If someone wants to pay to be laughed at, then I say let them, and the more they pay the better (so long as it doesn't interfere with more important stuff).
I think the fault in issues like this ultimately lies with the judicial systems. While there are easy ways to get away with things like frivolous lawsuits then there are gonna be hordes of lawyers who are making their living off of them, and the whole paranoia that is present in different fields which are often central in such cases. There needs to be a more enforced writ of "Shit Happens" and an acknowledgement that sometimes it's no one's fault...and sometimes it's the vitim's stupidity's fault, and all the shades of gray in between.
Random misquote... "A jury is a group of people who are chosen to decide who has a better lawyer"...Will Rogers??
And, unless I'm mistaken, you're privy to a large amount of information about doctors....education, training...basically anything relevant that has been recorded. Of course probably virtually no one actually capitalizes on this.
I don't see dethroning Gates as a motive which would inspire one to stick to the open source mentality. Collectively among the Linux, etc. community it's a good goal, but if that were a driving force behind a company then there would be definitely interest in maintaining an amount of power which conflicts with the communal aspect. The main motivation has to be something more along the lines of wanting the best software and realizing (or thinking) that open source is the way for that.
Novell may be a good company for this because it seems as though they have a lot more to gain than their likely perceived losses, considering their current small foundation in these industries.
There's support in the more general sense of maintaing the releases. If they were to release.deb files or any other packages then they'd have to update those with each driver release, and it makes more sense to just not release them at all then fall behind or have to think about it. If there were complications in repackaging it would be time consuming...if it's simple then the users can do it.
There's support issues, once they release those packages they are responsible for them.
I'm running a computer with an ATI without a package management system but I installed RPM and forced an install of the package and it works fine. I think the RPM in this case is mostly just a way to archive the different parts of the driver (kernel module, X module, doc) without actually being too system specific, and considering it worked on my computer which is running all the latest, non-standard libraries, I'd guess that the only real variable to watch for is the X version which is the one they release different versions for. I did need to hack the driver in previous versions to get direct rendering to work though (I'll find out about the new one shortly).
Wait wait wait...
"Their afraid to install software on their computers, and are intimidated by running any software that didn't come bundled with their systems."....
"he bought it from a pop up add from a piece of adware"
does anyone else see a horrible incongruency here?
I'd think the number would probably remain about the same (at least relatively). Pretty much every computer I look at now has been slowed down by Spyware/Adware, so it seemed low to me initially, but these are also all computers for people who are using Kazaa and other programs they download on the Internet. Virtually all of those people will be infected (except for the few who know better), but also considering business users and people who use the Internet little or not at all (or don't download programs) the number is lowered. Not to mention people that don't run Windows. The number's probably higher in college environments but relatively similar all things considered.
Don't really understand how that's a reply to my comment...but I'll give a vague rebuttal. People are free to do whatever they want on their computers, or their LAN's, but the Internet is a community of everyone in the world. Though people should also be freely allowed to use the Internet without infringing on other people's right. The vast majority of Internet services have security measures so that they are used for their intented purpose, and access is restricted in a controllable manner. SMTP, by itself, allows anyone to fill anyone else's mailbox up with crap, and pretty much stands alone among widely used technologies that doesn't allow easy or thorough control over this. This is probably largely because of it being routed, and considering the relatively harmless ramifications, it's been left alone. There should be a simple standard protocol to control the mail though. Most SMTP servers for major ISP's already have things that are halfway there (like checking the hostname of the server), I'm just saying they should add another step which enforces SMTP servers to keep track of what accounts are sending what mail. The sending MTA checks accounts, & the recieving MTA checks servers (and can check whether the sending MTA is checking accounts and whether it's a static host, which could be easily narrowed down to the IP leaser). Add to this a definition of spam, and a method of disabling accounts and negligent servers. Implement this on a new port, and you have a more controlled e-mail system...easily maintained and probably less troublesome than trying to fight spam the way it is now.
Spam solution
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
IT seems like Spam is largely able to exist just because of the widespread looseness in SMTP. If access to SMTP servers is restricted with accounts (either with authentication or address recognition, etc. for LAN's), and then further checking is done by other SMTP servers to validate the hostnames, addresses, etc. so that random SMTP servers can't just be set up. Then sent e-mails should always be able to easily be tracked down to the account that sent it (relevant info could be added to the header) and that account can be disabled for spam. If the reporting process were relatively streamlined objectively, then the effort of overcoming the obstacles would outweigh any benefit.
I think if they're placed at the top and seperated it may be a good addition. Often times the things that are searched for on search engines are products and services (etc.) which are provided by the types of companies that would pay for the placement, and as long as the prices are reasonable and the relevance of results monitored, then the paid results could be more targetted than a lot of the half relevant, half random pages than often show up. As long as they can be distinguished and bypassed easily, and as long as it doesn't turn into an auction for placement or anything. It may not be something that I, or most other people on/. would normally like, but it's a pragmatic solution.
I may be wrong, but one thing I never hear talked about in the relationship between open source and closed source is the sharing of bugs. I'd think it would be safe to assume that when a bug is discovered in an open-source project (or anywhere else for that matter) it can be assumed that it may be present in other similar applications, just because humans think similarly and a lack of foresight on the part of one programmer could have been made by another. And so a bug fixed in one network service may still be present in others, maybe unnoticed by the maintainer. Obviously there are a lot of variables which could eliminate even the possiblity (and some like shared technologies which could support the possibility), but I'd think that if one were to look at all the past bugs that may be easily examined in other projects, sooner or later an exploit could be found which would work on other servers, maybe with a little tweaking.
Not worth as much as Windows which usually costs about a couple hundred dollars...every couple years. Add on Office and all the other software you want. And then you can relax knowing that you avoided that crappy free software and instead have spent your hard earned money for programs that are written by the best people that take the to time to make sure it's the best possible software in the world and worth every penny. And just to show you how hard they're working, release patches all the time to make it even better than before. The same patches which they claim are the doorways to allow anyone on the Internet to trash your computer. But of course it's not their fault their programs have gaping security holes, or that they are apparently claiming they're helping people manipulate those holes. It's your fault because you haven't given them enough money to fix these problems that you paid for and need to pay for an upgrade which will solve these problems and have exciting new ones.
I think pretty much every distro has an automatic updater which is no more painful than Windows Update. Also...almost daily?? I'm guessing you're talking about more than just the kernel unless you're obsessed with getting the latest revision. Among all the software on my computer there are only a couple updates a week aside from snapshots and probably some devel releases. And as for updates that are important for security and system integrity, it's probably about one update a month on average and the other updates could just be done in one large batch.
Remembering passwords and having the admin install things are inconvenienves which exist on a lot of multi-user systems, but they're not necessities for security on personal computers, and the security they are symptomatic of is normally easily bypassed if actual access to the console is obtained (with a quick reboot). Even on multiuser systems these things can be automated and remain relatively secure. More importantly this discussion revolves more around network security, which can be more transparently strict, and which isn't affected nearly as much by the OS as the network software running. I've never had a network security issue with Windows 98 because I don't use insecure Internet software. I also feel more secure in 98 which isn't designed for networking and therefore just doesn't do things (but can be implemented with 3rd party software), than I do in an NT which is designed for networking and has insecure services.
The patch would be released to fix the possibility of an exploit. The arguement is still horribly flawed though. MS is saying that they instigate exploits. Maybe they're trying to prove they control everything, including the stuff that screws them over. If it's an attempt to cover their asses it's a really odd one. I'd think if this is really the case, maybe a while ago they should come up with a solution that allows the patch to be applied before what it's patching is known. Maybe have Windows Update download the patch automatically without a nice description alongside it which reads "Gaping security hole, enter here". And then release a descriptive patch later for the people who care about what's being done (who are also for the most part the people who would patch before being expoited), allowing the people who don't know what any of it means time to get it fixed before the secret is out.
What about Star/OpenOffice? I think one of the big things you need to make sure you take into account is the fact that Sun is a a large business which is supported by some of their products like Java. It seems as though Sun is very open to the idea of open-source, but at the same time from a business perspective, they probably question the changes to their ability to function as the type of business they are if one of their flagship products is basically taken away from them. Most companies which actively pursue open-source are significantly smaller than Sun with, therefore, less overhead. And I can't think of any of the large corporations that support Linux (like IBM or Corel) that have actually opened up a technology which is a major source of income for them.
This isn't flamebait. It's not meant as an insult to Microsoft, it's just the way they work. It's not a bad thing, it's allowed the propogation of technologies, but it's not going out on a limb to develop them.
Also, and more directly relevant, this is a prize for networking. Microsoft didn't have a viable networking solution for a LONG time after this, and after tons of other companies and organizations had already had large impacts.
Umm...maybe because MS hasn't done anything innovative...probably ever. MS's R&D consists of taking other ideas which have already been researched and look promising, and then develop their own version of it. Name one MS product which wasn't just a clone of a pre-established technology. Microsoft is a business, not a technology or research company.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone wants to pay to be laughed at, then I say let them, and the more they pay the better (so long as it doesn't interfere with more important stuff).
I think the fault in issues like this ultimately lies with the judicial systems. While there are easy ways to get away with things like frivolous lawsuits then there are gonna be hordes of lawyers who are making their living off of them, and the whole paranoia that is present in different fields which are often central in such cases. There needs to be a more enforced writ of "Shit Happens" and an acknowledgement that sometimes it's no one's fault...and sometimes it's the vitim's stupidity's fault, and all the shades of gray in between. Random misquote... "A jury is a group of people who are chosen to decide who has a better lawyer"...Will Rogers??
And, unless I'm mistaken, you're privy to a large amount of information about doctors....education, training...basically anything relevant that has been recorded. Of course probably virtually no one actually capitalizes on this.
I don't see dethroning Gates as a motive which would inspire one to stick to the open source mentality. Collectively among the Linux, etc. community it's a good goal, but if that were a driving force behind a company then there would be definitely interest in maintaining an amount of power which conflicts with the communal aspect. The main motivation has to be something more along the lines of wanting the best software and realizing (or thinking) that open source is the way for that.
Novell may be a good company for this because it seems as though they have a lot more to gain than their likely perceived losses, considering their current small foundation in these industries.
There's support in the more general sense of maintaing the releases. If they were to release .deb files or any other packages then they'd have to update those with each driver release, and it makes more sense to just not release them at all then fall behind or have to think about it. If there were complications in repackaging it would be time consuming...if it's simple then the users can do it.
There's support issues, once they release those packages they are responsible for them.
I'm running a computer with an ATI without a package management system but I installed RPM and forced an install of the package and it works fine. I think the RPM in this case is mostly just a way to archive the different parts of the driver (kernel module, X module, doc) without actually being too system specific, and considering it worked on my computer which is running all the latest, non-standard libraries, I'd guess that the only real variable to watch for is the X version which is the one they release different versions for. I did need to hack the driver in previous versions to get direct rendering to work though (I'll find out about the new one shortly).
Wait wait wait... "Their afraid to install software on their computers, and are intimidated by running any software that didn't come bundled with their systems." ....
"he bought it from a pop up add from a piece of adware"
does anyone else see a horrible incongruency here?
I'd think the number would probably remain about the same (at least relatively). Pretty much every computer I look at now has been slowed down by Spyware/Adware, so it seemed low to me initially, but these are also all computers for people who are using Kazaa and other programs they download on the Internet. Virtually all of those people will be infected (except for the few who know better), but also considering business users and people who use the Internet little or not at all (or don't download programs) the number is lowered. Not to mention people that don't run Windows. The number's probably higher in college environments but relatively similar all things considered.
Don't really understand how that's a reply to my comment...but I'll give a vague rebuttal. People are free to do whatever they want on their computers, or their LAN's, but the Internet is a community of everyone in the world. Though people should also be freely allowed to use the Internet without infringing on other people's right. The vast majority of Internet services have security measures so that they are used for their intented purpose, and access is restricted in a controllable manner. SMTP, by itself, allows anyone to fill anyone else's mailbox up with crap, and pretty much stands alone among widely used technologies that doesn't allow easy or thorough control over this. This is probably largely because of it being routed, and considering the relatively harmless ramifications, it's been left alone. There should be a simple standard protocol to control the mail though. Most SMTP servers for major ISP's already have things that are halfway there (like checking the hostname of the server), I'm just saying they should add another step which enforces SMTP servers to keep track of what accounts are sending what mail. The sending MTA checks accounts, & the recieving MTA checks servers (and can check whether the sending MTA is checking accounts and whether it's a static host, which could be easily narrowed down to the IP leaser). Add to this a definition of spam, and a method of disabling accounts and negligent servers. Implement this on a new port, and you have a more controlled e-mail system...easily maintained and probably less troublesome than trying to fight spam the way it is now.
IT seems like Spam is largely able to exist just because of the widespread looseness in SMTP. If access to SMTP servers is restricted with accounts (either with authentication or address recognition, etc. for LAN's), and then further checking is done by other SMTP servers to validate the hostnames, addresses, etc. so that random SMTP servers can't just be set up. Then sent e-mails should always be able to easily be tracked down to the account that sent it (relevant info could be added to the header) and that account can be disabled for spam. If the reporting process were relatively streamlined objectively, then the effort of overcoming the obstacles would outweigh any benefit.
I think if they're placed at the top and seperated it may be a good addition. Often times the things that are searched for on search engines are products and services (etc.) which are provided by the types of companies that would pay for the placement, and as long as the prices are reasonable and the relevance of results monitored, then the paid results could be more targetted than a lot of the half relevant, half random pages than often show up. As long as they can be distinguished and bypassed easily, and as long as it doesn't turn into an auction for placement or anything. It may not be something that I, or most other people on /. would normally like, but it's a pragmatic solution.
I may be wrong, but one thing I never hear talked about in the relationship between open source and closed source is the sharing of bugs. I'd think it would be safe to assume that when a bug is discovered in an open-source project (or anywhere else for that matter) it can be assumed that it may be present in other similar applications, just because humans think similarly and a lack of foresight on the part of one programmer could have been made by another. And so a bug fixed in one network service may still be present in others, maybe unnoticed by the maintainer. Obviously there are a lot of variables which could eliminate even the possiblity (and some like shared technologies which could support the possibility), but I'd think that if one were to look at all the past bugs that may be easily examined in other projects, sooner or later an exploit could be found which would work on other servers, maybe with a little tweaking.
Funny doesn't get you karma
Not only is that offtopic in the discussion, but he has nothing to do with my sig.
Not worth as much as Windows which usually costs about a couple hundred dollars...every couple years. Add on Office and all the other software you want. And then you can relax knowing that you avoided that crappy free software and instead have spent your hard earned money for programs that are written by the best people that take the to time to make sure it's the best possible software in the world and worth every penny. And just to show you how hard they're working, release patches all the time to make it even better than before. The same patches which they claim are the doorways to allow anyone on the Internet to trash your computer. But of course it's not their fault their programs have gaping security holes, or that they are apparently claiming they're helping people manipulate those holes. It's your fault because you haven't given them enough money to fix these problems that you paid for and need to pay for an upgrade which will solve these problems and have exciting new ones.
I think pretty much every distro has an automatic updater which is no more painful than Windows Update. Also...almost daily?? I'm guessing you're talking about more than just the kernel unless you're obsessed with getting the latest revision. Among all the software on my computer there are only a couple updates a week aside from snapshots and probably some devel releases. And as for updates that are important for security and system integrity, it's probably about one update a month on average and the other updates could just be done in one large batch.
Remembering passwords and having the admin install things are inconvenienves which exist on a lot of multi-user systems, but they're not necessities for security on personal computers, and the security they are symptomatic of is normally easily bypassed if actual access to the console is obtained (with a quick reboot). Even on multiuser systems these things can be automated and remain relatively secure. More importantly this discussion revolves more around network security, which can be more transparently strict, and which isn't affected nearly as much by the OS as the network software running. I've never had a network security issue with Windows 98 because I don't use insecure Internet software. I also feel more secure in 98 which isn't designed for networking and therefore just doesn't do things (but can be implemented with 3rd party software), than I do in an NT which is designed for networking and has insecure services.
Up until a couple months ago at least, 2.2 ws the still the official kernel version for Debian (which obviously takes security seriously).
The patch would be released to fix the possibility of an exploit. The arguement is still horribly flawed though. MS is saying that they instigate exploits. Maybe they're trying to prove they control everything, including the stuff that screws them over. If it's an attempt to cover their asses it's a really odd one. I'd think if this is really the case, maybe a while ago they should come up with a solution that allows the patch to be applied before what it's patching is known. Maybe have Windows Update download the patch automatically without a nice description alongside it which reads "Gaping security hole, enter here". And then release a descriptive patch later for the people who care about what's being done (who are also for the most part the people who would patch before being expoited), allowing the people who don't know what any of it means time to get it fixed before the secret is out.
Yeah...I hate paying for those damn Linux upgrades.
What about Star/OpenOffice? I think one of the big things you need to make sure you take into account is the fact that Sun is a a large business which is supported by some of their products like Java. It seems as though Sun is very open to the idea of open-source, but at the same time from a business perspective, they probably question the changes to their ability to function as the type of business they are if one of their flagship products is basically taken away from them. Most companies which actively pursue open-source are significantly smaller than Sun with, therefore, less overhead. And I can't think of any of the large corporations that support Linux (like IBM or Corel) that have actually opened up a technology which is a major source of income for them.
This isn't flamebait. It's not meant as an insult to Microsoft, it's just the way they work. It's not a bad thing, it's allowed the propogation of technologies, but it's not going out on a limb to develop them.
And they were mentioned because they continued to build upon it.
Also, and more directly relevant, this is a prize for networking. Microsoft didn't have a viable networking solution for a LONG time after this, and after tons of other companies and organizations had already had large impacts.
Umm...maybe because MS hasn't done anything innovative...probably ever. MS's R&D consists of taking other ideas which have already been researched and look promising, and then develop their own version of it. Name one MS product which wasn't just a clone of a pre-established technology. Microsoft is a business, not a technology or research company.