How the hell do you know what these boxes record? Actually, I'm pretty sure these boxes record the actual speed curve. A single "top speed" data point is virtually useless as an investigative mechanism, for both the police and the manufacturer.
Why the fucking hell is that? You pay insurance, they insure you against accidents. It's not insurance against having a low IQ. Therefore, it won't pay out if you don't wear a seatbelt. Seems perfectly reasonable.
it's scary to think that I could be "autofined" in the future for whatever offense--running a stop sign etc... using technology available today.
No, it's actually quite relieving to know that. Maybe in the future, assholes who run red lights, don't stop at stop signs, and drive 2x the speed limit will become more rare. I don't know about you, but I would rather let the government enforce the laws than get killed by a reckless driver. Besides, why are you getting so scared if you don't actually break the speed limit or run stop signs? As long as that info is only used to prosecute traffic crimes, it would be good for everyone except reckless drivers.
Actually, most people using GPL software send a patch back to the maintainer. Most companies using BSD software don't contribute anything back - usually, it's just an extra layer of process that's not worth the hassle. I haven't seen Microsoft send patches to BSD even though they used to use the TCP/IP stack and other stuff in Windows. In contrast, almost every large corporate user of Linux (HP, IBM, Compaq, etc) contributed tons of code back.
Sure, I trust testing. After all, if an OS seems to work right most of the time, it's fine. If my copy of mozilla doesn't crash within an hour, it will never crash. Since the Therac-25 underwent stringent testing, it was perfectly safe, right?
BZZZZZT! Wrong answer. Evidence shows that testing cannot be trusted to reveal all defects. No matter how much you test a system, there is still a very significant risk that it will contain a defect. That's why practically all critical systems use a PROCESS to prevent errors from getting in. That's why the military forces Ada for all systems, why off-the-shelf components aren't used for life-support systems, and why MIL specs are not just based on reliability tests. Since neither Linux nor WinCE underwent any type of certification, code audit, or specialized quality-control processes, they cannot be trusted despite what tests might indicate.
So, what's a good microkernel OS? As far as I know, microkernels were thought to be a good idea in the early 90s but eventually lost their appeal as they proved to be slower and ultimately more problematic. It makes sense -- what's cleaner and more efficient, a single program or 10 different ones passing messages to each other? It might work for QNX - a niche OS if there ever was one. So far, it didn't work for any real systems.
If you were smart, you'd use a BSD, and avoid the whole viral GPL issue.
Right -- and also avoid receiving any improvements to the software performed by other users. A bug in a BSD program can stay unfixed until the author finds it. In a GPL program, it gets fixed as soon as ANYONE finds it.
Also, can you name a single embedded device that uses BSD? Embedded linux is hot. Embedded BSD is unheard of.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to have my eyes operated on by a WinCE or even a Linux system. They are not stable enough. That's one of those situations when 99.9% isn't good enough.
OpenBSD has made some innovations here, like somewhat more paranoid string functions in libc
This is refinement, not innovation. Securing string functions is a logical step to improving security. It's not something ground-breaking. But then again, innovation is way way overrated. Most good things are not innovative.
There are plenty of operating systems and processors that can be considered "cleaner" than those, and both Intel and Microsoft have moved in the direction of abandoning the old stuff anyway.
Backwards compatibility is supposed to provide a migration path, not stay there forever. Since Microsoft thinks that few people need 16-bit support, they removed it from newer versions of Windows. As for the "cleaner" systems -- in many situations, they trade minor inconveniences (weird architecture or minor speed problems) for major hassles (incompatibility with existing software). That's why these products almost never succeed in the market.
And there you put your foot in it. OpenBSD IS innovative, amazing cryptographic things on hardware and software levels, memory access changes, why do you think DARPA was going to fund them until politics got in the way? You failed to rebutt any of his points about OpenBSD.
OpenBSD refined the old BSD and made it more secure. They improved and fixed and added tons of stuff. However, none of that stuff is really new in the true sense of the word. OpenBSD is a refined version of UNIX. It's a proven and reliable solution, but it's certainly not cutting-edge innovation-wise.
Besides, you make it sound like I said that OpenBSD sucks. I didn't say that. I said that while it is a good operating system, it is not innovative -- which it isn't. And remember, my Microsoft-brainwashed friend: innovative != good.
No, innovation is p2p, innovation is bittorrent, innovation is all the things that have sprung from OSS, and from open standards and from creative minds.
Interesting examples, especially bittorrent. That program is NOT innovative. All of what it does has been done before -- by Kazaa, eDonkey, and Napster. Napster was the only somewhat innovative p2p program (and wasn't open source), and even that was not truly new. People did the same thing with WarFTPd and IRC for years prior -- Napster was just a refinement.
I'd like to see you say "nobody wants 'innovative' software" in a job interview.
Many of the things people say during a job interview are exactly opposite of what they actually think.
People want new ways to connect, they want new ways to conserve/use resources - OSS offers these things.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here or how this is relevant to the topic.
No surprise that these dot.com businesses went off like claymore mines with people with your mindset as employees.
Actually, the only dot-coms that went were the ones that did not follow my mindset. Let's look at the examples you list -- Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Java. How many of them are out of business? Exactly zero.
Now let's look at the other players (many of whom followed your mindset -- make good but incompatible products). Alpha, BeOS, and others. Itanium, which you mentioned, is quickly losing market share to the x86-compatible AMD Opteron -- so now Intel will likely make a 64-bit x86-compatible processor.
I would say that backwards compatibility is pretty damn important. Hell, look at the Playstation 2 -- an extremely successful game console. It is backwards-compatible with the PS1 in terms of both software and hardware, and that undoubtedly gives it an edge. Look at Win95 -- would anyone have ever switched to it from DOS if it didn't run DOS and Win3.11 apps perfectly?
You categorize college students' research endeavours and amateurism as bad things.
I have nothing against college research projects. They are certainly NOT bad things. Without research, no field would ever advance. Instead, I was responding to criticisms that Linux was not sufficiently cutting-edge.
My point was that amateurism is not appropriate in software projects which are intended for serious use, just like experimental, untested drugs are not appropriate for patients needing treatment. In both cases, a dependable and proven solution is necessary. Research is good -- but it should stay in the lab until it is ready for general consumption.
How the hell did this teenage troll get modded up? In case anyone actually believes he has a valid point (even though he can spell neither 'hobbyist' nor 'bogus'), here is a little rebuttal.
First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.
Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.
Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.
You can't have 'waves upon waves' of suits for the same issue. The case has been settled. It's over. You can't sue them again, unless you excluded yourself from the class action.
Also, it IS a $13.00 issue. Let's see, the recording industry got at least hundreds of dollars from almost every person here ($100 = about 7 or 8 CDs). A few will get $13.00 back. Who wins, you or the RIAA?
Also, a $45M settlement is pennies for the RIAA. They will not feel anything. They would feel the pain if this was 2 billion or even 500 million, but not for $45M.
So what? What's wrong with CHOOSING a particular type of software and sticking with that across the board? If your company chooses to run Windows XP on all desktops, is that somehow wrong? If a government decides that it should stick to free software on all desktops, how is that any worse? It's just that these decisions are not made at the agency level, but that's a very good idea anyway. If too many choices are made locally, corruption and inefficiencies will be rampant. This is the same reason why many companies standardize on an operating system company-wide and don't let the individual divisions and departments choose what to buy.
Having the Darwin core open-sourced does NOT give, say, Linux or Microsoft any competitive advantage. However, open-sourcing, say, Quartz would actually be useful for many other projects, which is why Apple doesn't do it. That was pretty much my point.
Unfortunately, Apple's platform is extremely difficult to develop for if you are a PC guy. You need to not only have an expensive Mac box, but also learn Mac-specific stuff like Objective C in addition to the APIs. If you want to sell your program, you will have to use Macs for a year or two until you start to wrap your brain around how users expect the system to work. Sure, you might capture a segment of the market if you have a really good program, but the costs of development are unlikely to get recovered. Besides, the Mac software market is already pretty crowded, and there are too many heavyweights like Apple themselves.
Actually, it's you who can't read. Microsoft announced they would stop shipping the standalone version, since the browser is fully integrated into the OS on windows 98 and up. It would still be updated via patches to the OS, just not as a standalone product.
Why MS would need access to Darwin source would be a more valid question. You probably never done any programming. Otherwise, you would know that any program that creates windows would need to use the window manager, and that having the source would help tremendously. Actually, all the system libraries that you would ever interface to in MacOS are closed-source, just like on Windows.
The only reason Apple open-sourced the Darwin core is because it performs no functions that could ever give anyone a competitive advantage. Having it open-source turns it into a source of free labor.
No, I don't perform music. It is not my job. My point was that an artist does not really need a label's help in this day and age. Are you saying that, say, the Beatles became popular because the RIAA helped them and not because their music was good? Would a truly talented band need the support of a large conglomerate to record good music? The only real job that the RIAA does these days is marketing and promotion, and that could be done by smaller, more efficient companies that do not take over an artist's music with obstructive contracts.
By the way, the same does NOT apply to movies. Movies take far more resources to produce -- a good director alone is not enough, he/she would need millions of dollars to make a movie. That's the role the studio fills. Even then, independent movies are, on average, better than the mass-produced Hollywood ones.
But before a song can be recorded, it has to be written first.
First, the labels do not write original music. They merely record and publish the records. Hence, the RECORDING Industry Association of America.
I think of record labels as venture capitalists who invest in recording artists (advance) in hope of gaining a return (label's share of royalties).
Labels usually take over the copyright, so it's the artist who receives a share of the royalties and not the label. Furthermore, artists usually have to pay off the recording fees before they are paid a cent of royalties. I'd say it's not a fair trade -- the artist loses almost all of his/her rights to the music and the label does not really have to pay much for the privilege. Unlike what RIAA does to music, VCs typically do not take over the company.
Re:Where is my last generation Broadband?
on
150 Mbit/s DSL.
·
· Score: 1
It's slow, dude. 500Kbps is the best-case scenario, the upload is only about 56K best case, they impose strict caps on downloads, and it costs ~$700 to get the system installed. I don't see any reason to get that unless you are in the middle of nowhere.
He gets it just fine. However, he doesn't want to admit that his profession is becoming irrelevant, P2P or not. If I were him, I'd probably be saying the same things. It's just the natural thing to do.
Unfortunately for the RIAA, producing music is not that hard and no longer requires millions of dollars in equipment. The RIAA in its current form is irrelevant. In my opinion, artists will soon want less obtrusive labels who don't try to take over their copyrights and don't try to weasel out of contracts. I think that labels of the future will deal mostly with the logistics side of things -- printing and distributing CDs and music. The time when RIAA was the only entity capable of producing records is long gone. Given that the RIAA contributes virtually zero to the music production process, I don't see how they will have a job a couple of decades down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
How the hell do you know what these boxes record? Actually, I'm pretty sure these boxes record the actual speed curve. A single "top speed" data point is virtually useless as an investigative mechanism, for both the police and the manufacturer.
Where can I get a free Mercedes or BMW?
Why the fucking hell is that? You pay insurance, they insure you against accidents. It's not insurance against having a low IQ. Therefore, it won't pay out if you don't wear a seatbelt. Seems perfectly reasonable.
it's scary to think that I could be "autofined" in the future for whatever offense--running a stop sign etc... using technology available today.
No, it's actually quite relieving to know that. Maybe in the future, assholes who run red lights, don't stop at stop signs, and drive 2x the speed limit will become more rare. I don't know about you, but I would rather let the government enforce the laws than get killed by a reckless driver. Besides, why are you getting so scared if you don't actually break the speed limit or run stop signs? As long as that info is only used to prosecute traffic crimes, it would be good for everyone except reckless drivers.
Actually, most people using GPL software send a patch back to the maintainer. Most companies using BSD software don't contribute anything back - usually, it's just an extra layer of process that's not worth the hassle. I haven't seen Microsoft send patches to BSD even though they used to use the TCP/IP stack and other stuff in Windows. In contrast, almost every large corporate user of Linux (HP, IBM, Compaq, etc) contributed tons of code back.
Sure, I trust testing. After all, if an OS seems to work right most of the time, it's fine. If my copy of mozilla doesn't crash within an hour, it will never crash. Since the Therac-25 underwent stringent testing, it was perfectly safe, right?
BZZZZZT! Wrong answer. Evidence shows that testing cannot be trusted to reveal all defects. No matter how much you test a system, there is still a very significant risk that it will contain a defect. That's why practically all critical systems use a PROCESS to prevent errors from getting in. That's why the military forces Ada for all systems, why off-the-shelf components aren't used for life-support systems, and why MIL specs are not just based on reliability tests. Since neither Linux nor WinCE underwent any type of certification, code audit, or specialized quality-control processes, they cannot be trusted despite what tests might indicate.
So, what's a good microkernel OS? As far as I know, microkernels were thought to be a good idea in the early 90s but eventually lost their appeal as they proved to be slower and ultimately more problematic. It makes sense -- what's cleaner and more efficient, a single program or 10 different ones passing messages to each other? It might work for QNX - a niche OS if there ever was one. So far, it didn't work for any real systems.
If you were smart, you'd use a BSD, and avoid the whole viral GPL issue.
Right -- and also avoid receiving any improvements to the software performed by other users. A bug in a BSD program can stay unfixed until the author finds it. In a GPL program, it gets fixed as soon as ANYONE finds it.
Also, can you name a single embedded device that uses BSD? Embedded linux is hot. Embedded BSD is unheard of.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to have my eyes operated on by a WinCE or even a Linux system. They are not stable enough. That's one of those situations when 99.9% isn't good enough.
OpenBSD has made some innovations here, like somewhat more paranoid string functions in libc
This is refinement, not innovation. Securing string functions is a logical step to improving security. It's not something ground-breaking. But then again, innovation is way way overrated. Most good things are not innovative.
There are plenty of operating systems and processors that can be considered "cleaner" than those, and both Intel and Microsoft have moved in the direction of abandoning the old stuff anyway.
Backwards compatibility is supposed to provide a migration path, not stay there forever. Since Microsoft thinks that few people need 16-bit support, they removed it from newer versions of Windows. As for the "cleaner" systems -- in many situations, they trade minor inconveniences (weird architecture or minor speed problems) for major hassles (incompatibility with existing software). That's why these products almost never succeed in the market.
And there you put your foot in it. OpenBSD IS innovative, amazing cryptographic things on hardware and software levels, memory access changes, why do you think DARPA was going to fund them until politics got in the way? You failed to rebutt any of his points about OpenBSD.
OpenBSD refined the old BSD and made it more secure. They improved and fixed and added tons of stuff. However, none of that stuff is really new in the true sense of the word. OpenBSD is a refined version of UNIX. It's a proven and reliable solution, but it's certainly not cutting-edge innovation-wise.
Besides, you make it sound like I said that OpenBSD sucks. I didn't say that. I said that while it is a good operating system, it is not innovative -- which it isn't. And remember, my Microsoft-brainwashed friend: innovative != good.
No, innovation is p2p, innovation is bittorrent, innovation is all the things that have sprung from OSS, and from open standards and from creative minds.
Interesting examples, especially bittorrent. That program is NOT innovative. All of what it does has been done before -- by Kazaa, eDonkey, and Napster. Napster was the only somewhat innovative p2p program (and wasn't open source), and even that was not truly new. People did the same thing with WarFTPd and IRC for years prior -- Napster was just a refinement.
I'd like to see you say "nobody wants 'innovative' software" in a job interview.
Many of the things people say during a job interview are exactly opposite of what they actually think.
People want new ways to connect, they want new ways to conserve/use resources - OSS offers these things.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here or how this is relevant to the topic.
No surprise that these dot.com businesses went off like claymore mines with people with your mindset as employees.
Actually, the only dot-coms that went were the ones that did not follow my mindset. Let's look at the examples you list -- Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Java. How many of them are out of business? Exactly zero.
Now let's look at the other players (many of whom followed your mindset -- make good but incompatible products). Alpha, BeOS, and others. Itanium, which you mentioned, is quickly losing market share to the x86-compatible AMD Opteron -- so now Intel will likely make a 64-bit x86-compatible processor.
I would say that backwards compatibility is pretty damn important. Hell, look at the Playstation 2 -- an extremely successful game console. It is backwards-compatible with the PS1 in terms of both software and hardware, and that undoubtedly gives it an edge. Look at Win95 -- would anyone have ever switched to it from DOS if it didn't run DOS and Win3.11 apps perfectly?
You categorize college students' research endeavours and amateurism as bad things.
I have nothing against college research projects. They are certainly NOT bad things. Without research, no field would ever advance. Instead, I was responding to criticisms that Linux was not sufficiently cutting-edge.
My point was that amateurism is not appropriate in software projects which are intended for serious use, just like experimental, untested drugs are not appropriate for patients needing treatment. In both cases, a dependable and proven solution is necessary. Research is good -- but it should stay in the lab until it is ready for general consumption.
How the hell did this teenage troll get modded up? In case anyone actually believes he has a valid point (even though he can spell neither 'hobbyist' nor 'bogus'), here is a little rebuttal.
First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.
Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.
Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.
You can't have 'waves upon waves' of suits for the same issue. The case has been settled. It's over. You can't sue them again, unless you excluded yourself from the class action.
Also, it IS a $13.00 issue. Let's see, the recording industry got at least hundreds of dollars from almost every person here ($100 = about 7 or 8 CDs). A few will get $13.00 back. Who wins, you or the RIAA?
Also, a $45M settlement is pennies for the RIAA. They will not feel anything. They would feel the pain if this was 2 billion or even 500 million, but not for $45M.
So what? What's wrong with CHOOSING a particular type of software and sticking with that across the board? If your company chooses to run Windows XP on all desktops, is that somehow wrong? If a government decides that it should stick to free software on all desktops, how is that any worse? It's just that these decisions are not made at the agency level, but that's a very good idea anyway. If too many choices are made locally, corruption and inefficiencies will be rampant. This is the same reason why many companies standardize on an operating system company-wide and don't let the individual divisions and departments choose what to buy.
Having the Darwin core open-sourced does NOT give, say, Linux or Microsoft any competitive advantage. However, open-sourcing, say, Quartz would actually be useful for many other projects, which is why Apple doesn't do it. That was pretty much my point.
Unfortunately, Apple's platform is extremely difficult to develop for if you are a PC guy. You need to not only have an expensive Mac box, but also learn Mac-specific stuff like Objective C in addition to the APIs. If you want to sell your program, you will have to use Macs for a year or two until you start to wrap your brain around how users expect the system to work. Sure, you might capture a segment of the market if you have a really good program, but the costs of development are unlikely to get recovered. Besides, the Mac software market is already pretty crowded, and there are too many heavyweights like Apple themselves.
Actually, it's you who can't read. Microsoft announced they would stop shipping the standalone version, since the browser is fully integrated into the OS on windows 98 and up. It would still be updated via patches to the OS, just not as a standalone product.
Well, stop being a cheapskate and sign up for Transgaming. Then you can run all those programs that require windows.
Why MS would need access to Darwin source would be a more valid question. You probably never done any programming. Otherwise, you would know that any program that creates windows would need to use the window manager, and that having the source would help tremendously. Actually, all the system libraries that you would ever interface to in MacOS are closed-source, just like on Windows.
The only reason Apple open-sourced the Darwin core is because it performs no functions that could ever give anyone a competitive advantage. Having it open-source turns it into a source of free labor.
No, I don't perform music. It is not my job. My point was that an artist does not really need a label's help in this day and age. Are you saying that, say, the Beatles became popular because the RIAA helped them and not because their music was good? Would a truly talented band need the support of a large conglomerate to record good music? The only real job that the RIAA does these days is marketing and promotion, and that could be done by smaller, more efficient companies that do not take over an artist's music with obstructive contracts.
By the way, the same does NOT apply to movies. Movies take far more resources to produce -- a good director alone is not enough, he/she would need millions of dollars to make a movie. That's the role the studio fills. Even then, independent movies are, on average, better than the mass-produced Hollywood ones.
Sure, that's why I said that the RIAA will be severely transformed or even replaced.
But before a song can be recorded, it has to be written first.
First, the labels do not write original music. They merely record and publish the records. Hence, the RECORDING Industry Association of America.
I think of record labels as venture capitalists who invest in recording artists (advance) in hope of gaining a return (label's share of royalties).
Labels usually take over the copyright, so it's the artist who receives a share of the royalties and not the label. Furthermore, artists usually have to pay off the recording fees before they are paid a cent of royalties. I'd say it's not a fair trade -- the artist loses almost all of his/her rights to the music and the label does not really have to pay much for the privilege. Unlike what RIAA does to music, VCs typically do not take over the company.
It's slow, dude. 500Kbps is the best-case scenario, the upload is only about 56K best case, they impose strict caps on downloads, and it costs ~$700 to get the system installed. I don't see any reason to get that unless you are in the middle of nowhere.
He gets it just fine. However, he doesn't want to admit that his profession is becoming irrelevant, P2P or not. If I were him, I'd probably be saying the same things. It's just the natural thing to do.
Unfortunately for the RIAA, producing music is not that hard and no longer requires millions of dollars in equipment. The RIAA in its current form is irrelevant. In my opinion, artists will soon want less obtrusive labels who don't try to take over their copyrights and don't try to weasel out of contracts. I think that labels of the future will deal mostly with the logistics side of things -- printing and distributing CDs and music. The time when RIAA was the only entity capable of producing records is long gone. Given that the RIAA contributes virtually zero to the music production process, I don't see how they will have a job a couple of decades down the road.