Sure, no MX entry for my "domain" myworkstation.myisp.net, but Intel tries directly delivering the email to my machine. I snag the email when it comes in in a few minutes. If I want to, I can either leave the alias around to see whether Intel is selling their mailing list (if I start getting spam on that alias), or delete it, so that any future mail simply gets bounced.
Furthermore, spam list sellers verify email addresses by looking for valid MX entries. I don't have one, so my used email address tends to simply get dropped.
Good point.
I'm kind of wondering why someone as high-profile as Rob doesn't automate spam filtering on his public address.
I guess this also explains why Slashdot appears to have a tendency towards GNOME whilst the Linux community as a whole seems to prefer KDE.
The *Linux community as a whole* seems to prefer KDE? What are you *smoking*? Look at the quantities of software for each, look at what the most popular distribution is.
Can you say SuSE, Opera, Borland or Hancom?
SuSE is almost dead (at least in the States), Borland simply isn't that significant any more, and Hancom is almost certainly not going to become a major player (at least with Open Office as a competitor). There was a short time when Opera could have taken over, but with competition on faster computers these days from Explorer, an ever-faster Mozilla, Konqueror and a couple of Mac browsers, I'd say that Opera has peaked and is starting the long slow descent into obsolescence.
With the exception of Hancom, all of those companies are dying stars.
The GNOMES, should have adapted the same Interface GUIDE, but no, they had to start from scratch, just to be different.
Yeah, with a little extra effort on their part they could have managed to break the clipboard interface, just like Qt/KDE did!
Sounds like they're making a real run to compete with Sun and their prices on *cases* for high-end systems.
Yup. People were excited about Be's web browser too, talked about how fast and lightweight it was...and it became a heavy anchor around Be's neck, because web page compatibility ended up sucking.
It's [Qt] no different than buying development software on a Microsoft OS.
What advancements Linux brings, eh?
But there is a real difference when you try to install both environments from source code.
I can compile and install all KDE in 1 day (in a PIII), with only 3 packages needed for the others.
I'd be more inclined to say that finely-grained packaging is a better idea than monolithic packaging.
There are large parts of GNOME that I'm don't use (Nautilus, Control Center, the Panel). I simply don't install those, and use the chunks that I want. With KDE, you're stuck with all kinds of crap that you may or may not want. RPM *should* be finely-grained.
Second, yes, it's painful to manually download and build each package. Which is why we have things like emerge and apt-get:
APT 0.5.4 implements a new command: apt-get build-dep. This command will try to retrieve every build dependency of a given source package. Support in APT-RPM was already implemented, which turns APT into a fantastic option for users of unsupported ports (like Conectiva for PowerPC), and general package building tasks.
Don't blame *GNOME* because they packaged things the way RPMs should be packaged and then you chose not to use the right tool to build them. That's completely unfair to them.