> Although slightly USA-centric, this topic might also be of interest to our non-US readers so that > they can discuss what they want out of their government in the near future.
Nah, watching US elections - a lengthy big-money spending process which essentially removes a whole crop of politicians from the actual running of the country for nearly a year and then lame ducks an outgoing president for months - just convinces me that no matter how stupid _my_ country's idiotic system of federal election may be, there is a an even more idiotic one right next door.
So, no matter how much we can congratulate ourselves for being citizens of enlightened democratic market driven nations, we must also realise that our systems are still pretty much old, malfunctioning and badly in need of redesign and/or maintenance. After all, does it really matter who wins? Every elected joker seems to screw up sooner or later, probably sooner.
To me, the circus called an American election is just further proof of this sad fact.
I didn't say NT was crap. I said its "clickety-click" approach to server management made for badly managed servers.
If your sysadmins aren't draftees from the desktop helpdesk, then NT can indeed be run well and crash much less than NT run by recycled end-users.
As for the tired old "can't sue Linux" BS, go read your commercial license agreement. You can't sue MS or Sun or HP or any other vendor if you lose your data. Maybe you can sue a VAR but you can't sue the big guys, they have protected themeselves from product liability suits in their product licenses.
What's the matter, can't you read?
> That, in a nutshell, is why Linux is not making headway into the corporate market.
My God it amazes me how out of touch some people are!
The desktop is considered to be the only viable thing by people who are only aware of the desktop. Anything more complex than the desktop (anything else) is too complicated for them to consider.
I _am_ in the real world, and the real world runs on servers, not desktops. Desktops are only access points.
Linux' (and *BSD and Unix in general) success has been on _servers_, it is only because people liek Dvorak are aware of its existence that it is being considered for a clickety-clicky role - the only thing that matters to them.
Somebody _tried_ to make servers clickety clicky, it was called NT. Instead of making servers easier to manage it made for badly managed servers.
Maybe it's time for "corporate America" to realise that there is more to computers than desktops. But then again, in "corporate America" the lowest common denominator tends to rule.
Is it just me or is anybody else sick of all of the supersticious goo and various other scare mongering flying about just before all four digits in the Christian year flip?
Isn't this just another symptom of rampant Milleniophobia? No matter how much it's debunked by Science, the supersticious apolcalyptophiles will still stick to their supersticions like flies to tape.
*sigh*
-M
PS: What disappointed me most is that the nuclear waste dump on the Moon's Far Side didn't blow up in September after all. Moonbase Alpha is still safe.
> Audio and video streaming standards should clearly be wide open -- wide open -- and, I think > we are closer to getting that from Microsoft than we are from RealNetworks.
Based on the fact that MS _might_ play nice because of the Antitrust trial?
I agree, Audio and video streaming standards should definitely be wide open. Right now I don't see it coming from either MS or Real - or any other corporation for that matter. Neither MS nor Real is the most sportsmanlike players on the ice.
I'd prefer an Open Standard and the closest to that is coming from the MPEG (both A and V) camp.
> 1) National Socialism, by its very nature, was Socialism...
Eh?
It was State cronyism driven capitalism under a fascist roof, not Socialist by a long shot. Remember, the scare mongering AH used to get into power used Jews _and_ Communist as scapegoats. ANd who was the Reichstag fire blamed on? Capitalists? I think not!
Besides, the comparison between AH and VZ is ludicrous. VZ is a buffoon.
BTW, a comparison to Hitler has been raised, by the old USENET rules this thread should be terminated. So much for tradition!
Perhaps that's the basis of the rumour: Broadcast.com's behaviour. Otherwise it just seems to be too stupid a move and kind of out of character for Yahoo.
> The EU can have Québec, and NAFTA can have England.
What? We get 58,000,000 Anglais for 6,000,000 Kwebeckers? What a trade! Kwebeck would love it, since they'd think it means they're 10 times more valuable than les Anglais.
Of course it could also mean that they're 10 time the pain. Hmmmm.
> and the Maritimes might become an American protectorate.
Eh? Like the whole damn country isn't already a US protectorate? I assume you've heard of NORAD, the DEW Line, the history of the former Canadian Nuclear Arsenal (acquired on the insistent and persistent "advice" of the US) and the curious fact that Canada's once proud military has withered into a shadow of a joke under the Protective Umbrella of the US military.
Canada's sovereignty is limited. Face it. It's a fairly obvious reality.
> It doesn't make sense. unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that > the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American. And why not?
Hmmm, we have here a Protectionist it seems.
Without going into a discussion of the benefits of open trade at a global level, we can safely look at the Canada-US arrangement as a single case. Go look at it. Good one eh? Wanna criticize it? Go ahead, try. It seems to work.
Now, the US military makes use of a fairly large amount of Canadian made nuclear material. An example is the Tritium used for nuclear triggers on H-Bombs. Now, if you weren't allowed to buy anything from Canada, who would the Canadians sell their goodies to? I'm sure they'd find many willing buyers.
No, the existing arrangment works better than most of the alternatives. So don't bitch about the smaller effects.
Oh yeah, think before slagging free and open commerce. It sounds real weird coming from an American.;-)
> I really would hope that Slashdot isn't starting to pander to the lowest common denominator like > television does. I try to have more faith in the people here.
Same here, so here goes my attempt at a possible explanation.
Speaking for myself, deeply technical articles cause me to read attentively instead of faster skimming. In addition, I like to look at more of the comments before I say anything, again because of interest but also to make sure my statements are not completely d'uh.
In this particular article, I read very carefully because, while I am no kernel hacker, as a technologist I do find the technical details of kernel hacking extremely interesting. Maybe someday I will do more than just look, but for now it's enough for me.
This makes any posting I may make more cautious in nature and I may not bother at all, choosing to leave the discussion level to those more qualified than I, and thus maintaining the intelligence of the overall discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm,
Nader was high on my list but Bradley was #1. Incidentally, he is a former basketball pro and now a Senator (I think).
In Canada I just don't bother to vote anymore. None of the parties represent me or my views.
-M
> Although slightly USA-centric, this topic might also be of interest to our non-US readers so that
> they can discuss what they want out of their government in the near future.
Nah, watching US elections - a lengthy big-money spending process which essentially removes a whole crop of politicians from the actual running of the country for nearly a year and then lame ducks an outgoing president for months - just convinces me that no matter how stupid _my_ country's idiotic system of federal election may be, there is a an even more idiotic one right next door.
So, no matter how much we can congratulate ourselves for being citizens of enlightened democratic market driven nations, we must also realise that our systems are still pretty much old, malfunctioning and badly in need of redesign and/or maintenance. After all, does it really matter who wins? Every elected joker seems to screw up sooner or later, probably sooner.
To me, the circus called an American election is just further proof of this sad fact.
-M
I didn't say NT was crap. I said its "clickety-click" approach to server management made for badly managed servers.
If your sysadmins aren't draftees from the desktop helpdesk, then NT can indeed be run well and crash much less than NT run by recycled end-users.
As for the tired old "can't sue Linux" BS, go read your commercial license agreement. You can't sue MS or Sun or HP or any other vendor if you lose your data. Maybe you can sue a VAR but you can't sue the big guys, they have protected themeselves from product liability suits in their product licenses.
What's the matter, can't you read?
> That, in a nutshell, is why Linux is not making headway into the corporate market.
My God it amazes me how out of touch some people are!
-M
The desktop is considered to be the only viable thing by people who are only aware of the desktop. Anything more complex than the desktop (anything else) is too complicated for them to consider.
I _am_ in the real world, and the real world runs on servers, not desktops. Desktops are only access points.
Linux' (and *BSD and Unix in general) success has been on _servers_, it is only because people liek Dvorak are aware of its existence that it is being considered for a clickety-clicky role - the only thing that matters to them.
Somebody _tried_ to make servers clickety clicky, it was called NT. Instead of making servers easier to manage it made for badly managed servers.
Maybe it's time for "corporate America" to realise that there is more to computers than desktops. But then again, in "corporate America" the lowest common denominator tends to rule.
Your response is evidence of this blindness.
-M
Ah well, in Dvorak's world, if it ain't a clickety-clicky no brainer desktop oriented thingy, it ain't worth considering.
After all, we're talking about one of those guys who thought Wintel PCs could, would and were replacing mainframes.
Servers are out of Dvorak's sight and therefore not on his mind.
-M
What a strange and outdated concept! Who decides the standard? A commitee - a la CDE? Barf! A dictator a la Bill Gates? Double Barf!!
"You can have any car you want as long as it's black." - Henry Ford
One of the charms of Linux and all other Unixen is the _freedom_ to have any interface you want.
What we need to standardise is the plumbing under _all_ interfaces, not the user interface itself.
If you want an OS with an enforced standard look and feel, go play with a Mac.
Merry Christmas!
-M
> oh my god
> you posted that in a public forum?
> the horror
Ah well. Just doing my part to share the magic.
-M
Is it just me or is anybody else sick of all of the supersticious goo and various other scare mongering flying about just before all four digits in the Christian year flip?
Isn't this just another symptom of rampant Milleniophobia? No matter how much it's debunked by Science, the supersticious apolcalyptophiles will still stick to their supersticions like flies to tape.
*sigh*
-M
PS: What disappointed me most is that the nuclear waste dump on the Moon's Far Side didn't blow up in September after all. Moonbase Alpha is still safe.
From the Domain bullying link at IDG.
... eToys filed its lawsuit after several customers said they stumbled on Etoy site ...
>
> and were offended by some of its material
Geez!
Since when is the site's owner/operator responsible for the mistakes and/or stupidity of the users?
If you stumble, it's your own fault. Nobody tripped you.
-M
Yah! I too thought that was the most clueless statement in the article.
Name: etoys.com
Address: 204.71.184.182
Name: www.etoys.com
Address: 204.71.184.166
Gee that was hard!
-M
Off topic.
Maybe rearrange your spam, somebody may have to deal with studpid robot generated mail fails.
Cheers,
-M
Default Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
> spam.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Name: spam.com
Address: 206.10.25.251
> Audio and video streaming standards should clearly be wide open -- wide open -- and, I think
> we are closer to getting that from Microsoft than we are from RealNetworks.
Based on the fact that MS _might_ play nice because of the Antitrust trial?
I agree, Audio and video streaming standards should definitely be wide open. Right now I don't see it coming from either MS or Real - or any other corporation for that matter. Neither MS nor Real is the most sportsmanlike players on the ice.
I'd prefer an Open Standard and the closest to that is coming from the MPEG (both A and V) camp.
-M
> 1) National Socialism, by its very nature, was Socialism ...
Eh?
It was State cronyism driven capitalism under a fascist roof, not Socialist by a long shot. Remember, the scare mongering AH used to get into power used Jews _and_ Communist as scapegoats. ANd who was the Reichstag fire blamed on? Capitalists? I think not!
Besides, the comparison between AH and VZ is ludicrous. VZ is a buffoon.
BTW, a comparison to Hitler has been raised, by the old USENET rules this thread should be terminated. So much for tradition!
-M
Perhaps that's the basis of the rumour: Broadcast.com's behaviour. Otherwise it just seems to be too stupid a move and kind of out of character for Yahoo.
-M
And where would Linux be without GNU?
Of course we can also wonder where would GNU be without Linux?
Es ist egal.
-M
... is Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezoz. Saw it on CNN last night. Waxed profound about his "vision" and other adoring goo. No, I don't have a link.
Bah!
-M
... and Volvo and Ferrari are really Ford. Oy!
See the related thread saying how Canada is basically a US protectorate. It seems we're both right.
-M
> Better a US protectorate than a UK one.
Indeed, we swapped the latter for the former.
> The EU can have Québec, and NAFTA can have England.
What? We get 58,000,000 Anglais for 6,000,000 Kwebeckers? What a trade! Kwebeck would love it, since they'd think it means they're 10 times more valuable than les Anglais.
Of course it could also mean that they're 10 time the pain. Hmmmm.
-M
> and the Maritimes might become an American protectorate.
Eh? Like the whole damn country isn't already a US protectorate? I assume you've heard of NORAD, the DEW Line, the history of the former Canadian Nuclear Arsenal (acquired on the insistent and persistent "advice" of the US) and the curious fact that Canada's once proud military has withered into a shadow of a joke under the Protective Umbrella of the US military.
Canada's sovereignty is limited. Face it. It's a fairly obvious reality.
-M
> It doesn't make sense. unless there is no, i repeat, no American company to make something that
;-)
> the US GOV'T needs, they will always buy American. And why not?
Hmmm, we have here a Protectionist it seems.
Without going into a discussion of the benefits of open trade at a global level, we can safely look at the Canada-US arrangement as a single case. Go look at it. Good one eh? Wanna criticize it? Go ahead, try. It seems to work.
Now, the US military makes use of a fairly large amount of Canadian made nuclear material. An example is the Tritium used for nuclear triggers on H-Bombs. Now, if you weren't allowed to buy anything from Canada, who would the Canadians sell their goodies to? I'm sure they'd find many willing buyers.
No, the existing arrangment works better than most of the alternatives. So don't bitch about the smaller effects.
Oh yeah, think before slagging free and open commerce. It sounds real weird coming from an American.
-M
> I really would hope that Slashdot isn't starting to pander to the lowest common denominator like
> television does. I try to have more faith in the people here.
Same here, so here goes my attempt at a possible explanation.
Speaking for myself, deeply technical articles cause me to read attentively instead of faster skimming. In addition, I like to look at more of the comments before I say anything, again because of interest but also to make sure my statements are not completely d'uh.
In this particular article, I read very carefully because, while I am no kernel hacker, as a technologist I do find the technical details of kernel hacking extremely interesting. Maybe someday I will do more than just look, but for now it's enough for me.
This makes any posting I may make more cautious in nature and I may not bother at all, choosing to leave the discussion level to those more qualified than I, and thus maintaining the intelligence of the overall discussion.
Perhaps I am not the only one to do this?
Yes, perhaps.
-M
Red Hat is gonna buy SCO!
Red Hat is gonna buy Novell!
Red Hat is gonna buy Santa Claus!
It's the super evil, super acquisitive, insatiable monster of the distros. Almost as evil as that other software company!
Deal with the facts, screw the rumours.
-M
Oh very true!
After all, a reboot is much easier than grokking a core file. Frigging cores! Who needs 'em? Let the flakey apps take my system _down_ I say!!
Damn! Where are my rolling papers?
-M
Right on!
Most NT admins are woefully prepared for the reality of trench warfare. This is most definitely a reason why Win-nets are often such bad performers.
Take Scott's response to a 5!
-M