Anti-lameness-filter text: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulliam corper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem veleum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel willum lunombro dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.
Yes, I don't believe that every.biz and.info will be registered by the same company that has.com. However, for anything which is a company name or trademark (or looks a bit like one), you cannot register the.biz to be different to the.com without fear of being sued. The argument that the extra TLDs are to expand the namespace and thus should go to different owners would not carry much weight in a trademark dispute.
So *in practice* I don't think that.biz or.info will be very widely used. If it is possible to register foo.com and foo.biz indepedently without too much harassment from lawyers, it would be equally possible to have foo.com and foo1.com, so still no need for a new TLD.
As for your TLD '.name' - what measures do you have in place to stop it being hijacked by trademark lawyers? If I change my name to Mr E. Toys, would etoys.name be safe?
My suggestion was based on the premise that.com is and will remain the only important domain name (apart from national ones and a relatively small number of.orgs), with the other domain names like.biz and.info being bought by companies to stop rivals taking them, but not really used by much. If you don't accept that, then the suggestion doesn't make sense.
But do you really think that splitting between.com,.info and.biz is a sensible way to do load balancing? Wouldn't it be better to put them together and have some more intelligent way of splitting load between multiple servers?
Yes, the hits on the root servers would increase. Just take all the huge boxes that are currently serving.com and switch them to root servers instead. The total load is the same; it's just in a different place.
And 'all the current TLDs combined' is not very much more than the load for.com, I imagine.
Yeah, the two companies would fight over foobar. They would not have to fight over foobar.com,.biz,.net,.org,.info, etc etc with the same company taking all of them. So it's just acknowledging the reality that multiple TLDs are useless because lawyers want to make sure they all have the same content.
I don't think it would be a huge burden. For every top-level domain like.dell, there is already an equivalent.com domain such as dell.com. So the load on the top level DNS servers would not be much greater than the load on the.com servers is now.
We should just get rid of TLDs altogether. These new ones like.info are just a ploy by registrars to get more money, because Dell will register dell.com, dell.info, dell.biz and so on. It wouldn't be possible for different sites to have the.com and.biz domains: they'd start suing each other until a point where both belong to the same company. So these new names do not expand the namespace at all.
Why not hand out TLDs themselves? So Dell could have 'dell' and make www.dell and so on under there. That is the least insane way to do things given the current legal system.
(Of course the sane way would be to go for TLDs where the legal procedures are clearly defined:.wto for domains arbitrated by the WTO,.us for domains subject to US trademark laws, and.fcfs for strictly first come, first served registration.)
I don't think that a release of the Watcom compiler, whether under GPL or not, will automatically help GCC. When the Pentium came out, some people at Intel released an improved version of gcc with Pentium optimizations. But the way they were implemented was specific to that architecture - not 'clean' in some way or another - and the patches weren't included in the mainstream gcc for this reason. The project became pgcc and remained separate, although newer releases of the mainstream gcc have got better at Pentium / PPro stuff.
The design of the Watcom compiler will surely be very different to gcc, so it won't be at all easy to just merge the code. We might see some distributions like Stampede or Mandrake compiling a few selected packages using the Watcom compiler for better performance though. I doubt a whole distribution could be recompiled with it at this stage; I think the Linux kernel code has gcc-specific inline assembler, for example.
(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this stuff, corrections welcome.)
If the Web were run properly, 'archive projects' like this wouldn't be needed. Any half-decent website should have its own archive of content, and not break links by suddenly removing pages that used to be there.
Apple may have created it originally, but that doesn't mean that others can't produce a similar effect *with their own work*. That is how the software market is supposed to work - it's called competition. I thought the whole look-and-feel thing had more or less been settled when Apple lost the suit against Microsoft. I guess they think that the people writing Aqua-like themes can't afford a legal team like Microsoft can, so it's okay to bully them.
Yes, I was asking what needs to be done in order to recompile. There's all the RPM packages... and the installer? Hmm, the installer itself needs 64 megs so I guess that even a recompiled version would not work. I don't have that much RAM in any non-Pentium machines.
It is still possible to grab Mandrake source packages and recompile them on RedHat, and I do that quite often.
Mandrake's FAQ says that versions of Mandrake compiled for non-Pentium processors are often available for download. This seems to be the case for older versions (I think you can get 6.0 compiled for 386es), but not for anything recent.
It should just be a simple compiler flag, so I might be able to rebuild the distribution myself (if I had a fast enough box to do it on). It's a shame that Mandrake is 586 only, because it's a pretty nice distro, even without all the graphical stuff which is its main selling point.
If you're feeling aargh
Or you're kind of mwhahahahahaha
Could be you've met up with BAKULA.
If your crew goes moan, moan
And your guns go pssewp pssewp
Maybe you've bumped into BAKULA.
He flies through the night
In a costume that's too tight
But there's always a moral insight BAKULA
Encounter at Farpoint was pretty limp, but I've always thought Q was cool. Perhaps because in the touchy-feely, emotionally correct TNG universe he is the only character able to just take the piss.
The first half of the pilot (Q's appearance and the trial with the peasants of Worksop looking on) was much better than the second half (Troi bleating about 'pain, terrible pain'). This is not an accident: the jellyfish plot was by D.C. Fontana with Q added afterwards by Roddenberry.
I sat down to watch the first episode of Voyager when that came out, but I gave up when I saw that the ship looked like a shoehorn.
I ran a worm that was going round about a year ago. It displayed the pretty fireworks just fine, but didn't seem to 'infect' anything (unsurprising, since my Wine C:\ drive was empty and I didn't give Wine access to anywhere else). I don't know whether it could successfully send stuff across the network - I unplugged the Ethernet jack first:-).
If you hadn't arraged your posessions in a physical configuration allowing me to pick them up, and if you hadn't
had a door which was possible to break into with a battering ram, then I wouldn't have been able to steal from you.
I think a more accurate analogy would be: if I employed a very stupid security guard, and he was so stupid that he'd give out my possessions to anyone who asked for them, then that's my fault and not the fault of anyone who takes advantage of his generosity.
I was talking about the way things ought to be, not the way they actually are:-). I can understand that lawyer-related reasons might force ISPs to pull the plug on potentially infectious systems (or just port 80 on all machines, see other posts) but ideally I would prefer the ISP to just send bits over the wire without worrying about what they represent. Isn't that the single most important function of an ISP? You don't expect the postal system to open letters and weed out 'dangerous' ones. An opt-in firewalling service could be useful for the clueless and/or lazy.
ISPs can only cut out 'troublemakers' on their own networks, not on anyone else's. I was proposing doing bandwidth capping on the ISP's own subscribers.
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-lameness-filter text: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulliam corper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem veleum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel willum lunombro dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.
Yes, I don't believe that every .biz and .info will be registered by the same company that has .com. However, for anything which is a company name or trademark (or looks a bit like one), you cannot register the .biz to be different to the .com without fear of being sued. The argument that the extra TLDs are to expand the namespace and thus should go to different owners would not carry much weight in a trademark dispute.
.biz or .info will be very widely used. If it is possible to register foo.com and foo.biz indepedently without too much harassment from lawyers, it would be equally possible to have foo.com and foo1.com, so still no need for a new TLD.
So *in practice* I don't think that
As for your TLD '.name' - what measures do you have in place to stop it being hijacked by trademark lawyers? If I change my name to Mr E. Toys, would etoys.name be safe?
It's best to just call it 'mail' if there's no ambiguity. And 'an email' is called a 'message'.
My suggestion was based on the premise that .com is and will remain the only important domain name (apart from national ones and a relatively small number of .orgs), with the other domain names like .biz and .info being bought by companies to stop rivals taking them, but not really used by much. If you don't accept that, then the suggestion doesn't make sense.
.com, .info and .biz is a sensible way to do load balancing? Wouldn't it be better to put them together and have some more intelligent way of splitting load between multiple servers?
But do you really think that splitting between
You could show people RMS's story The Right to Read. It doesn't specifically relate to hardware-controlling laws though.
Yes, the hits on the root servers would increase. Just take all the huge boxes that are currently serving .com and switch them to root servers instead. The total load is the same; it's just in a different place.
.com, I imagine.
And 'all the current TLDs combined' is not very much more than the load for
Can you explain about the caching?
Yeah, the two companies would fight over foobar. They would not have to fight over foobar.com, .biz, .net, .org, .info, etc etc with the same company taking all of them. So it's just acknowledging the reality that multiple TLDs are useless because lawyers want to make sure they all have the same content.
I don't think it would be a huge burden. For every top-level domain like .dell, there is already an equivalent .com domain such as dell.com. So the load on the top level DNS servers would not be much greater than the load on the .com servers is now.
We should just get rid of TLDs altogether. These new ones like .info are just a ploy by registrars to get more money, because Dell will register dell.com, dell.info, dell.biz and so on. It wouldn't be possible for different sites to have the .com and .biz domains: they'd start suing each other until a point where both belong to the same company. So these new names do not expand the namespace at all.
.wto for domains arbitrated by the WTO, .us for domains subject to US trademark laws, and .fcfs for strictly first come, first served registration.)
Why not hand out TLDs themselves? So Dell could have 'dell' and make www.dell and so on under there. That is the least insane way to do things given the current legal system.
(Of course the sane way would be to go for TLDs where the legal procedures are clearly defined:
Can you get Slashdot certified? What exams would you have to pass?
Sigh. It seems that in WW2 movies the only way to get a reasonably accurate, non-rewritten version is to have the film made by Germans.
I don't think that a release of the Watcom compiler, whether under GPL or not, will automatically help GCC. When the Pentium came out, some people at Intel released an improved version of gcc with Pentium optimizations. But the way they were implemented was specific to that architecture - not 'clean' in some way or another - and the patches weren't included in the mainstream gcc for this reason. The project became pgcc and remained separate, although newer releases of the mainstream gcc have got better at Pentium / PPro stuff.
The design of the Watcom compiler will surely be very different to gcc, so it won't be at all easy to just merge the code. We might see some distributions like Stampede or Mandrake compiling a few selected packages using the Watcom compiler for better performance though. I doubt a whole distribution could be recompiled with it at this stage; I think the Linux kernel code has gcc-specific inline assembler, for example.
(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this stuff, corrections welcome.)
If the Web were run properly, 'archive projects' like this wouldn't be needed. Any half-decent website should have its own archive of content, and not break links by suddenly removing pages that used to be there.
Apple may have created it originally, but that doesn't mean that others can't produce a similar effect *with their own work*. That is how the software market is supposed to work - it's called competition. I thought the whole look-and-feel thing had more or less been settled when Apple lost the suit against Microsoft. I guess they think that the people writing Aqua-like themes can't afford a legal team like Microsoft can, so it's okay to bully them.
Yes, I was asking what needs to be done in order to recompile. There's all the RPM packages... and the installer? Hmm, the installer itself needs 64 megs so I guess that even a recompiled version would not work. I don't have that much RAM in any non-Pentium machines.
It is still possible to grab Mandrake source packages and recompile them on RedHat, and I do that quite often.
Mandrake's FAQ says that versions of Mandrake compiled for non-Pentium processors are often available for download. This seems to be the case for older versions (I think you can get 6.0 compiled for 386es), but not for anything recent.
It should just be a simple compiler flag, so I might be able to rebuild the distribution myself (if I had a fast enough box to do it on). It's a shame that Mandrake is 586 only, because it's a pretty nice distro, even without all the graphical stuff which is its main selling point.
If you're feeling aargh
Or you're kind of mwhahahahahaha
Could be you've met up with BAKULA.
If your crew goes moan, moan
And your guns go pssewp pssewp
Maybe you've bumped into BAKULA.
He flies through the night
In a costume that's too tight
But there's always a moral insight
BAKULA
Encounter at Farpoint was pretty limp, but I've always thought Q was cool. Perhaps because in the touchy-feely, emotionally correct TNG universe he is the only character able to just take the piss.
The first half of the pilot (Q's appearance and the trial with the peasants of Worksop looking on) was much better than the second half (Troi bleating about 'pain, terrible pain'). This is not an accident: the jellyfish plot was by D.C. Fontana with Q added afterwards by Roddenberry.
I sat down to watch the first episode of Voyager when that came out, but I gave up when I saw that the ship looked like a shoehorn.
Is that like the Pizza Hut advert where Spock says, 'Captain, I suggest we HIT THE HUT'?
I ran a worm that was going round about a year ago. It displayed the pretty fireworks just fine, but didn't seem to 'infect' anything (unsurprising, since my Wine C:\ drive was empty and I didn't give Wine access to anywhere else). I don't know whether it could successfully send stuff across the network - I unplugged the Ethernet jack first :-).
The game gets interrupted every so often for pledge drives? You can donate money in exchange for better weaponry?
I was talking about the way things ought to be, not the way they actually are :-). I can understand that lawyer-related reasons might force ISPs to pull the plug on potentially infectious systems (or just port 80 on all machines, see other posts) but ideally I would prefer the ISP to just send bits over the wire without worrying about what they represent. Isn't that the single most important function of an ISP? You don't expect the postal system to open letters and weed out 'dangerous' ones. An opt-in firewalling service could be useful for the clueless and/or lazy.
ISPs can only cut out 'troublemakers' on their own networks, not on anyone else's. I was proposing doing bandwidth capping on the ISP's own subscribers.