Whoa! you must have forgotten about feudalism, absolute monarchies, class systems, and all the other ugly blots in western history.
Greek democracy was anything but egalitarian. The Roman republic was extinguished by an absolutist imperial system. The only European nation with a long history of Democracy is Iceland and their system harks back to the tribal gatherings (things) of the Germanic peoples - _not_ to any Mediterranean tradition.
Face it, most westerners are descended from powerless peasants who were lorded over for centuries by absolute monarchs and an all-powerful church that would burn you alive if you spoke your mind.
Westerners made the transition to democracy, painfully, with very little in the way of democratic tradition except for in the farthest, remotest past.
So what makes them so different from anyone else? We've been at it for a century or two. Not millenia.
Gore may be just a keener out for the geek vote. The man who invented\? the InformationSuperHighway seeks to increase his nerd appeal with Apache and Linux.
More telling is McCain and Bradley on Solaris, McCain with Apache and Bradley with Netscape. Both are very solid platforms with Bradley being just a little more Open and McCain being just a little more conservative. Geez! It's like reading tea leaves!
As for George W. I'm not surprised by his tea leaves at all.
You're right, he showed us a better face for the word hacker than the distorted mask usually shown by the popular media.
I noticed he never said "cracker" or "script-kiddie." He said "attacker" several times. I like this, I think it's a better fit. After all, any fool can fire a gun but not too many can design one though, at least one that doesn't explode when fired. By this analogy, almost anyone can attack but not everyone can hack.
Methinks the esteemed Mr. Metcalfe is spluttering sour grapes now that Open Source in general, and Linux in particular, is doing so well despite his highly informed, fully researched, and eminently trustworthy predictions to the contrary.
After all, his colleague, the almost but not quite so esteemed Mr. Petreley, has not only not been seen eating any headwear lately, he is apparently making no preparations for such a meal.
Alas alas! So very esteemed and so very wrong! But then, lesser minds like the most respectable Inventor Of Ethernet can seek solace in the fact that even a great mind like Einstein was wrong once in a while (eg. Cosmological Constant).
See back issues of Infoworld if ye don't grok what I be blabbing about.
Since most of us have never seen Windows boxen with uptimes remotely approaching to Un*x boxen, it stands to reason that MS' claims are tripe - thus our attitudes.
From my own experiences, I've seen several Suns with uptimes measured in years. I have never, EVER, seen a Windoze box with a track record that can even dream of touching that.
> And, when we succed in our re-engineering and overhaul of our practices we'll expect the > same level of coverage of that too.
When? I'm not from Missouri but....
Show Me!!!
Right now you have nothing but copies of others' work. We know it. You know it.
Right now you have the word "Linux" in you name and have filed for IPO based on the above cited nothing. Smells like "get rich quick!! opportunism and to us sounds like a threat to the market integrity of the name "Linux."
Withdraw your IPO filing. Create a real business plan. Create something real and release it properly. THEN come back to us asking for respect.
I repeat, right now you have nothing and have therefore earned nothing except for the scorn of the community you have parasitically attached yourselves to.
Well at least Mandrake originally set out to offer an improved RedHat - bundling KDE while RH was sticking to their GNOME-only guns.
And at least Mandrake didn't rush to an IPO announcement based on nothing more "we are RH with KDE." L1 is offering even less of a distinction and has rushed out with an IPO announcement.
It is the perception of Linux in the market that needs protecting. Mandrake, unlike LinuxOne, didn't set out specificaly to boondoggle the markets with a get rich quick scheme based on nothing but borrowed packaging - that's quite a difference - regardless of what one thinks of the Mandrake distro itself.
Sorry, but it's basically almost ?unreadable? because of all the misplaced ???? characters where ?"? should be. Maybe this problem should be written up on the ?Frontpage?!!
Ah, but it is easy to see a problem if it is obvious. It is less easy to prescribe a solution to an obvious problem.
You have stated the obvious and thrown the observation to the dogs who have torn it apart very well. Unfortunately, in their gleeful tearing, the dogs have offered no obvious solutions (yet).
Hopefully a keen insight or two will emerge from the yappings of the pack. In that case your statement of the obvious will have helped us to see where the not so obvious solution may lie.
They only reviewed Intel OSes and complained if tasks x,y, and z weren't accomplished with help from a GUI.
Real enterprise OSes such as OS/390, OS/400, HP/UX and Solaris - non PC, non-toy OSes - were notably absent from the list. I guess these fall into the "other" category I voted for in the poll. Still, I never saw one real enterprise OS even so much as mentioned.
Strangely, an as-yet unreleased OS with a nice GUI was mentioned: Win2K.
"clickety-clickety-click. Ooooo! See? I can run an enterprise!!!"
But your "Linux is the greatest" prejudices are showing. And yes, before you figure me for a Linux naysayer, I am a long-time Linux dabbler and know where it is useful - and where it is not. Guess what? I use Solaris for real serious projects than I do Linux and where I see free OSes at work, it's usually a BSD.
Linux has a long way to go before it suck less than Solaris.
After all, why should Linux and BSD users restrict themselves purely to OSS/freeware? There are some very nice commercial products out there, why ignore them just because they're commercial? Wouldn't we be ignoring the vast majority of the available software out there?
OSS shouldn't be seen as a replacement system, but as an augmentation to the existing system. Maybe lots of people think otherwise, sorry RMS, but in a world where greater freedom of choice is perhaps the most important thing to come from the OSS sea change, why should we be eliminating choices because of unbending freeware ideology?
If one chooses not to address non-open software, that is a valid choice, but no-one should seek to limit choices available to others. Let them make their own choices.
In that light, let us be aware of all possible options, OSS or Closed or the many points in between.
You know, I always had a feeling that I didn't really exist. I always had a sneaking suspicion that as a free-market leftist I was a walking contradiction.
You have so eloquently defined the paradox of my existence, and so as my life force fades into the/dev/null of nospace, I thank you for releasing me from my prison of paradoxes and hope that my karma is sufficient to bring me back as a gun control advocate with a hunting license.
What feedback mechanisms exist for consumers to register their concerns to their elected representatives? We can't let them just railroad this through as it stands.
Well, since we Canadjuns inherited a British-style parliamentary system, we have the lovely stupidity called "First past the post."
Remember Mulroney's majority government? He got 2/3 of the seats in parliament with 43% of the vote.
Remember Bob Rae in Ontario? His majority was won with 38%.
On the other hand there's Israel, where the system is proportional representation. Nobody ever wins a majority and fractious coalitions are the norm. Often these coalitions have to kowtow to extremist elements in order to gain their support.
So which is better, a non-representative first past the post that results in unpopular majorities or fractional coalitions and proportional representation?
Maybe the US two party system is another way: avoid the fractures by limiting voters' choices?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa! you must have forgotten about feudalism, absolute monarchies, class systems, and all the other ugly blots in western history.
Greek democracy was anything but egalitarian. The Roman republic was extinguished by an absolutist imperial system. The only European nation with a long history of Democracy is Iceland and their system harks back to the tribal gatherings (things) of the Germanic peoples - _not_ to any Mediterranean tradition.
Face it, most westerners are descended from powerless peasants who were lorded over for centuries by absolute monarchs and an all-powerful church that would burn you alive if you spoke your mind.
Westerners made the transition to democracy, painfully, with very little in the way of democratic tradition except for in the farthest, remotest past.
So what makes them so different from anyone else? We've been at it for a century or two. Not millenia.
-M
... now someone boosted him to a 2!!
Maybe moderators don't read well either.
Use the delete option.
Gore may be just a keener out for the geek vote. The man who invented\? the InformationSuperHighway seeks to increase his nerd appeal with Apache and Linux.
More telling is McCain and Bradley on Solaris, McCain with Apache and Bradley with Netscape. Both are very solid platforms with Bradley being just a little more Open and McCain being just a little more conservative. Geez! It's like reading tea leaves!
As for George W. I'm not surprised by his tea leaves at all.
-M
First of all, this is not the best forum to ask that question. This discussion is very general and you came very close to asking an in-depth question.
To get a good start in finding out more about systems security go to http://www.deter.com/unix
From there you will find better places to post deeper question.
-M
You're right, he showed us a better face for the word hacker than the distorted mask usually shown by the popular media.
I noticed he never said "cracker" or "script-kiddie." He said "attacker" several times. I like this, I think it's a better fit. After all, any fool can fire a gun but not too many can design one though, at least one that doesn't explode when fired. By this analogy, almost anyone can attack but not everyone can hack.
-M
Methinks the esteemed Mr. Metcalfe is spluttering sour grapes now that Open Source in general, and Linux in particular, is doing so well despite his highly informed, fully researched, and eminently trustworthy predictions to the contrary.
After all, his colleague, the almost but not quite so esteemed Mr. Petreley, has not only not been seen eating any headwear lately, he is apparently making no preparations for such a meal.
Alas alas! So very esteemed and so very wrong! But then, lesser minds like the most respectable Inventor Of Ethernet can seek solace in the fact that even a great mind like Einstein was wrong once in a while (eg. Cosmological Constant).
See back issues of Infoworld if ye don't grok what I be blabbing about.
-M
Absolutely.
Since most of us have never seen Windows boxen with uptimes remotely approaching to Un*x boxen, it stands to reason that MS' claims are tripe - thus our attitudes.
From my own experiences, I've seen several Suns with uptimes measured in years. I have never, EVER, seen a Windoze box with a track record that can even dream of touching that.
Bias? Indeed! Well founded bias.
-M
Do it in February?
.... ahem, forget it.
Today's high in Ottawa is -6 C. That's about 23 degrees Farenheit for the benefit of the Yanks.
This is also why they do the Glengarry Highland games in July. It's hard to toss yer caber when it's shrunken down to a wee
Californians have more summer than Ontarians. Maybe get _them_ to move their little get together.
MV
> And, when we succed in our re-engineering
....
and overhaul of our practices we'll expect the
> same level of coverage of that too.
When? I'm not from Missouri but
Show Me!!!
Right now you have nothing but copies of others' work. We know it. You know it.
Right now you have the word "Linux" in you name and have filed for IPO based on the above cited nothing. Smells like "get rich quick!! opportunism and to us sounds like a threat to the market integrity of the name "Linux."
Withdraw your IPO filing. Create a real business plan. Create something real and release it properly. THEN come back to us asking for respect.
I repeat, right now you have nothing and have therefore earned nothing except for the scorn of the community you have parasitically attached yourselves to.
-M
Well at least Mandrake originally set out to offer an improved RedHat - bundling KDE while RH was sticking to their GNOME-only guns.
And at least Mandrake didn't rush to an IPO announcement based on nothing more "we are RH with KDE." L1 is offering even less of a distinction and has rushed out with an IPO announcement.
It is the perception of Linux in the market that needs protecting. Mandrake, unlike LinuxOne, didn't set out specificaly to boondoggle the markets with a get rich quick scheme based on nothing but borrowed packaging - that's quite a difference - regardless of what one thinks of the Mandrake distro itself.
-M
Is it possible for Linus' lawyers to think up a way to throw an "abuse of trademark" curveball at these snake oil peddlers?
Sure they have product, but since these products are rip offs with no added value whatsoever, it can be discounted.
It's time to protect the Linux trademark from the damage that can be done by short-sighted opportunists like this.
MV
Sorry, but it's basically almost ?unreadable? because of all the misplaced ???? characters where ?"? should be. Maybe this problem should be written up on the ?Frontpage?!!
?????!
-M
Ah, but it is easy to see a problem if it is obvious. It is less easy to prescribe a solution to an obvious problem.
You have stated the obvious and thrown the observation to the dogs who have torn it apart very well. Unfortunately, in their gleeful tearing, the dogs have offered no obvious solutions (yet).
Hopefully a keen insight or two will emerge from the yappings of the pack. In that case your statement of the obvious will have helped us to see where the not so obvious solution may lie.
Captain Obvious Indeed!
-M
Camel? Commitee Designed Horse?
USSR: Commitee Designed Economy?
CDE? What?
They only reviewed Intel OSes and complained if tasks x,y, and z weren't accomplished with help from a GUI.
Real enterprise OSes such as OS/390, OS/400, HP/UX and Solaris - non PC, non-toy OSes - were notably absent from the list. I guess these fall into the "other" category I voted for in the poll. Still, I never saw one real enterprise OS even so much as mentioned.
Strangely, an as-yet unreleased OS with a nice GUI was mentioned: Win2K.
"clickety-clickety-click. Ooooo! See? I can run an enterprise!!!"
-M
But your "Linux is the greatest" prejudices are showing. And yes, before you figure me for a Linux naysayer, I am a long-time Linux dabbler and know where it is useful - and where it is not. Guess what? I use Solaris for real serious projects than I do Linux and where I see free OSes at work, it's usually a BSD.
Linux has a long way to go before it suck less than Solaris.
-M
The Toronto dialup numbers are the exact same numbers as PSI Canada, my former ISP.
Agreed. Most definitely.
After all, why should Linux and BSD users restrict themselves purely to OSS/freeware? There are some very nice commercial products out there, why ignore them just because they're commercial? Wouldn't we be ignoring the vast majority of the available software out there?
OSS shouldn't be seen as a replacement system, but as an augmentation to the existing system. Maybe lots of people think otherwise, sorry RMS, but in a world where greater freedom of choice is perhaps the most important thing to come from the OSS sea change, why should we be eliminating choices because of unbending freeware ideology?
If one chooses not to address non-open software, that is a valid choice, but no-one should seek to limit choices available to others. Let them make their own choices.
In that light, let us be aware of all possible options, OSS or Closed or the many points in between.
-M
> A "free market" leftist? That's the first I've heard of that...
Go get a dictionary and look up irony.
You know, I always had a feeling that I didn't really exist. I always had a sneaking suspicion that as a free-market leftist I was a walking contradiction.
/dev/null of nospace, I thank you for releasing me from my prison of paradoxes and hope that my karma is sufficient to bring me back as a gun control advocate with a hunting license.
You have so eloquently defined the paradox of my existence, and so as my life force fades into the
Ohm,
-M
What feedback mechanisms exist for consumers to register their concerns to their elected representatives? We can't let them just railroad this through as it stands.
-M
Java creation team's leader
Well, since we Canadjuns inherited a British-style parliamentary system, we have the lovely stupidity called "First past the post."
Remember Mulroney's majority government? He got 2/3 of the seats in parliament with 43% of the vote.
Remember Bob Rae in Ontario? His majority was won with 38%.
On the other hand there's Israel, where the system is proportional representation. Nobody ever wins a majority and fractious coalitions are the norm. Often these coalitions have to kowtow to extremist elements in order to gain their support.
So which is better, a non-representative first past the post that results in unpopular majorities or fractional coalitions and proportional representation?
Maybe the US two party system is another way: avoid the fractures by limiting voters' choices?
They all seem flawed to me.
-M
The 5th is a bunch of Quebec separatists.
Or the 5th is a US Constitutional amendment to protect individuals from self-incrimination.
As a Canadian I prefer the latter, at least it makes some sort of sense.
-M