The problem is that a negative definition of "hacker" wasn't really erroneously created. Many of the early system intruders (those who slashdotters like to call "crackers") were indeed hackers, who came up with clever ways to bypass security. When not doing that, they were often writing innovative new programs in a variety of fields. These people, while they broke into systems, were legitimately hackers, by any definition of the term.
The problem is that the media has expanded this to cover anybody who breaks into systems. While some people who break into systems are hackers, not all are, just like while some hackers break into systems, not all do. System intruders (or "crackers," if you prefer), and "hackers," are neither synonymous or mutally inclusive (as the media erroneously assumes), or mutally exclusive (as many slashdotters erroneously assume).
That's the problem. Some hackers are crackers, and some crackers are hackers. However, some crackers are not hackers, and some hackers are not crackers. You cannot say "all hackers are crackers," (what the media and people like IBM's security guru say), but you also can't say "no crackers can be considered hackers," as many slashdotters say.
That's a problem because it's subjective. How do you decide if somebody is worthy of being considered a "hacker"? It's much easier (but wrong) to classify one based on whether they break into systems or not, an erroneous oversimplification of which both the media and slashdotters (and things such as ESR's jargon file) are guilty.
I don't see how your examples give any hope for restoring "hacker" to its original meaning. Despite this awareness you speak of, I still do not hear anybody saying "I am gay today," as a synonym for "I am happy today," or "That guy is queer," when they mean "That guy is a bit odd."
There is a fundamental problem when an ICMP packet can bring about a kernel packet. Something is wrong here. It brings into question the Linux community's ability to (re)write a Unix. And that's why people start bashing.
If a CGI kernel bug makes MacOS X almost useless as a web server, than the recent slew of Linux kernel bugs (filesystem corruption and Denial of Service attacks) would make Linux worse than useless as any sort of server. Why is it that an Apple bug makes the software "useless," while a serious Linux bug is considered minor?
Umm, individuals can't get in on an IPO. After the IPO shares have been distributed for the low prices ($15-$20 or so is normal), then individuals like you and me can start buying shares on the market for the market price ($50+). I'm personally not going to be buying any, since these types of IPOs usually go up really high initially, and then start coming back down. By the time individuals can buy any stock, it'll probably be near the peak.
I would if I could, but cable modems are not available in the majority if the United States. You seem to live in one of the few areas in which they are available.
I disagree. Some of my favorite artists sell and give away music on mp3.com. Many are, IMHO, much better than what you'll find on radio stations and MTV. Sure, there are a lot of really bad songs on mp3.com, but that's because mp3.com has more artists than all the major record labels combined (it has several thousand artists). If you look through the listings in the category of music you like, and listen to the realaudio streams before downloading the mp3s, you'll most likely find something you like. I personally like a lot of the stuff in the Industrial section, especially Burn, Fist of the Idealist, The Chain Reactive, Level, and Painted Blue.
I understand the difficulties in doing software-only DVD, but the problems with a hardware DVD method remain. If Linux can only offer hardware DVD, and Windows can offer both software and hardware DVD, then Windows will obviously have an advantage.
Re:adfu.blockstackers.com slows down Slashdot
on
Slashdot Tweaks
·
· Score: 1
Not sure if this is possible in Netscape, but in Opera I have it set to "display only cached images," so all the images display (since they're in my cache) but don't take time to load. Periodically I hit the image button to refresh everything in my cache, and all is well.
That's fine for embedded systems. I was discussing home systems. A home system is going to have a CPU anyway, so having software decoding as an option will give Windows an advantage, unless somebody gets with it and implements it for Linux.
"Vast majority of Linux users dual-boot Windows anyway" - oh please, who are you to make such an assumption. Do you habe (sic) numbers to back that up? If not, then I suggest that you keep your own little statistics to your self (sic).
My statement was based on my observations of friends and acquantainces who run Linux, as well as the postings of people on slashdot. Note that I'm talking about this in the context of a home computer. I am not saying that people who use Linux as a server OS are dual-booting Windows - they obviously aren't.
Anyway, I notice you failed to respond to the rest of my post. If Linux users have to buy a piece of (most likely overpriced) hardware to view DVDs, and Windows users don't, that's a major blow to Linux's acceptance as a home computer OS, especially as DVDs steadily become more popular.
I don't see this as being very useful. Since the vast majority of Linux users dual-boot Windows anyway, who is going to buy this card? I most certainly am not going to waste one of my PCI slots when I can view DVDs in software, and I certainly am not going to spend a bunch of money on a (probably overpriced) card.
Either develop software DVD decoding for Linux, or I'll stick with Windows for DVD viewing. Making me buy a piece of hardware to overcome a deficiency is an OS is not acceptable.
I'm not sure of how this would differ for a certification mark, but I do recall that Xerox was particularly fussy about people using "xerox" as a generic synonym for "photocopy" because they were afraid that if it became a common descriptive term they would lose their trademark.
Hmm, interesting. You can't stop somebody from using "open source" in a sentence, but what exactly can you do? If a company said "We made our product an open source product," or "We open-sourced our product," and the license did not meet the OSD, could you do anything?
Also, are there any plans to apply for overseas trademark protection?
Well, there are some UseNet posts archived on deja.com using the term "open source" as a descriptive term relating to free software that go back to several years before OSI was formed. That would seem to me to indicate that it was a descriptive term already in use before the trademark was applied for, and thus you can't trademark it any more than you could trademark the term "free software." Then again, IANAL.
Well, Southwestern Bell here in Houston started offering ADSL April 1st, 1999. However, they say I'm unable to get it. The reason is that my area has fiber optic phone line. Mind you, the cables in my house are old-fashioned copper, and I connect over a slow analog modem that won't go over 26.4, but the lines buried under the street are (supposedly) fiber-optic. SWBell says that ADSL doesn't work on fiber optic lines, that something called "iDSL" does. iDSL won't be available for another 9 months, which probably means it won't *really* be available for at least another year. So it goes.
Well, for starters, don't run Linux 2.2.x or Windows NT. Both are really buggy, and you probably don't want filesystem corruption or a bunch of gaping wide holes in your kernel. OpenBSD, Linux 2.0.36, VMS, or the latest version of Solaris are all good choices.
They responded to my email pointing out the errors in their FAQ by thanking me for my email, saying that they are unable to comment on current or future legal actions, and mentioning that they appreciate my thoughts on the matter and are forwarding my email to the appropriate department for review. Then they thanked me for my email again.
I have an odd feeling that the "appropriate department" is/dev/null.
Have you stopped to think why the term was polluted? It was polluted because the people who broke into computer systems in the 1970s were indeed "hackers," using any definition of the term. Therefore they were both hackers and system intruders. The media sort of focused on the system intruders part.
Many of those early hackers were also what you would consider "crackers." Back when very few people had computer expertise, the only people with enough knowledge to "crack" a system were inevitably also hackers.
And the fact that many "crackers" and "hackers" are in fact the same people.
Case in point: Steve Wozniak.
Few would disparage his hacking credentials, building the Apple I and Apple II nearly singlehandedly. He was also into the hacking/phreaking scene in the 70s (what slashdotters would call the "cracking/phreaking scene") and was actually taken in once for selling red boxes.
why would they get rid of Nitrane to replace it with that crappy decoder they use now unless they were scared?
I was wondering that as well. I still use Winamp 2.20, because v2.21 and later all have annoying clicking noises when I play mp3s. I asked on #nullsoft on EFNet and they didn't offer any help or explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that a negative definition of "hacker" wasn't really erroneously created. Many of the early system intruders (those who slashdotters like to call "crackers") were indeed hackers, who came up with clever ways to bypass security. When not doing that, they were often writing innovative new programs in a variety of fields. These people, while they broke into systems, were legitimately hackers, by any definition of the term.
The problem is that the media has expanded this to cover anybody who breaks into systems. While some people who break into systems are hackers, not all are, just like while some hackers break into systems, not all do. System intruders (or "crackers," if you prefer), and "hackers," are neither synonymous or mutally inclusive (as the media erroneously assumes), or mutally exclusive (as many slashdotters erroneously assume).
That's the problem. Some hackers are crackers, and some crackers are hackers. However, some crackers are not hackers, and some hackers are not crackers. You cannot say "all hackers are crackers," (what the media and people like IBM's security guru say), but you also can't say "no crackers can be considered hackers," as many slashdotters say.
That's a problem because it's subjective. How do you decide if somebody is worthy of being considered a "hacker"? It's much easier (but wrong) to classify one based on whether they break into systems or not, an erroneous oversimplification of which both the media and slashdotters (and things such as ESR's jargon file) are guilty.
I don't see how your examples give any hope for restoring "hacker" to its original meaning. Despite this awareness you speak of, I still do not hear anybody saying "I am gay today," as a synonym for "I am happy today," or "That guy is queer," when they mean "That guy is a bit odd."
phacker? This may leave the wrong impression, especially if slightly mispronounced.
What's wrong with just plain "coder"? Or you could use "programmer," a term that everybody understands.
There is a fundamental problem when an ICMP packet can bring about a kernel packet. Something is wrong here. It brings into question the Linux community's ability to (re)write a Unix. And that's why people start bashing.
...making MacOS X almost useless as a web server
If a CGI kernel bug makes MacOS X almost useless as a web server, than the recent slew of Linux kernel bugs (filesystem corruption and Denial of Service attacks) would make Linux worse than useless as any sort of server. Why is it that an Apple bug makes the software "useless," while a serious Linux bug is considered minor?
Umm, individuals can't get in on an IPO. After the IPO shares have been distributed for the low prices ($15-$20 or so is normal), then individuals like you and me can start buying shares on the market for the market price ($50+). I'm personally not going to be buying any, since these types of IPOs usually go up really high initially, and then start coming back down. By the time individuals can buy any stock, it'll probably be near the peak.
I would if I could, but cable modems are not available in the majority if the United States. You seem to live in one of the few areas in which they are available.
I disagree. Some of my favorite artists sell and give away music on mp3.com. Many are, IMHO, much better than what you'll find on radio stations and MTV. Sure, there are a lot of really bad songs on mp3.com, but that's because mp3.com has more artists than all the major record labels combined (it has several thousand artists). If you look through the listings in the category of music you like, and listen to the realaudio streams before downloading the mp3s, you'll most likely find something you like. I personally like a lot of the stuff in the Industrial section, especially Burn, Fist of the Idealist, The Chain Reactive, Level, and Painted Blue.
I understand the difficulties in doing software-only DVD, but the problems with a hardware DVD method remain. If Linux can only offer hardware DVD, and Windows can offer both software and hardware DVD, then Windows will obviously have an advantage.
Not sure if this is possible in Netscape, but in Opera I have it set to "display only cached images," so all the images display (since they're in my cache) but don't take time to load. Periodically I hit the image button to refresh everything in my cache, and all is well.
That's fine for embedded systems. I was discussing home systems. A home system is going to have a CPU anyway, so having software decoding as an option will give Windows an advantage, unless somebody gets with it and implements it for Linux.
"Vast majority of Linux users dual-boot Windows anyway" - oh please, who are you to make such an assumption. Do you habe (sic) numbers to back that up? If not, then I suggest that you keep your own little statistics to your self (sic).
My statement was based on my observations of friends and acquantainces who run Linux, as well as the postings of people on slashdot. Note that I'm talking about this in the context of a home computer. I am not saying that people who use Linux as a server OS are dual-booting Windows - they obviously aren't.
Anyway, I notice you failed to respond to the rest of my post. If Linux users have to buy a piece of (most likely overpriced) hardware to view DVDs, and Windows users don't, that's a major blow to Linux's acceptance as a home computer OS, especially as DVDs steadily become more popular.
I don't see this as being very useful. Since the vast majority of Linux users dual-boot Windows anyway, who is going to buy this card? I most certainly am not going to waste one of my PCI slots when I can view DVDs in software, and I certainly am not going to spend a bunch of money on a (probably overpriced) card.
Either develop software DVD decoding for Linux, or I'll stick with Windows for DVD viewing. Making me buy a piece of hardware to overcome a deficiency is an OS is not acceptable.
I'm not sure of how this would differ for a certification mark, but I do recall that Xerox was particularly fussy about people using "xerox" as a generic synonym for "photocopy" because they were afraid that if it became a common descriptive term they would lose their trademark.
Hmm, interesting. You can't stop somebody from using "open source" in a sentence, but what exactly can you do? If a company said "We made our product an open source product," or "We open-sourced our product," and the license did not meet the OSD, could you do anything?
Also, are there any plans to apply for overseas trademark protection?
Well, there are some UseNet posts archived on deja.com using the term "open source" as a descriptive term relating to free software that go back to several years before OSI was formed. That would seem to me to indicate that it was a descriptive term already in use before the trademark was applied for, and thus you can't trademark it any more than you could trademark the term "free software." Then again, IANAL.
Well, Southwestern Bell here in Houston started offering ADSL April 1st, 1999. However, they say I'm unable to get it. The reason is that my area has fiber optic phone line. Mind you, the cables in my house are old-fashioned copper, and I connect over a slow analog modem that won't go over 26.4, but the lines buried under the street are (supposedly) fiber-optic. SWBell says that ADSL doesn't work on fiber optic lines, that something called "iDSL" does. iDSL won't be available for another 9 months, which probably means it won't *really* be available for at least another year. So it goes.
Well, for starters, don't run Linux 2.2.x or Windows NT. Both are really buggy, and you probably don't want filesystem corruption or a bunch of gaping wide holes in your kernel. OpenBSD, Linux 2.0.36, VMS, or the latest version of Solaris are all good choices.
They responded to my email pointing out the errors in their FAQ by thanking me for my email, saying that they are unable to comment on current or future legal actions, and mentioning that they appreciate my thoughts on the matter and are forwarding my email to the appropriate department for review. Then they thanked me for my email again.
/dev/null.
I have an odd feeling that the "appropriate department" is
Have you stopped to think why the term was polluted? It was polluted because the people who broke into computer systems in the 1970s were indeed "hackers," using any definition of the term. Therefore they were both hackers and system intruders. The media sort of focused on the system intruders part.
Yes, and Eric Raymond also thinks he owns the trademark on "Open Source."
Many of those early hackers were also what you would consider "crackers." Back when very few people had computer expertise, the only people with enough knowledge to "crack" a system were inevitably also hackers.
And the fact that many "crackers" and "hackers" are in fact the same people.
Case in point: Steve Wozniak.
Few would disparage his hacking credentials, building the Apple I and Apple II nearly singlehandedly. He was also into the hacking/phreaking scene in the 70s (what slashdotters would call the "cracking/phreaking scene") and was actually taken in once for selling red boxes.
why would they get rid of Nitrane to replace it with that crappy decoder they use now unless they were scared?
I was wondering that as well. I still use Winamp 2.20, because v2.21 and later all have annoying clicking noises when I play mp3s. I asked on #nullsoft on EFNet and they didn't offer any help or explanation.