I keep saying the "big boys" - IBM, HP, Sun, etc. - need to lean on the peripheral manufacturers - or better yet, PAY THEM to do Linux drivers at the same time as Windows drivers. What can it cost to have somebody on staff to do this? Another $100K? Which some companies now demand from any third party wanting to develop a driver for their hardware?
I say it would be a cheap investment for IBM and HP to sell a lot more Linux boxes. Even if you assume they have no motivation since THEIR stuff already runs Linux, the point is that people want to add hardware to whatever they bought from IBM and HP - and they won't run Linux if it can't do that. So it is in IBM's and HP's interest to see that third party peripherals run on their OS.
Since Linux supports read-only NTFS and can support read-write by using a wrapper around the MS NTFS driver, there should be no problem. Running in the same kernel space as Windows probably will eliminate the issue altogether if Linux can use the Windows drivers "natively", as it were.
Windows might even be able to learn to read ext2, ext3 and Reiser!
I don't care if it's German Gothic or whatever that weird one is called.
I have never understood people's - especially font makers - obsession with twiddling pixels to make one letter different from another. It's the same psychosis as many geek bit twiddlers.
We used typewriters with one or two lousy fonts for decades, for Baron von Christ's sake!
We DO NOT - even with the desirabiliy of choice being a given - NEED six hundred or six thousand different fonts on a PC.
If you type in 48-point, maybe you'd notice some of this stuff, but for the average user who is not a graphics art student, it's utterly irrelevant.
Yes, a font should be easily readable and look fairly sharp. Beyond that, it is an utter waste of time and money. You have more important things to worry about.
The main thing is this seems to be a cool hack - I mean, getting two OS's to cooperate in ring zero.
It's neater than User Mode Linux - if it actually works.
I don't see it "transforming" anything - if for no other reason than Microsoft will move to block it if it starts to "transform" anything Gates has an investment in.
Depending on how it works and how you use it, it might be very useful for things like security (each OS doublechecking each other's actions - like some of the NASA space missions computers do).
> With SELinux, it can be setup so that even root > can't do anything it wants.
I've considered for some time that a defect in Unix is to allow root to be more powerful than the kernel itself. What happens when someone other than root escalates privileges to root level?
The kernel should be able to protect iself from security violations even by root.
This causes most Unix geeks to react in horror. They love being all-powerful.
OTOH, there probably are situations where having the kernel override root would lead to system problems as well.
This remainds me of what the sysops used to tell me when learning computer operations on the Xerox Sigma 6 thirty years ago - "When there's a problem and the OS is popping up messages, satisfy the OS first before trying anything else."
The bottom line - we need smarter kernels - and smarter roots.
To paraphrase what someone once said, "We can probably figure out how to make software smarter, but there doesn't seem to be any way to make humans smarter."
And when was the last time you used a system where this was true?
Certainly not on Windows which has fifty million different icons, most of which I have never learned to differentiate - and as long as there is text captions and detailed list views, I never will.
The same is true in Linux.
I suspect VERY few people do file selection using only icons without at the very least reading the text as well to confirm their selection. If that's the case, what the hell good are icons? Saving you a fraction of a second which you then use to read the text anyway?
Icons are IMHO HIGHLY overrated as a usability feature.
...to Scott McNealy's own incompetence in dealing with Microsoft.
Anybody who thinks Microsoft can hold off Linux forever is an idiot.
And within the next twenty years - regardless of Jaron Lanier's nonsense - new hardware and software technology will appear which will bury current technology and Windows (and probably Linux and Unix) with it.
Of course, there will always be some moron companies running Windows in the year 2030 just like some companies today (like the IRS which according to a recent report is running code written in the 1960's, fer Baron von Christ's sake!) are running obsolete crap.
But Microsoft will be GONE in twenty years.
Have a nice day, Microsoft trolls. And fuck you very much.
Wrong. Since I'm far too old and chubby to be a target, nobody ever even approached me in the joint. The reference to your tight asshole is meant to refer to your miniscule brain.
You, on the other hand, would probably get down in an instant since you obviously are obsessed with the subject.
While prison sex does occur, the incidence is far lower than assumed by closet types like you.
...because Microsoft would have to bloat up to maybe a couple more gigabytes to house all the new icons.
Oh, wait, that's Longhorn.
Of course, they could just put one BIG icon as their boot page. An image of Bill's face, maybe. After all, as soon as you see his face, you know you're gonna get ripped off. The students at Harvard knew that when he was running poker games.
On a six-to-twelve month sentence, even if he does it at a joint, it's going to be a Federal prison camp. Highly unlikely he'll be assaulted there.
Propositioned, maybe, but not assaulted.
OTOH, these are not "white-collar resorts". You get more harassment from the staff because they're pissed you're on your way out of the system - and that threatens their job security.
I base these comments on eight years in the Federal prison system as an inmate, so don't even think about contradicting me.
I don't buy that because a function needs to be logically nested it needs to be lexically nested as well.
And procedural languages reveal structure via whitespace far better than nested languages. That's why such rules were invented for them - because people were violating the structure by writing as if the code was nested.
As for embedded comments, I said EMBEDDED - not before, after or at ends of lines. If you have a program consisting primarily of nested code, comments are forced to be separated from the code. If you keep your nesting limited to a couple lines, this is presumably no problem. I was talking about anything more than that.
In any event, the primary problem is that LISP code is designed to be machine processable, not human readable or even logically structured. Many other languages - in fact, most languages, procedural and otherwise - have this as a problem to one degree or another. LISP, APL and some others are merely extreme cases.
The bottom line remains that if LISP were a superior language for internal documentation purposes, it would be used as such. It isn't because it isn't.
This is obviously a religious conversation on your end, however, which I don't feel inclined to continue.
First of all, you can't use nuclear weapons against insurgency. What did you think I meant? A hundred thousand US citizens in ONE BIG GROUP? Get a clue.
As for Iraqis, again, I'm not talking about a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers scattered around the country deserting. I'm talking about a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians (or ex-soldiers, if you like, since there are several hundred thousand of them) acting both independently and in mass marches. The US cannot be seen to murder a hundred thousand people if they are in a group - independently, yes, if they can, since the public is too stupid to notice - which is what the US is doing now in Iraq - murdering civilians daily. But they cannot do that in one fell swoop - the rest of the world won't stand for it - and the rest of Iraq won't stand for it.
You think the lousy 130,000 US troops - even backed by the Air Force - can withstand several hundred thousand armed Iraqis attacking from all quarters in response to the murder of another hundred thousand Iraqis?
Get a clue.
The disparity in relative firepower is irrevelant. The sole criteria is the social and economic conditions of any given nation. Break those barriers down and any citizenry will drop any government (unfortunately the morons will then replace it with the same thing the day after). The reason Hussein stayed in power is the same one Bush stays in power - most people are not sufficiently pressured to take the risks involved in insurgent revolution. In fact, as is frequently referred to, you only need five percent of the population - the right five percent - to feel so pressured to cause a revolution. During the American War of Independence, thirty percent were revolutionaries, thirty percent were Tories, and thirty percent could care less. In this country, people have enough personal resources - even the poor have more than the middle class in many countries - that they fear risking the loss of those resources to effect political change. If it ever seems to them that the actions of the government will definitely - not possibly, but definitely - cause them to lose those resources anyway, their appraisal of the situation will change. It's no accident that lower class blacks riot more easily than white middle-class citizens.
If you can't see that economic and social conditions govern the probability of insurrection or revolution more than mere firepower, you have no clue.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep saying the "big boys" - IBM, HP, Sun, etc. - need to lean on the peripheral manufacturers - or better yet, PAY THEM to do Linux drivers at the same time as Windows drivers. What can it cost to have somebody on staff to do this? Another $100K? Which some companies now demand from any third party wanting to develop a driver for their hardware?
I say it would be a cheap investment for IBM and HP to sell a lot more Linux boxes. Even if you assume they have no motivation since THEIR stuff already runs Linux, the point is that people want to add hardware to whatever they bought from IBM and HP - and they won't run Linux if it can't do that. So it is in IBM's and HP's interest to see that third party peripherals run on their OS.
Seems obvious to me.
Since Linux supports read-only NTFS and can support read-write by using a wrapper around the MS NTFS driver, there should be no problem. Running in the same kernel space as Windows probably will eliminate the issue altogether if Linux can use the Windows drivers "natively", as it were.
Windows might even be able to learn to read ext2, ext3 and Reiser!
Naah...
Here's my opinion on fonts.
Can I read the fucking document?
The font is fine.
I don't care if it's German Gothic or whatever that weird one is called.
I have never understood people's - especially font makers - obsession with twiddling pixels to make one letter different from another. It's the same psychosis as many geek bit twiddlers.
We used typewriters with one or two lousy fonts for decades, for Baron von Christ's sake!
We DO NOT - even with the desirabiliy of choice being a given - NEED six hundred or six thousand different fonts on a PC.
If you type in 48-point, maybe you'd notice some of this stuff, but for the average user who is not a graphics art student, it's utterly irrelevant.
Yes, a font should be easily readable and look fairly sharp. Beyond that, it is an utter waste of time and money. You have more important things to worry about.
The main thing is this seems to be a cool hack - I mean, getting two OS's to cooperate in ring zero.
It's neater than User Mode Linux - if it actually works.
I don't see it "transforming" anything - if for no other reason than Microsoft will move to block it if it starts to "transform" anything Gates has an investment in.
Depending on how it works and how you use it, it might be very useful for things like security (each OS doublechecking each other's actions - like some of the NASA space missions computers do).
> With SELinux, it can be setup so that even root
> can't do anything it wants.
I've considered for some time that a defect in Unix is to allow root to be more powerful than the kernel itself. What happens when someone other than root escalates privileges to root level?
The kernel should be able to protect iself from security violations even by root.
This causes most Unix geeks to react in horror. They love being all-powerful.
OTOH, there probably are situations where having the kernel override root would lead to system problems as well.
This remainds me of what the sysops used to tell me when learning computer operations on the Xerox Sigma 6 thirty years ago - "When there's a problem and the OS is popping up messages, satisfy the OS first before trying anything else."
The bottom line - we need smarter kernels - and smarter roots.
To paraphrase what someone once said, "We can probably figure out how to make software smarter, but there doesn't seem to be any way to make humans smarter."
And a "blended attack" can do both and be a trojan as well. No human intervention needed at all - well, I suppose someone has to run the machine.
So, while the definitions are not incorrect or moot, they are pretty much irrelevant today.
> if icons are simple and differentiated enough
And when was the last time you used a system where this was true?
Certainly not on Windows which has fifty million different icons, most of which I have never learned to differentiate - and as long as there is text captions and detailed list views, I never will.
The same is true in Linux.
I suspect VERY few people do file selection using only icons without at the very least reading the text as well to confirm their selection. If that's the case, what the hell good are icons? Saving you a fraction of a second which you then use to read the text anyway?
Icons are IMHO HIGHLY overrated as a usability feature.
McNealy doesn't need to be an actor OR an android to be an idiot CEO who makes random decisions.
Nothing would surprise me coming from him. He's the Darl McBride of UNIX.
Oh, wait...
> Outside the niche world of Slashdot, most people
> don't know or care about something called
> "Linux," "RIAA," or even "M$.
That's right - there are a lot of morons in the world.
You're one of them, apparently.
Have a nice day.
You mean, we can't put Bill Gates in there?
How about his head? Will that fit?
...to Scott McNealy's own incompetence in dealing with Microsoft.
Anybody who thinks Microsoft can hold off Linux forever is an idiot.
And within the next twenty years - regardless of Jaron Lanier's nonsense - new hardware and software technology will appear which will bury current technology and Windows (and probably Linux and Unix) with it.
Of course, there will always be some moron companies running Windows in the year 2030 just like some companies today (like the IRS which according to a recent report is running code written in the 1960's, fer Baron von Christ's sake!) are running obsolete crap.
But Microsoft will be GONE in twenty years.
Have a nice day, Microsoft trolls. And fuck you very much.
What I will do is demonstrate how little anyone on /. knows about the subject - which is no surprise since it is /..
/. search. I've mentioned it before.
As for other info, do a
Wrong. Since I'm far too old and chubby to be a target, nobody ever even approached me in the joint. The reference to your tight asshole is meant to refer to your miniscule brain.
You, on the other hand, would probably get down in an instant since you obviously are obsessed with the subject.
While prison sex does occur, the incidence is far lower than assumed by closet types like you.
...because Microsoft would have to bloat up to maybe a couple more gigabytes to house all the new icons.
Oh, wait, that's Longhorn.
Of course, they could just put one BIG icon as their boot page. An image of Bill's face, maybe.
After all, as soon as you see his face, you know you're gonna get ripped off. The students at Harvard knew that when he was running poker games.
> Sexual violence is a way of life in prison
You're an idiot.
Have a nice day with your TIGHT ASSHOLE.
Actually, they're BOTH cretin fascists AND ignorant.
On a six-to-twelve month sentence, even if he does it at a joint, it's going to be a Federal prison camp. Highly unlikely he'll be assaulted there.
Propositioned, maybe, but not assaulted.
OTOH, these are not "white-collar resorts". You get more harassment from the staff because they're pissed you're on your way out of the system - and that threatens their job security.
I base these comments on eight years in the Federal prison system as an inmate, so don't even think about contradicting me.
I hope you do, too.
Asshole.
The original folder remains, but it is left empty
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, wow, that was brilliant on M$ part!
Don't you just love the way their 24-year-old, just-out-of-college, no real-world experience programmers think?
We should force
Then we can
Sure is - can't get to the Maxploit link now.
dual
double, as in: I can remember when a dual-speed CD-ROM reader was the best you could buy.
duel
fight between two, as in: Microsoft and Netscape are in a duel for browser dominance.
Dual as in two edges to said sword.
Whether said sword is used in a duel is irrelevant.
I don't buy that because a function needs to be logically nested it needs to be lexically nested as well.
And procedural languages reveal structure via whitespace far better than nested languages. That's why such rules were invented for them - because people were violating the structure by writing as if the code was nested.
As for embedded comments, I said EMBEDDED - not before, after or at ends of lines. If you have a program consisting primarily of nested code, comments are forced to be separated from the code. If you keep your nesting limited to a couple lines, this is presumably no problem. I was talking about anything more than that.
In any event, the primary problem is that LISP code is designed to be machine processable, not human readable or even logically structured. Many other languages - in fact, most languages, procedural and otherwise - have this as a problem to one degree or another. LISP, APL and some others are merely extreme cases.
The bottom line remains that if LISP were a superior language for internal documentation purposes, it would be used as such. It isn't because it isn't.
This is obviously a religious conversation on your end, however, which I don't feel inclined to continue.
You're an idiot.
First of all, you can't use nuclear weapons against insurgency. What did you think I meant? A hundred thousand US citizens in ONE BIG GROUP? Get a clue.
As for Iraqis, again, I'm not talking about a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers scattered around the country deserting. I'm talking about a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians (or ex-soldiers, if you like, since there are several hundred thousand of them) acting both independently and in mass marches. The US cannot be seen to murder a hundred thousand people if they are in a group - independently, yes, if they can, since the public is too stupid to notice - which is what the US is doing now in Iraq - murdering civilians daily. But they cannot do that in one fell swoop - the rest of the world won't stand for it - and the rest of Iraq won't stand for it.
You think the lousy 130,000 US troops - even backed by the Air Force - can withstand several hundred thousand armed Iraqis attacking from all quarters in response to the murder of another hundred thousand Iraqis?
Get a clue.
The disparity in relative firepower is irrevelant. The sole criteria is the social and economic conditions of any given nation. Break those barriers down and any citizenry will drop any government (unfortunately the morons will then replace it with the same thing the day after). The reason Hussein stayed in power is the same one Bush stays in power - most people are not sufficiently pressured to take the risks involved in insurgent revolution. In fact, as is frequently referred to, you only need five percent of the population - the right five percent - to feel so pressured to cause a revolution. During the American War of Independence, thirty percent were revolutionaries, thirty percent were Tories, and thirty percent could care less. In this country, people have enough personal resources - even the poor have more than the middle class in many countries - that they fear risking the loss of those resources to effect political change. If it ever seems to them that the actions of the government will definitely - not possibly, but definitely - cause them to lose those resources anyway, their appraisal of the situation will change. It's no accident that lower class blacks riot more easily than white middle-class citizens.
If you can't see that economic and social conditions govern the probability of insurrection or revolution more than mere firepower, you have no clue.
I don't pay taxes!
Have a nice day, Commissioner!