His point is: US exports certain types of jobs to India, the labour there takes a salary and spends it on American products and services. By that, US imports another certain type of jobs from India.
Conclusion: if you are an American in software development business than you should already investigate what products and services US exports to India. Then take some training classes to get a job in the sector that exports its products to India.
So, what would it be? Weapons perhaps... Well, are you ready to design weapons of mass distruction for Indian forces?
but for now most people who buy G5 machines will stick with OS X.
but for now most people who buy x86 machines will stick with Windows. so what?
but in reality the vast majority of individual Linux boxen will be using x86 based hardware so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
but in reality the vast majority of individual desktop boxen will be using Microsoft based software so I don't think it's that big of a deal to test with Linux anyway.
Sarcasm apart, I think it's a very bad tradition to consider Linux only as for x86 platform. There are Linux users on other non-x86 platforms. Their percentage is most likely not less than the percentage of Linux/86 users among all x86 users. So, the logic of using any percentage here is basically corrupted.
Linux is multiplatform system. Check the kernel source code for the list of all supported platforms. Kernel - because that wat makes it called Linux, the distributions are usually more platform specific. Also Linux is multi-purpose system - it can be used for servers, for embedded systems and for desktops. The list of oticable desktop systems on the market includes at least x86 and PPC platforms. Therefore considering Linux desktop as only Linux/x86 is not more fair than considering desktop OS only as Microsoft Windows.
You should never use Java if you don't have enough resources for it. Java was specially designed for embedded devices with several GHz CPUs and few GB of RAM.
For a regular old 300 MHz PC with 128MB of RAM I can recommend either Python/Tkinter or Tcl/Tk for a language and Emacs for IDE.
As for 100MHz PC with 32MB - I doubt that Mozilla can make on it.
You talk about the stable environment, the system where many applications are already ported.
I was talking about the new system, where just few applications exist besides the kernel and the shell.
Remember? The original post was about Linux on the GameCube, the operating environment that just born and their developers did not have enough time to port all 2,000 linux applications their.
Eventually, after porting the rest of linux applications their, they will use right tool for the right job. But now they are on the really very early stage of their experiments.
So, the source code is not distributed yet, while the binary is distributed. Under GPL. Hmm... I see the direct violation of GPL here. Time to call Richard Stallman...
Seriously, if the source code is not available yet, then
Open history textbooks, specifically American books about the Soviet Union history and Soviet books about the American history. Both are full of propaganda instead of facts. Comparing to that - Wikipedia is the most reliable source of information I can find.
Apart of politics, I can make the same or similar comparison of Wikipedia against corporate sources in area of technology descriptions. Which articles about Linux would you trust: from MSDN or from Wikipedia?
What is wrong with migrating to a replacement for SMTP? What is wrong with developing better challenge/response systems?
Nothing.
If email gets a postage fee applied to it, people will stop using it.
This is the answer on the question "How can we push people to use email/NG or whatever?"
I think we are at begining of what we may call as "the end of email as we know it". I think in few years corporations will move to e-signed electronic messages, following by the home users.
But if MS/Y! will bring the postage to SMTP then I doubt that email/NG will be based on SMTP - most likely people will look for alernative still not-commercialized solutions. Somehow i have a feeling that Jabber have many chances here. But we'll see.
Yes, but the mechanism of rsync treats the data like a black box (i.e. doesn't assume anything), while cvsup knows the structure of cvs file and therefore is faster and more economic.
You talk about insignificant differences for the non-interactive rarely-processed data transfer.
Errm, I have a read a lot of messages saying that CVS must die, more or less recently. I have the impression that most of them people writing so are non-programmers or have never used cvs themselves.
I've done successfully migration of few teams from "no-versioning" to CVS (mostly in the past), as well as (recently) from CVS to better systems (Subversion and Aegis particularly). I know what I am talking about.
Personally, I see some deficiencies with it, but there is no good reason to abandon cvs. It works, and it works reliably, and that is indeed something you can't say about all existing versioning systems...
Aegis is around since 1991. It works, and it works reliably.
...now, what's the story on python and whitespace?
in all (or most of all) other language a whitespace symbol has the only meaning: delimiter between terms. In Python it also has the same meaning, but in addition to it in some situation it has another meaning: when it's used for indenting it is used as a block limiter. Moreover, when it is used that way then you are forced by the parser to use it right - of course once the indentation is a part of the syntax and creates blocks.
You don't have to use indentation and you can still write all the program in one single line, but for some very strange people it is annoying. For me it's ok. I even think that the fact that I still have a choice of coding in one single line or in a human-readable indented format - this choice is a good thing.
Moreover, I think that when it comes to indentation then it's like a "style-check" task in ant - I am forced to use a good syle of indentation and the parser is watching that if I choose to use indentation then I am doing it right way.
The binding indentation to synax is not a bad thing even for automated code generation. For example it is used in Zope and is used without problems.
PCs with 32MB have equal performnce problems with all modern systemss, both commercial and open-sourced. Although in case of open-source, they have more chance of support and *latest* updates from FVWM or like that (which development is not stopped) than from Win-95 (which support is dropped from Microdropt).
However my point is not about 32MB PCs, because as I can see there is lots of much better PC around in developing countries I was visiting. In profitable commercial companies and in goverment agencies 64-128 MB PS are more typical case, and even 256-512MB PCs are are not that rare. 128-256 MB of RAM is enough to run GNOME - I know it from my practice. But even 64Mb PC will run Gnome faster than any Windows.
Memory is cheap today and popularity of morepower PCs is growing in the 3rd world. But license prices of Windows are not dropping and newer versions of Windows are demanding even more power PCs. That's why GNOME, along with open-source software overall, is getting more and more installations in developing countries.
There's no way an experienced Emacs user can beat an experienced vi user in a file editing contest.
Just did. We had to edit many (few thousands) files on several programming languages with several formats of configuration files and with syncronizing of some data elements in those files with few databases.
The vi guy quickly gave up to do it only in vi and finally decided to create Java program that would do all the work of such big refactorying.
I've finished defining and debugging the last macros in elisp before he finished his first Java class. Then we went home to discover morning that my set of macroses finished all the job 2 hours before.
Conclusion: you can type fast in vi, but don't expect typing smart *AND* fast. Smartness is the major reason people love Emacs.
Yes I was refering to Java itself - I don't like the idea to run something that I haven't compiled myself from the source code.
I'd love to trust Sun, but sorry - I have an experience of about tw decades working with Sun's software (Solaris, JVM) and I see how "quick" they are i fixing security bugs. Statistically Open Source fixes similar bugs way much faster (and actually releasing fixes).
Also I don't like the way how Sun controls JVM. If I need something in Python and it's still not there yet and Python core developers have other priorities to work on, then I can add to Python. I can even fork a language if I have to. But the reon why Python still has not been forked yet is because the core team is open and flexible to handle the main branch well. Sorry, I do not have such a comfort with JVM.
If Sun wants to make Java free - then it must be open-sourced in a way allowing independent developers to change it. Or to port it. What's the procedure today to port JVM to some embedded OS (let's say some fork of Linux or BSD which is source-code compatible, but binary incompatible)? That's right - no way untill paying big cash to Sun. With Python there is no such problem - take the source and port it wherever you want.
Freedom is not just about punky-hippie, it's also a freedom to do the business in a way effective even for small companies. With Java there is no such freedom.
You assumptions are correct for normal/regular users, not for security experts.
For security experts there is no such things as a "secure out of the box". The expert will always check all settings, versions and like that. So, for the expert is more like:
either the system is designed to be checked quickly for potential security problems;
or the system is designed to hide potential problems;
For normal user OS X is the good choice as out of the box it's much more secure than Windows. But "more" doesn't mean "absolutely". That's why I expect Security experts to use Linux and BSD boxes, which are designed "out of the box" to be diagnosted quickly and relaibly.
P.S. The article and many people here are using "Mac" word when it comes to security. It's incorrect. The Mac hardware has nothing to do with security problems. All of the such problems are coming from OS. Macs can run several operating systems:
OS X - secure out of the box for regular user, but certainly not for security experts;
OS 7/8/9 Classic - even less secure than Windows!
Linux - secure for security experts (after personal double-checking), but it's not safe to use by badly-qualified pseudo-sysadmins;
BSD - same as Linux above.
One of reasons I'll never consider OS X as "secure enough for security experts" is b/c it's in binaries. I trust only software, which binaries I compiled myself from the source code. Period. That's why I am typing it from Gentoo/PPC running on my G4:)
FBI security guys are using Macs because, 'those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box'.
If FBI security guys are using Macs becausethey're secure out of the box then none of them have any chances to be hired to work in MIS in any company that cares about its security. I don't say that there anything wrong with OSX per se (which is a subject of another discussion). But I do believe that real surity guys are supposed to make their system secure no matter if it's secure out of the box or not.
I knew that there is no smart people in FBI, but I didn't expect to see it published in so explicit way. And those guys are supposed to protect America from terrorists?!? Ha-ha-ha! The only protection Americans have is even bigger ignorance of terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Conclusion: if you are an American in software development business than you should already investigate what products and services US exports to India. Then take some training classes to get a job in the sector that exports its products to India.
So, what would it be? Weapons perhaps... Well, are you ready to design weapons of mass distruction for Indian forces?
but for now most people who buy x86 machines will stick with Windows. so what?
but in reality the vast majority of individual Linux boxen will be using x86 based hardware so I don't think it's that big of a deal.
but in reality the vast majority of individual desktop boxen will be using Microsoft based software so I don't think it's that big of a deal to test with Linux anyway.
Sarcasm apart, I think it's a very bad tradition to consider Linux only as for x86 platform. There are Linux users on other non-x86 platforms. Their percentage is most likely not less than the percentage of Linux/86 users among all x86 users. So, the logic of using any percentage here is basically corrupted.
Linux is multiplatform system. Check the kernel source code for the list of all supported platforms. Kernel - because that wat makes it called Linux, the distributions are usually more platform specific. Also Linux is multi-purpose system - it can be used for servers, for embedded systems and for desktops. The list of oticable desktop systems on the market includes at least x86 and PPC platforms. Therefore considering Linux desktop as only Linux/x86 is not more fair than considering desktop OS only as Microsoft Windows.
He is a part of the marketing machine, not of real technologies. Well, this world is driven by over-abused marketing.
For a regular old 300 MHz PC with 128MB of RAM I can recommend either Python/Tkinter or Tcl/Tk for a language and Emacs for IDE.
As for 100MHz PC with 32MB - I doubt that Mozilla can make on it.
I was talking about the new system, where just few applications exist besides the kernel and the shell.
Remember? The original post was about Linux on the GameCube, the operating environment that just born and their developers did not have enough time to port all 2,000 linux applications their.
Eventually, after porting the rest of linux applications their, they will use right tool for the right job. But now they are on the really very early stage of their experiments.
Be more patient. And less snobish.
Seriously, if the source code is not available yet, then
It doesn't link to system dlls - it is distributed with system specific dlls.
Still think that it is open source?
Let me put it even more straight for you:
Downloading, untar.gzippining, looking for the source code among all those x86 dlls, still looking, ... not found!
Hey! Either stop lying that it is 100% open source or publish a compilable source. Now!
ssh is better for stable environment, telnet is better for the research lab.
Apart of politics, I can make the same or similar comparison of Wikipedia against corporate sources in area of technology descriptions. Which articles about Linux would you trust: from MSDN or from Wikipedia?
Nothing.
If email gets a postage fee applied to it, people will stop using it.
This is the answer on the question "How can we push people to use email/NG or whatever?"
I think we are at begining of what we may call as "the end of email as we know it". I think in few years corporations will move to e-signed electronic messages, following by the home users.
But if MS/Y! will bring the postage to SMTP then I doubt that email/NG will be based on SMTP - most likely people will look for alernative still not-commercialized solutions. Somehow i have a feeling that Jabber have many chances here. But we'll see.
You talk about insignificant differences for the non-interactive rarely-processed data transfer.
Errm, I have a read a lot of messages saying that CVS must die, more or less recently. I have the impression that most of them people writing so are non-programmers or have never used cvs themselves.
I've done successfully migration of few teams from "no-versioning" to CVS (mostly in the past), as well as (recently) from CVS to better systems (Subversion and Aegis particularly). I know what I am talking about.
Personally, I see some deficiencies with it, but there is no good reason to abandon cvs. It works, and it works reliably, and that is indeed something you can't say about all existing versioning systems...
Aegis is around since 1991. It works, and it works reliably.
rsync'ing in Portage is not hardcoded to use CVS - it can sync trees originated/exported from any other versioning system too.
Stick to OS X - it will barely go out of its niche.
I can imagine other Java products from Sun too, like JavaCPU (former Sparc).
Check Zope and Plone
in all (or most of all) other language a whitespace symbol has the only meaning: delimiter between terms. In Python it also has the same meaning, but in addition to it in some situation it has another meaning: when it's used for indenting it is used as a block limiter. Moreover, when it is used that way then you are forced by the parser to use it right - of course once the indentation is a part of the syntax and creates blocks.
You don't have to use indentation and you can still write all the program in one single line, but for some very strange people it is annoying. For me it's ok. I even think that the fact that I still have a choice of coding in one single line or in a human-readable indented format - this choice is a good thing.
Moreover, I think that when it comes to indentation then it's like a "style-check" task in ant - I am forced to use a good syle of indentation and the parser is watching that if I choose to use indentation then I am doing it right way.
The binding indentation to synax is not a bad thing even for automated code generation. For example it is used in Zope and is used without problems.
- Sun will break compatibility with old versions of JVM again;
- Kaffe developers will be choosing between trying to catch modern JVM or to fork it;
- Python will be developed even further as a language;
- More developers will migrate from Java to Python;
- Zope, Twisted and Gentoo projects will gain even more popularity;
- IBM will be supporting Python even more than now;
- More big software players will support Python;
- More big python projects will come;
- Finally, Sun will sue all attempts to fork Java, including Kaffe;
I guess it won't imporve chances of Java in a long term. I would say even in mid-term. For some of us even in short-termHowever my point is not about 32MB PCs, because as I can see there is lots of much better PC around in developing countries I was visiting. In profitable commercial companies and in goverment agencies 64-128 MB PS are more typical case, and even 256-512MB PCs are are not that rare. 128-256 MB of RAM is enough to run GNOME - I know it from my practice. But even 64Mb PC will run Gnome faster than any Windows.
Memory is cheap today and popularity of morepower PCs is growing in the 3rd world. But license prices of Windows are not dropping and newer versions of Windows are demanding even more power PCs. That's why GNOME, along with open-source software overall, is getting more and more installations in developing countries.
Just did. We had to edit many (few thousands) files on several programming languages with several formats of configuration files and with syncronizing of some data elements in those files with few databases.
The vi guy quickly gave up to do it only in vi and finally decided to create Java program that would do all the work of such big refactorying.
I've finished defining and debugging the last macros in elisp before he finished his first Java class. Then we went home to discover morning that my set of macroses finished all the job 2 hours before.
Conclusion: you can type fast in vi, but don't expect typing smart *AND* fast. Smartness is the major reason people love Emacs.
Not if you run Linux on that Amiga. Wherever I run Linux I have Emacs.
I'd love to trust Sun, but sorry - I have an experience of about tw decades working with Sun's software (Solaris, JVM) and I see how "quick" they are i fixing security bugs. Statistically Open Source fixes similar bugs way much faster (and actually releasing fixes).
Also I don't like the way how Sun controls JVM. If I need something in Python and it's still not there yet and Python core developers have other priorities to work on, then I can add to Python. I can even fork a language if I have to. But the reon why Python still has not been forked yet is because the core team is open and flexible to handle the main branch well. Sorry, I do not have such a comfort with JVM.
If Sun wants to make Java free - then it must be open-sourced in a way allowing independent developers to change it. Or to port it. What's the procedure today to port JVM to some embedded OS (let's say some fork of Linux or BSD which is source-code compatible, but binary incompatible)? That's right - no way untill paying big cash to Sun. With Python there is no such problem - take the source and port it wherever you want.
Freedom is not just about punky-hippie, it's also a freedom to do the business in a way effective even for small companies. With Java there is no such freedom.
For security experts there is no such things as a "secure out of the box". The expert will always check all settings, versions and like that. So, for the expert is more like:
- either the system is designed to be checked quickly for potential security problems;
- or the system is designed to hide potential problems;
For normal user OS X is the good choice as out of the box it's much more secure than Windows. But "more" doesn't mean "absolutely". That's why I expect Security experts to use Linux and BSD boxes, which are designed "out of the box" to be diagnosted quickly and relaibly.P.S. The article and many people here are using "Mac" word when it comes to security. It's incorrect. The Mac hardware has nothing to do with security problems. All of the such problems are coming from OS. Macs can run several operating systems:
- OS X - secure out of the box for regular user, but certainly not for security experts;
- OS 7/8/9 Classic - even less secure than Windows!
- Linux - secure for security experts (after personal double-checking), but it's not safe to use by badly-qualified pseudo-sysadmins;
- BSD - same as Linux above.
One of reasons I'll never consider OS X as "secure enough for security experts" is b/c it's in binaries. I trust only software, which binaries I compiled myself from the source code. Period. That's why I am typing it from Gentoo/PPC running on my G4If FBI security guys are using Macs because they're secure out of the box then none of them have any chances to be hired to work in MIS in any company that cares about its security. I don't say that there anything wrong with OSX per se (which is a subject of another discussion). But I do believe that real surity guys are supposed to make their system secure no matter if it's secure out of the box or not.
I knew that there is no smart people in FBI, but I didn't expect to see it published in so explicit way. And those guys are supposed to protect America from terrorists?!? Ha-ha-ha! The only protection Americans have is even bigger ignorance of terrorists.