<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
I just couldn't help but think of that.:) (#5273)
And BTW, if I may say so, your mother's quite cool if she has a Roomba and knows how to use IMs. I can't imagine mine ever doing either.
KDE and gnome already do have the same backend, namely, X. That may sound trivial, but I'm not sure what the fundamental difference would be with the adoption of a common vector-based backend (outside of the fact that it *would* be vector-based, of course).
In related news, it was also announced that being alife exposes you to the very serious threat of dying. Gosling was quoted as saying that the lack of a proper cure for dying meant that science had failed, and also accused god of an inherently buggy design, demanding that life be stopped immediately so everyone could go back to a safe state of un-existance.
And honestly, I am computer savvy, but I am not even sure if there are still many different versions/releases of linux outhere, where to get them from, wether they are free or I gotta buy them
Forgive me for being so blunt, but... I think considering that statement, it's reasonably safe to say you're not as computer-savvy as you might think.:)
Maybe, but there is a significant difference: Solaris 2.6 is a relatively ancient release by now, having been released about 7,5 years ago (August 1997). Windows XP, on the other hand, is much younger (first released September 2001), and if I buy a new computer now, I'd expect SP2 to be installed already, too, which is only six months old.
That being said, I think Solaris 2.6 will actually get more secure again in the future, simply because the number of people who know how to attack it will decrease. I remember an anecdote about someone who brought a box with a default install of SINIX (sorry, no info on which version) to a Chaos Computer Congress years ago; according to that story, he hooked it up to the network and told people that whoever would be able to root it first could keep it. Noone managed to, however, because it was too obscure (one might add that he didn't reveal any details about what OS was on it etc., of course). It may be an urban myth, but it was told to me by a friend who actually attends the Congress every year, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was true.
You may be right in that regard when it comes to Linux and other OSes that run on a PC, but I think a significant number of people (at least, those that own a computer, no matter how savvy they are) know that there *is* such a thing as a Mac and that it is different from a PC.
Of course, even many people that know there are Macs probably won't consider one and go with a windows PC instead simply because it's what they know from work/school/the library/friends/computer magazines etc.
In Slashdot terms, that article was Interesting, but not Informative, and certainly not Insightful. It basically boils down to two things:
PCs (running Windows) suck.
Macs are better in every regard.
What it does not provide, though, unfortunately, is an attempt to explain why that actually is the case. The author goes on to dismiss every attempt that has been made to explain just why Windows is still so dominant (like "Macs are too expensive") - or, for that matter, why Windows is (still!) so inherently insecure (like "Macs have no viri because they are not an attractive target") -, but he doesn't even attempt to offer other reasons for these things. Rather, he just says "these are what I claim to be the facts, they're contradictive, but I'm not gonna explain it".
Considering the article's title ("Why Does Windows Still Suck?") promises an explanation, that's rather unfortunate, and I'm afraid I have to conclude it's just praise for the Mac with little to no informational value, and minor goof-ups like confusing PCs with "PCs that run Windows" just make it even more clear that this is not an objective comparison or explanation attempt.
No matter whether "trusted" computing means that you cannot run binaries not signed by a 3rd party, or whether it means you cannot run binaries not signed by someone (with a configurable key), or whether it just means that unsigned binaries simply won't be "trusted" (but will still run)... what about scripting languages? The whole debate seems to revolve around the users' ability to sign new binaries (presumably created after modifications are made to the source), but what about languages that don't compile code to binaries, anyway?
Would "trusted" computing mean that it's not possible to write a "trusted" program in Perl, for example? The example of a system administrator in a large network locking down machines so that they can't be taken over (easily) seems to be given often, but what good would locking down machines be if you can't use Perl programs, for example? It may not be a problem when you just have windows-based desktops where you don't expect to run more than outlook, word and excel, but not every large network is like that (and one that solely consists of windows machines probably has more serious issues, anyway.;))
The problem really is that you have only two choices: either you sign the Perl (or whatever) binaries (in which case any Perl program will, basically, run as a "trusted" application, since from the system's point of view, the script that Perl loads is just another piece of data), or you don't, in which case no Perl program will be trusted at all.
Plug-ins, dynamic libraries etc. may also well be a similar problem; the idea that an application always consists of a single monolithic piece of machine code simply isn't true. Most of the times, it'll be several pieces, and some of those may not even be machine code to start with.
Well, it doesn't matter whether you start with GRUB (or LILO or the OS/2 Boot Manager whatever) or the BIOS - you still have to start *somewhere*. As long as the chip just has to accept whatever data it is being sent, I think you will be able to get around it - and even if you give the chip (or, more generally, the TPCA subsystem) more "control" (no matter how that's realized technically), it will still have to rely on data provided by external sensors, and there simply is no way to *really* verify that data.
If you have ever watched the movie "Dark Star", you'll know what I mean (and if you haven't, shame on you! go check it out!:)).
And inviolability (is that even a word?:))... that won't happen, either. Preventing (easy) flashing of the BIOS only makes sense as long as the user does not know how to use a soldering iron. Yes, you still need the knowledge necessary to create a replacement BIOS, too, of course, but that, ultimately, won't be anything the end-user has to worry about, just like you don't have to worry about all the technical details if you just want to get Linux to run on your xbox. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that soon enough, someone would come up with a something that allows end users to patch their hardware (so to speak) without the need for even a soldering iron.
You gotta love contradictions. The first article states that the current version of the GPL is "2.2", which was "released August 2004"; the interview with Linus states that the GPL is supposed to undergo its "first revision in 13 years".
Obviously, both statement's can't be true at the same time. What's correct now? (And considering that the articles are from the same publication, doesn't anyone actually *check* what's written for factual accuracy before it goes live?)
Point - that's something one shouldn't assume. But I don't believe *everyone* understands that - don't underestimate the number of genuinely stupid people there are.
A formalised promise that both parties actively and explicitely agreed to uphold. I see what your point is, of course, but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to argue for Sun that the statement wasn't actually meant the way it was understood, that the one who made the statement did not have the necessary authority to make such a statement on behalf of Sun, or something else.
If the company (i.e., someone who without doubt *is* authorized to act on its behalf) signs a written contract with an actual third party, though (as opposed to the somewhat nebulous "general public", "free software developers" or whoever the promise would address), they would find it much more difficult to argue like that (although they probably still would try).
Oh, yes, there is a difference, of course. It's just that when you realize that burning a flag in different contexts means different things, you also realize that it's not actually the act as such that is tried to be made illegal, but rather the expression of an opinion.
And that makes it easier to see what the real motives behind legislation like that are - it's an argument supposed to make people think and realize that the FUD spread is just that. FUD.
I'd much rather burn a picture of shrub than a flag, but unfortunately, I think that might earn me a free trip to camp x-ray.
As for the flag itself, well, it's just a piece of cloth (or whatever it's made of), and while most people will whole-heartedly support the actual principles it is supposed to represent, one cannot deny that it does not only represent those but also a number of other, much less pleasant things associated with US-american politics (and politicians), so I think burning a flag is an understandable action, especially when you take into account that a good part of the reason why someone does it will also be the shock value. Sometimes, it's necessary to do things that may be viewed as radical or outrageous to draw attention to an important point that would otherwise be lost or ignored.
That being said, it's good to hear that there are still people out there who understand that "I don't like this" is not the same as "this should be made illegal".
But of course, just to make it clear, it *also* does not mean "it's not illegal but the government will look the other way if someone happens to be beaten up or harassed or whatever else", either.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to understand the meaning of that question. :)
I just couldn't help but think of that. :) (#5273)
And BTW, if I may say so, your mother's quite cool if she has a Roomba and knows how to use IMs. I can't imagine mine ever doing either.
KDE and gnome already do have the same backend, namely, X. That may sound trivial, but I'm not sure what the fundamental difference would be with the adoption of a common vector-based backend (outside of the fact that it *would* be vector-based, of course).
In related news, it was also announced that being alife exposes you to the very serious threat of dying. Gosling was quoted as saying that the lack of a proper cure for dying meant that science had failed, and also accused god of an inherently buggy design, demanding that life be stopped immediately so everyone could go back to a safe state of un-existance.
I don't think I've ever seen a network stack "pop up"...
Forgive me for being so blunt, but... I think considering that statement, it's reasonably safe to say you're not as computer-savvy as you might think. :)
Maybe, but there is a significant difference: Solaris 2.6 is a relatively ancient release by now, having been released about 7,5 years ago (August 1997). Windows XP, on the other hand, is much younger (first released September 2001), and if I buy a new computer now, I'd expect SP2 to be installed already, too, which is only six months old.
That being said, I think Solaris 2.6 will actually get more secure again in the future, simply because the number of people who know how to attack it will decrease. I remember an anecdote about someone who brought a box with a default install of SINIX (sorry, no info on which version) to a Chaos Computer Congress years ago; according to that story, he hooked it up to the network and told people that whoever would be able to root it first could keep it. Noone managed to, however, because it was too obscure (one might add that he didn't reveal any details about what OS was on it etc., of course). It may be an urban myth, but it was told to me by a friend who actually attends the Congress every year, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was true.
You may be right in that regard when it comes to Linux and other OSes that run on a PC, but I think a significant number of people (at least, those that own a computer, no matter how savvy they are) know that there *is* such a thing as a Mac and that it is different from a PC.
Of course, even many people that know there are Macs probably won't consider one and go with a windows PC instead simply because it's what they know from work/school/the library/friends/computer magazines etc.
In Slashdot terms, that article was Interesting, but not Informative, and certainly not Insightful. It basically boils down to two things:
What it does not provide, though, unfortunately, is an attempt to explain why that actually is the case. The author goes on to dismiss every attempt that has been made to explain just why Windows is still so dominant (like "Macs are too expensive") - or, for that matter, why Windows is (still!) so inherently insecure (like "Macs have no viri because they are not an attractive target") -, but he doesn't even attempt to offer other reasons for these things. Rather, he just says "these are what I claim to be the facts, they're contradictive, but I'm not gonna explain it".
Considering the article's title ("Why Does Windows Still Suck?") promises an explanation, that's rather unfortunate, and I'm afraid I have to conclude it's just praise for the Mac with little to no informational value, and minor goof-ups like confusing PCs with "PCs that run Windows" just make it even more clear that this is not an objective comparison or explanation attempt.
... posthumously.
I don't think so. FWIW, has the FSF ever changed its address (in the past 13 years, at least)?
Ah, thanks. Can the development version(s) be seen anywhere?
Here's something I'm wondering about.
;))
No matter whether "trusted" computing means that you cannot run binaries not signed by a 3rd party, or whether it means you cannot run binaries not signed by someone (with a configurable key), or whether it just means that unsigned binaries simply won't be "trusted" (but will still run)... what about scripting languages? The whole debate seems to revolve around the users' ability to sign new binaries (presumably created after modifications are made to the source), but what about languages that don't compile code to binaries, anyway?
Would "trusted" computing mean that it's not possible to write a "trusted" program in Perl, for example? The example of a system administrator in a large network locking down machines so that they can't be taken over (easily) seems to be given often, but what good would locking down machines be if you can't use Perl programs, for example? It may not be a problem when you just have windows-based desktops where you don't expect to run more than outlook, word and excel, but not every large network is like that (and one that solely consists of windows machines probably has more serious issues, anyway.
The problem really is that you have only two choices: either you sign the Perl (or whatever) binaries (in which case any Perl program will, basically, run as a "trusted" application, since from the system's point of view, the script that Perl loads is just another piece of data), or you don't, in which case no Perl program will be trusted at all.
Plug-ins, dynamic libraries etc. may also well be a similar problem; the idea that an application always consists of a single monolithic piece of machine code simply isn't true. Most of the times, it'll be several pieces, and some of those may not even be machine code to start with.
KMFA? Oh, you mean KMFMS... :)
Well, it doesn't matter whether you start with GRUB (or LILO or the OS/2 Boot Manager whatever) or the BIOS - you still have to start *somewhere*. As long as the chip just has to accept whatever data it is being sent, I think you will be able to get around it - and even if you give the chip (or, more generally, the TPCA subsystem) more "control" (no matter how that's realized technically), it will still have to rely on data provided by external sensors, and there simply is no way to *really* verify that data.
:)).
:))... that won't happen, either. Preventing (easy) flashing of the BIOS only makes sense as long as the user does not know how to use a soldering iron. Yes, you still need the knowledge necessary to create a replacement BIOS, too, of course, but that, ultimately, won't be anything the end-user has to worry about, just like you don't have to worry about all the technical details if you just want to get Linux to run on your xbox. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that soon enough, someone would come up with a something that allows end users to patch their hardware (so to speak) without the need for even a soldering iron.
If you have ever watched the movie "Dark Star", you'll know what I mean (and if you haven't, shame on you! go check it out!
And inviolability (is that even a word?
You gotta love contradictions. The first article states that the current version of the GPL is "2.2", which was "released August 2004"; the interview with Linus states that the GPL is supposed to undergo its "first revision in 13 years".
Obviously, both statement's can't be true at the same time. What's correct now? (And considering that the articles are from the same publication, doesn't anyone actually *check* what's written for factual accuracy before it goes live?)
Copy and paste - that should work.
Try rotating around a bit. I lost a window myself while checking this out, and was able to find it again that way. :)
10 FLOPS? Come on, guys, even my pocket calculator does more than that. :)
*nods* Even if you did, THE flag is not the same as A flag.
Point - that's something one shouldn't assume. But I don't believe *everyone* understands that - don't underestimate the number of genuinely stupid people there are.
Thanks!
A formalised promise that both parties actively and explicitely agreed to uphold. I see what your point is, of course, but it probably wouldn't be too difficult to argue for Sun that the statement wasn't actually meant the way it was understood, that the one who made the statement did not have the necessary authority to make such a statement on behalf of Sun, or something else.
If the company (i.e., someone who without doubt *is* authorized to act on its behalf) signs a written contract with an actual third party, though (as opposed to the somewhat nebulous "general public", "free software developers" or whoever the promise would address), they would find it much more difficult to argue like that (although they probably still would try).
Oh, yes, there is a difference, of course. It's just that when you realize that burning a flag in different contexts means different things, you also realize that it's not actually the act as such that is tried to be made illegal, but rather the expression of an opinion.
And that makes it easier to see what the real motives behind legislation like that are - it's an argument supposed to make people think and realize that the FUD spread is just that. FUD.
I'd much rather burn a picture of shrub than a flag, but unfortunately, I think that might earn me a free trip to camp x-ray.
As for the flag itself, well, it's just a piece of cloth (or whatever it's made of), and while most people will whole-heartedly support the actual principles it is supposed to represent, one cannot deny that it does not only represent those but also a number of other, much less pleasant things associated with US-american politics (and politicians), so I think burning a flag is an understandable action, especially when you take into account that a good part of the reason why someone does it will also be the shock value. Sometimes, it's necessary to do things that may be viewed as radical or outrageous to draw attention to an important point that would otherwise be lost or ignored.
That being said, it's good to hear that there are still people out there who understand that "I don't like this" is not the same as "this should be made illegal".
But of course, just to make it clear, it *also* does not mean "it's not illegal but the government will look the other way if someone happens to be beaten up or harassed or whatever else", either.