You seem to have missed the point: what is at issue is the platform. The Sun platform is based on the JVM and the JIT compiler. Microsoft have promised a platform but not delivered. If they don't deliver, the.NET `framework' is vaporware. When they do deliver, they have a lot of ground to make up against Java.
It's possibly your software. Some versions of ghostscript have an error that will mangle PDF. Ghostscript 6.0 doesn't have these problems, so the solution is to upgrade.
I use ssh1 because of the licensing and compatibility problems with ssh2. I've never had or heard of any problem with telnetd, on either Linux or FreeBSD boxes (except for the usual termcap troubles) so I'm not sure what you might be talking about.
I haven't had any problems with ssh recently, but I'm pretty slow to forgive. I guess I should look at openssh.
I disagree. ssh daemons crash from time to time, whilst telnet daemons tend to be very robust. If X has crashed and so has sshd, then telnet is usually the only way you can kill the offedning processes and recover the machine.
There are ways to make telnet relatively secure, say by using Lamport's S/Key.
Hold on: the software isn't banned. Various German government organisations have restrictions put on them preventing them from working with companies assocaited with Scientology, but private individuals and companies are free to make such associations. Some states in Germany are encouraging companies to adopt similar schemes, but these schemes are purely voluntary.
There are things in the German treatment of the CoS that bother me, but it is not religious persecution as the CoS alleges. Scientologists are free to publish what they will and try to persuade others what they will, given the following caveat: if they make a profit from these activities they are required to register them as a business. The freedoms have been defended in sevral court cases.
Have a look at the following FAQ about Scientology in Germany for all the boring little details. The document is partisan, but unlike the CoS stuff, it keeps to the facts.
Dianetics isn't taken seriously by scientists because it makes dramatic claims which it makes no effort to validate. Check out this link for some of the earliest claims (with time they become more and more dramatic).
These claims are objectively testable, but Dianeticians do not either try to validate them or retract them. When faced with criticism that these claims are a pack of lies, they try to claim the criticism is a result of a conspiracy. This is anti-scientific.
Psychiatry is a broad church, with many competing ideas on how to best treat patients. I don't think the ideas involved in the early dianetics were whackier than some in the psychological mainstream, but what differentiates dianetics and scientology is its secrecy and hostility to criticism.
Good post, though I'm not sure what your talking about with StarOffice licensing issues... I think OS X might make a UNIX-only environment look more attractive quite soon.
Stenberg v. Carter did not challenge the validity of Roe v. Wade. It tested a grey area, namely partial-term abortions (ie. abortions carried out after labour has started). If the conservatives had won this one, it would have made not one whit of difference to almost all abortions; the fact that they lost pretty much shows how strongly the Supreme Court supports Roe v. Wade.
The first poster is right to say that a Bush vitory will not threaten Roe v. Wade.
Also many economists are very concerned about the size of the proposed Bush tax cut, since they believe it will artificially overheat the economy. I was surprised to see The Economist recently endorsed Bush's campaign over Gore's: whilst concerned on this issue, their reason for not being too concerned was they thought it was just election hyperbole that will be dropped when he gets to office...
You mentioned NUMA in the post I first replied to. I know hardly anything about it, and have a vague idea that it is a bit like SMP but looser and with fewer synchronisation problems. Is this right, and does it make x86-style interrupts easier?
I think you misunderstand my point. I wasn't suggesting that OS X might be seen as a rival enterprise solution UNIX, but rather that its existence may make an all-UNIX strategy look tenable for companies. If MS doesn't coexist well with UNIX, maybe ditching MS is the right response. The lack of an unintimidating desktop environment used to be a problem with this, maybe OS X will change this.
.NET is real. The technical part has been under development for a while as NGWS, the differences are that this is now being placed as the centrepiece of MS strategy, and that a much higher level of cross-platform interoperability is being envisaged. It's clearly a response to Sun's general strategy, and it differs from it on various levels.
I don't agree. One problem with x86 is that it doesn't scale well. It's much easier to design RISC architectures to make use of SMP and NUMA than try to coax the x86 to do the same.
I agree with the point about the business side, but it doesn't mean we should ignore these reports. For example, Gartner's list of weak OS's probably hasn't increased any of their lifespans.
But seriously, that MS decides to compete with Java on its own terms means that they think the write-once run-anywhere philosophy has more appeal than the ours-is-the-richest-environment-for-any-task they used to pedal. I'm guessing the difficulties they faced making entry into the enterprise, and the generally cool reception that W2k-alpha received is precisely the reason for this change.
The findings seem plausible to me, but they declined to comment on the new MS strategy. A way of looking at the.NET roll-out is that MS have given up their strategy of trying to convert heterogenous systems over to MS only systems, and have attampted to go for peaceful coexistence.
It's a dangerous strategy if OS X takes off, since now there is a UNIX-like OS with a first rate desktop / GUI development environment.
The GPL defends its software development model using copyright law, whilst the MS defence is based on trade secrets. Utterly incomparable from the legal point of view.
There is also a strong pro-Nader constituency on Slashdot, whose platform has a lot in common with McTaggart's, and you don't get to be the Socialist party candidate in the US by having thin skin.
Slashdot Mirror
What does the .NET `framework' promise that the JVM platform doesn't
deliver?
You seem to have missed the point: what is at issue is the platform. .NET `framework' is vaporware. When they do deliver, they have a
The Sun platform is based on the JVM and the JIT compiler. Microsoft
have promised a platform but not delivered. If they don't deliver,
the
lot of ground to make up against Java.
It's possibly your software. Some versions of ghostscript have an error that will mangle PDF. Ghostscript 6.0 doesn't have these problems, so the solution is to upgrade.
ssh2. I've never had or heard of any problem with telnetd, on either
Linux or FreeBSD boxes (except for the usual termcap troubles) so I'm
not sure what you might be talking about.
I haven't had any problems with ssh recently, but I'm pretty
slow to forgive. I guess I should look at openssh.
tend to be very robust. If X has crashed and so has sshd, then telnet
is usually the only way you can kill the offedning processes and
recover the machine.
There are ways to make telnet relatively secure, say by using
Lamport's S/Key.
Hold on: the software isn't banned. Various German government
organisations have restrictions put on them preventing them from
working with companies assocaited with Scientology, but private
individuals and companies are free to make such associations. Some
states in Germany are encouraging companies to adopt similar schemes,
but these schemes are purely voluntary.
but it is not religious persecution as the CoS alleges.
Scientologists are free to publish what they will and try to persuade
others what they will, given the following caveat: if they make a
profit from these activities they are required to register them as a
business. The freedoms have been defended in sevral court cases.
Have a look at the following FAQ about Scientology in Germany for
all the boring little details. The document is partisan, but unlike
the CoS stuff, it keeps to the facts.
dramatic claims which it makes no effort to validate. Check out this link for
some of the earliest claims (with time they become more and more
dramatic).
These claims are objectively testable, but Dianeticians do not
either try to validate them or retract them. When faced with
criticism that these claims are a pack of lies, they try to claim the
criticism is a result of a conspiracy. This is anti-scientific.
Psychiatry is a broad church, with many competing ideas on how to
best treat patients. I don't think the ideas involved in the early
dianetics were whackier than some in the psychological mainstream, but
what differentiates dianetics and scientology is its secrecy and
hostility to criticism.
Good post, though I'm not sure what your talking about with StarOffice
licensing issues... I think OS X might make a UNIX-only environment
look more attractive quite soon.
tested a grey area, namely partial-term abortions (ie. abortions
carried out after labour has started). If the conservatives had won
this one, it would have made not one whit of difference to almost all
abortions; the fact that they lost pretty much shows how strongly the
Supreme Court supports Roe v. Wade.
The first poster is right to say that a Bush vitory will not
threaten Roe v. Wade.
Also many economists are very concerned about the size of the proposed
Bush tax cut, since they believe it will artificially overheat the
economy. I was surprised to see The Economist recently endorsed
Bush's campaign over Gore's: whilst concerned on this issue, their
reason for not being too concerned was they thought it was just
election hyperbole that will be dropped when he gets to office...
You mentioned NUMA in the post I first replied to. I know hardly
anything about it, and have a vague idea that it is a bit like SMP but
looser and with fewer synchronisation problems. Is this right, and
does it make x86-style interrupts easier?
might be seen as a rival enterprise solution UNIX, but rather that its
existence may make an all-UNIX strategy look tenable for companies.
If MS doesn't coexist well with UNIX, maybe ditching MS is the right
response. The lack of an unintimidating desktop environment used to
be a problem with this, maybe OS X will change this.
.NET is real. The technical part has been under development for a
while as NGWS, the differences are that this is now being placed as
the centrepiece of MS strategy, and that a much higher level of
cross-platform interoperability is being envisaged. It's clearly a
response to Sun's general strategy, and it differs from it on various
levels.
I was thinking of the way the x86 handles interrupts. It's a major headache with SMP.
I don't agree. One problem with x86 is that it doesn't scale well.
It's much easier to design RISC architectures to make use of SMP and
NUMA than try to coax the x86 to do the same.
Harping on about the Qt licensing issues after it has been released under the GPL is most certainly petty.
I agree with the point about the business side, but it doesn't mean we
should ignore these reports. For example, Gartner's list of weak OS's
probably hasn't increased any of their lifespans.
But seriously, that MS decides to compete with Java on its own
terms means that they think the write-once run-anywhere philosophy has
more appeal than the ours-is-the-richest-environment-for-any-task they
used to pedal. I'm guessing the difficulties they faced making entry
into the enterprise, and the generally cool reception that W2k-alpha
received is precisely the reason for this change.
new MS strategy. A way of looking at the
have given up their strategy of trying to convert heterogenous systems
over to MS only systems, and have attampted to go for peaceful
coexistence.
It's a dangerous strategy if OS X takes off, since now there is a
UNIX-like OS with a first rate desktop / GUI development environment.
The allusion is deliberate.
The GPL defends its software development model using copyright law,
whilst the MS defence is based on trade secrets. Utterly incomparable
from the legal point of view.
The British government has just the right combination of spinelessness
and crawling to the US to let it pass.
According to issues2000 there are eight candidates.
D'oh! I'll just remove the foot from my mouth...
There is also a strong pro-Nader constituency on Slashdot, whose
platform has a lot in common with McTaggart's, and you don't get to be
the Socialist party candidate in the US by having thin skin.