Wow, lots of possibilities. I especially liked the wood case people- _damn_ that stuff is incredible! Obscenely luxurious. It must cost the earth:) I kept thinking of a crazed steel framework thing- you'd have to like the sounds of drives whining (2 IBM SCSI drives here) but it might provide useful information on what they're up to (read: chris is apparently an ultranerd;) ) Currently I'm doing the opposite- I have a dualboot Mac and have treated the inside of the case with strips of duct tape, each of which has a string of Mortite down it. Damping each panel made the case very quiet. The steel frame (or copper tubing, that's fun to do with pipe fittings and a torch and solder:) ) is the opposite- might be cool enough to actually do, the only comparable hack I saw was the picture of a sort of skeletal PC. However, the cooling isn't as good as it might be- and why on earth replicate the configuration of a boring PC box?? Seems crazy to me! Instead have all the drives sticking off in different directions, motherboard mostly flat, power supply several feet away etc etc etc. Make it _sculpture_ or don't make it at all... the only reason to have such a skeletal computermonster is to redefine what the machine is, and that means arranging the parts differently. If I do this I'll certainly have pictures... of course, I think if I have pictures of it running, I'm almost obligated to show it running boxstock MacOS:) as a sort of whimsical joke. Though it'd look more integrated running linuxppc, console or WindowMaker:)
Race with the Dev^W^WJon Katz on Linux Highway
on
LinuxPPC at MacWorld
·
· Score: 1
*hehehe* Well, I'm trying to get LinuxPPC up and running. It's entertaining to see those dos boot screens on my trinitron:) Initial notes: Use BootX. BootX clearly rules. It's beautifully simple. Use Mac tools to partition the disk you want. Seriously- nothing in Linux is half as elegant as plain old Drive Setup- make a bunch of partitions (I made 5, including an HFS partition) and size them in Drive Setup, with the handy slider cursor. Then when you use fdisk (actually it's gdisk) in the Linux install, look at all the partitions, _write_ them down if you need to (there ain't no scrollback! No amenities at all. Though there's now a MacOS SIOW implementation of this which does have scrollback). Anyway, in pdisk, delete the Mac partition corresponding to the Unix partition you want to create- then make a new one with _exactly_ the same numbers for start and length. Tadah! The install isn't incredibly hard, though it borders on incredibly awkward. But there's amusement value in puttering DOSishly around in a Macintosh:) I hate to say it, but so far I haven't beat Jon Katz to running actual Linux. Why? kmod: failed t(obscured by dialog) comps file is not 0 as expected kernel panic- kernel access of (dead?) area pcc002c4e4 I'm starting the whole process from scratch, on the assumption that my install folder was totally hosed because Fetch knew how to uncompress gzip files on post-processing. I worked out that I had to redownload the ramdisk, but that was _not_ the only gzip, and I have a hunch that something else needed to remain zipped up neatly. (Note: when downloading these things, try disabling _all_ post processing, then unHQXing and unstuffing Mac apps as needed, leaving all zips strictly alone) I look forward to relentlessly solving all this- and will be getting a beater PC to practice the installing on x86 (of a sort;) ) as well. Nice ta join you all:) ...for some values of 'join'. Use BootX! BootX rules! BootX lets you dualboot with ostentatious ease, total Macish simplicity and elegance, and LinuxPPC apparently lets you access HFS volumes (cool!) Be sure to name the HFS partition something Linux can comprehend. I believe that means a little short word that's all lowercase. Be seeing you!:)
Reading some of these replies is positively disturbing. I'm with the entrepreneur who said he was finding people with the same outlook and working with them, not with some corporate borg. I'm there- I'm trying to pick up a lot of knowledge, with very little formal training, because it interests me and because I have to- we don't have anyone else competent, so I have to spearhead the drive to understand Unix, and be part of the braintrust that's forming around a nifty (to us) concept. I'm a $20 an hour mac tech in a little Vermont town. This is outlandish- but I'll tell you why it's me in that position. It's because the person with the entrepreneurial dream, who is my boss, has a sense of honor, and I'm ready to gamble that he'll hang on to it adequately. I have bought shop equipment and paid him money when I was _owed_ by the shop- because we needed the financial liquidity- there was no Boss, no Employees, it was a question of paying rent on time or having Boss make excuses, and we don't _want_ to sleaze on the rent, dammit. I realize many people are surprised, as their attitude is 'if you _can_ sleaze on the rent, then you haven't reached the real due date, keep your money'... dishonesty runs deep in the new ruthlessness... but if you think that, you're overlooking someone. I'm cooperating with someone who isn't going to betray me. He is cooperating with someone who isn't going to betray him. If we, working together, can do better than we could do separately, then by God I'm gonna do that, and will sweat blood to make sure I don't let 'us' down... and I'm going to keep very, very aware of the inevitable people who blow through our field of vision who are faithless and would just sell us out in a nanosecond. Yes: it's asinine to be loyal to a faithless cause. But it is my firm opinion that faithless causes are losers- that they are doomed to collapse, horribly inefficient: they are the 'proprietary software' of business interactions, and it won't be righteous moralism that crushes this wave of ruthlessness- it'll be the hard edge of reality slamming down, leaving individuals hosed with no futures and no friends or allies, leaving businesses hosed with no decent employees left and no money to buy quality mercenaries anymore. It's just too damned easy to hurt the ruthless. You just survive, keep faith with those you can trust, and wait for a chink in the armor... So I'm waiting, hanging in there with my boss and our fellow techs. We tend to ease out people who don't relate with the trust and honesty thing, and latch onto those with promise... it's purely self-defense, really. Taking the ruthless attitude within our little startup is poison. We've got people absolutely raving about us, mind you they don't always pay on time but our attitude _is_ noticed. My only regret is how obscenely few of you Slashdotters, whom I'd think would be great matches for a neat idealistic startup involving Linux or at least Unix, would fit in here. But some of you would... probably the ones who contribute code and actually _do_ things to help open source. Once more: where does Open Source fit with this ruthless motif? Why would anybody even care? Is it purely an auditing the code thing? I really don't think pragmatism was the only motivation for this stuff... it remains to be seen whether Open Source can survive in an atmosphere of total cynicism and ruthlessness of its own advocates. Wouldn't it be better to just get MCSEs, extort tons of money from some rich corporation, get rich and die?;P
I make basically diddly working in tech support, but I'm working for/with a nifty Quaker boss, and we're gradually accumulating other techies who are actually clued. We do have future plans. The important thing is, we're basically flying in the face of the current job scene. We _care_, by choice, and it's a continuing choice- trust isn't easy, but we're all in the same boat. The ruthless motif is doomed. Who the _hell_ wants to do business with untrustworthy, ruthless people? Who really _wants_ to be used up and thrown out, or to depend on someone or something that's only out for what they can get away with? This is a dead end, an extreme swing in attitude (which I think can be traced back to MS's eternal attitude), and it CAN'T LAST. Cooperation has _advantages_. Functioning in a society has _advantages_. Cutting both of those things away and leaving everyone from the temps to the company itself scrambling ruthlessly for the next profitable betrayal has _costs_ that are not being considered at all. LOOK at an example such as Intel, and the FACE Intel website, for a picture of what happens when you go fully 'modern' with this approach to work. Reading that website, does Intel sound like a place with a future? No, it sounds like it is fscking going down in _flames_, man, and the sick thing is that nobody cares or wants to help because Intel hasn't given anyone a reason to like them other than being the 800 lb gorilla- there's no cooperation or social awareness within the industry for them, it's all what they can get away with, and people are sick to death of playing that game. People who seriously believe this ruthless attitude defines the future are deluded and uneducated. It's been tried many times in many contexts, and it _loses_. Your individuals end up so busy taking care of themselves that they WASTE TIME which could be spent providing some cooperative benefit, in doing things that other people could be helping them with, simply because they don't trust anybody and won't believe in a social interaction that can't be crushed by something ruthless coming along, so they won't even _try_ working with others and daring to risk contributing to a larger whole. Isn't it kind of odd that the people ranting about how the new ruthlessness is the future, are doing so on a site which advocates open source cooperativeness and the abandonment of this ruthlessness regarding _code_? Why shouldn't 'open source' work just as well on the personal level- a _GPLish_ (not 'public domain') type, in which you trust only the trustworthy, but will go to the wall for them, and vice versa? If you think I'm going to trust any of these merry ruthless child posters, you're out of your fscking mind- but I _will_ find other people who wish to cooperate in something, and I _will_ go to any length to justify their faith in me. But you gotta earn that, you gotta earn it and talking ruthless does nothing to suggest you are honorable and trustworthy- it suggests you are unscrupulous and dishonest- and if you think that's gonna win in the long run, man, you're gonna be alone out there, and I'm not fool enough to give you a hand on your inevitable way down. I will be busy giving a hand to the many people, including all Open Source programmers, who were willing to set aside ruthlessness and risk helping _ME_. And if you choose to scorn that I can only honor that choice... and let you die, free, proud, and trusted by no-one. So, in conclusion: Katz is right- but what he's not telling you (and perhaps doesn't know himself) is that the behavior he's protesting is a losing game, and ironically the people he's writing to, the ones who love and hate and argue with him, are a fine example of one way to put that behavior aside and return to the more successful behaviors of trust and cooperation. I hope he can see that. More than that, I hope enough Slashdot readers remember that, and remember the social ethic which underlies our open source licenses- and perhaps also the twist that defines the GPL itself- it's great to cooperate, but it's also damned useful to _demand_ it. If you can't play nice, maybe you oughta hit the road... I hear Intel is hiring, after a new round of layoffs >;)
I was... and you're talking nonsense. How old are you? Granted, it's not terribly important now, but let's not be rewriting history, shall we? Too Microsoftian, and really bad form for open source peoples:)
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, lots of possibilities. I especially liked the wood case people- _damn_ that stuff is incredible! Obscenely luxurious. It must cost the earth :) ;) ) :) ) is the opposite- might be cool enough to actually do, the only comparable hack I saw was the picture of a sort of skeletal PC. However, the cooling isn't as good as it might be- and why on earth replicate the configuration of a boring PC box?? Seems crazy to me! Instead have all the drives sticking off in different directions, motherboard mostly flat, power supply several feet away etc etc etc. Make it _sculpture_ or don't make it at all... the only reason to have such a skeletal computermonster is to redefine what the machine is, and that means arranging the parts differently. If I do this I'll certainly have pictures... of course, I think if I have pictures of it running, I'm almost obligated to show it running boxstock MacOS :) as a sort of whimsical joke. Though it'd look more integrated running linuxppc, console or WindowMaker :)
I kept thinking of a crazed steel framework thing- you'd have to like the sounds of drives whining (2 IBM SCSI drives here) but it might provide useful information on what they're up to (read: chris is apparently an ultranerd
Currently I'm doing the opposite- I have a dualboot Mac and have treated the inside of the case with strips of duct tape, each of which has a string of Mortite down it. Damping each panel made the case very quiet.
The steel frame (or copper tubing, that's fun to do with pipe fittings and a torch and solder
*hehehe* :) :) ;) ) as well. Nice ta join you all :) :)
Well, I'm trying to get LinuxPPC up and running. It's entertaining to see those dos boot screens on my trinitron
Initial notes:
Use BootX. BootX clearly rules. It's beautifully simple.
Use Mac tools to partition the disk you want. Seriously- nothing in Linux is half as elegant as plain old Drive Setup- make a bunch of partitions (I made 5, including an HFS partition) and size them in Drive Setup, with the handy slider cursor. Then when you use fdisk (actually it's gdisk) in the Linux install, look at all the partitions, _write_ them down if you need to (there ain't no scrollback! No amenities at all. Though there's now a MacOS SIOW implementation of this which does have scrollback). Anyway, in pdisk, delete the Mac partition corresponding to the Unix partition you want to create- then make a new one with _exactly_ the same numbers for start and length. Tadah!
The install isn't incredibly hard, though it borders on incredibly awkward. But there's amusement value in puttering DOSishly around in a Macintosh
I hate to say it, but so far I haven't beat Jon Katz to running actual Linux. Why?
kmod: failed t(obscured by dialog)
comps file is not 0 as expected
kernel panic- kernel access of (dead?) area pcc002c4e4
I'm starting the whole process from scratch, on the assumption that my install folder was totally hosed because Fetch knew how to uncompress gzip files on post-processing. I worked out that I had to redownload the ramdisk, but that was _not_ the only gzip, and I have a hunch that something else needed to remain zipped up neatly. (Note: when downloading these things, try disabling _all_ post processing, then unHQXing and unstuffing Mac apps as needed, leaving all zips strictly alone)
I look forward to relentlessly solving all this- and will be getting a beater PC to practice the installing on x86 (of a sort
...for some values of 'join'. Use BootX! BootX rules! BootX lets you dualboot with ostentatious ease, total Macish simplicity and elegance, and LinuxPPC apparently lets you access HFS volumes (cool!) Be sure to name the HFS partition something Linux can comprehend. I believe that means a little short word that's all lowercase.
Be seeing you!
Reading some of these replies is positively disturbing. ;P
I'm with the entrepreneur who said he was finding people with the same outlook and working with them, not with some corporate borg. I'm there- I'm trying to pick up a lot of knowledge, with very little formal training, because it interests me and because I have to- we don't have anyone else competent, so I have to spearhead the drive to understand Unix, and be part of the braintrust that's forming around a nifty (to us) concept.
I'm a $20 an hour mac tech in a little Vermont town. This is outlandish- but I'll tell you why it's me in that position.
It's because the person with the entrepreneurial dream, who is my boss, has a sense of honor, and I'm ready to gamble that he'll hang on to it adequately. I have bought shop equipment and paid him money when I was _owed_ by the shop- because we needed the financial liquidity- there was no Boss, no Employees, it was a question of paying rent on time or having Boss make excuses, and we don't _want_ to sleaze on the rent, dammit.
I realize many people are surprised, as their attitude is 'if you _can_ sleaze on the rent, then you haven't reached the real due date, keep your money'... dishonesty runs deep in the new ruthlessness... but if you think that, you're overlooking someone.
I'm cooperating with someone who isn't going to betray me.
He is cooperating with someone who isn't going to betray him.
If we, working together, can do better than we could do separately, then by God I'm gonna do that, and will sweat blood to make sure I don't let 'us' down... and I'm going to keep very, very aware of the inevitable people who blow through our field of vision who are faithless and would just sell us out in a nanosecond.
Yes: it's asinine to be loyal to a faithless cause. But it is my firm opinion that faithless causes are losers- that they are doomed to collapse, horribly inefficient: they are the 'proprietary software' of business interactions, and it won't be righteous moralism that crushes this wave of ruthlessness- it'll be the hard edge of reality slamming down, leaving individuals hosed with no futures and no friends or allies, leaving businesses hosed with no decent employees left and no money to buy quality mercenaries anymore.
It's just too damned easy to hurt the ruthless. You just survive, keep faith with those you can trust, and wait for a chink in the armor...
So I'm waiting, hanging in there with my boss and our fellow techs. We tend to ease out people who don't relate with the trust and honesty thing, and latch onto those with promise... it's purely self-defense, really. Taking the ruthless attitude within our little startup is poison. We've got people absolutely raving about us, mind you they don't always pay on time but our attitude _is_ noticed.
My only regret is how obscenely few of you Slashdotters, whom I'd think would be great matches for a neat idealistic startup involving Linux or at least Unix, would fit in here. But some of you would... probably the ones who contribute code and actually _do_ things to help open source.
Once more: where does Open Source fit with this ruthless motif? Why would anybody even care? Is it purely an auditing the code thing? I really don't think pragmatism was the only motivation for this stuff... it remains to be seen whether Open Source can survive in an atmosphere of total cynicism and ruthlessness of its own advocates. Wouldn't it be better to just get MCSEs, extort tons of money from some rich corporation, get rich and die?
I make basically diddly working in tech support, but I'm working for/with a nifty Quaker boss, and we're gradually accumulating other techies who are actually clued. We do have future plans. The important thing is, we're basically flying in the face of the current job scene. We _care_, by choice, and it's a continuing choice- trust isn't easy, but we're all in the same boat.
The ruthless motif is doomed. Who the _hell_ wants to do business with untrustworthy, ruthless people? Who really _wants_ to be used up and thrown out, or to depend on someone or something that's only out for what they can get away with? This is a dead end, an extreme swing in attitude (which I think can be traced back to MS's eternal attitude), and it CAN'T LAST. Cooperation has _advantages_. Functioning in a society has _advantages_. Cutting both of those things away and leaving everyone from the temps to the company itself scrambling ruthlessly for the next profitable betrayal has _costs_ that are not being considered at all. LOOK at an example such as Intel, and the FACE Intel website, for a picture of what happens when you go fully 'modern' with this approach to work. Reading that website, does Intel sound like a place with a future? No, it sounds like it is fscking going down in _flames_, man, and the sick thing is that nobody cares or wants to help because Intel hasn't given anyone a reason to like them other than being the 800 lb gorilla- there's no cooperation or social awareness within the industry for them, it's all what they can get away with, and people are sick to death of playing that game.
People who seriously believe this ruthless attitude defines the future are deluded and uneducated. It's been tried many times in many contexts, and it _loses_. Your individuals end up so busy taking care of themselves that they WASTE TIME which could be spent providing some cooperative benefit, in doing things that other people could be helping them with, simply because they don't trust anybody and won't believe in a social interaction that can't be crushed by something ruthless coming along, so they won't even _try_ working with others and daring to risk contributing to a larger whole.
Isn't it kind of odd that the people ranting about how the new ruthlessness is the future, are doing so on a site which advocates open source cooperativeness and the abandonment of this ruthlessness regarding _code_? Why shouldn't 'open source' work just as well on the personal level- a _GPLish_ (not 'public domain') type, in which you trust only the trustworthy, but will go to the wall for them, and vice versa? If you think I'm going to trust any of these merry ruthless child posters, you're out of your fscking mind- but I _will_ find other people who wish to cooperate in something, and I _will_ go to any length to justify their faith in me. But you gotta earn that, you gotta earn it and talking ruthless does nothing to suggest you are honorable and trustworthy- it suggests you are unscrupulous and dishonest- and if you think that's gonna win in the long run, man, you're gonna be alone out there, and I'm not fool enough to give you a hand on your inevitable way down.
I will be busy giving a hand to the many people, including all Open Source programmers, who were willing to set aside ruthlessness and risk helping _ME_. And if you choose to scorn that I can only honor that choice... and let you die, free, proud, and trusted by no-one.
So, in conclusion: Katz is right- but what he's not telling you (and perhaps doesn't know himself) is that the behavior he's protesting is a losing game, and ironically the people he's writing to, the ones who love and hate and argue with him, are a fine example of one way to put that behavior aside and return to the more successful behaviors of trust and cooperation.
I hope he can see that. More than that, I hope enough Slashdot readers remember that, and remember the social ethic which underlies our open source licenses- and perhaps also the twist that defines the GPL itself- it's great to cooperate, but it's also damned useful to _demand_ it. If you can't play nice, maybe you oughta hit the road... I hear Intel is hiring, after a new round of layoffs >;)
I was... and you're talking nonsense. How old are you? :)
Granted, it's not terribly important now, but let's not be rewriting history, shall we? Too Microsoftian, and really bad form for open source peoples