I was thinking the exact same thing. Also, consider that those old servers were probably running an O.S. version similiarly dated. And, thats a point as well: With *nix you can get to a point where you just stop upgrading, because its not necessary to up grade, in other words once you got everything working and patched, you can just stop, and focus your own stuff. Perhaps, their real reason to upgrade was the hardware was too old to get a support contract, that could be problem. Hardware can wear out. And, once something gets really old its support costs can really escalate. Look at terminal costs. Simple curses terminals, are incredibly expensive for their real value, I'd expect them to cost about 1/3 of what they cost.
I couldn't find who you qouted there... but I had to comment: 'orthogonal'? I thought that had to with language design, and syntax, I'm kind of hazy on it actually, but I thought it was like being able to use syntax basically any way you want, and if you say couldn't do an if() inside a for(), but could do a for inside an f then it wasn't. I'm kinda thinking exceptions lead to less orthogonality since it lead to uncatched exceptions are syntax errors if anything... But, actually I thought it was just a term Computer Science professors made up to generate a more diffuse grade distribution;-] ( And impropery overloaded the term from math as well! )
But what does it have to do with return codes vs exceptions?
Anyway... Another point, is that exceptions vs return codes can affect design. Take unix programs like ed,vi, and emacs, etc: If you try to visit a file and it exists, the prog reads the file in, you edit the buffer, and saves back to that name when you save; if the file doesn't exist, then this is just a simpler case of the general problem, you just don't need to read in. But, trying to the same thing with exceptions, is much more cumbersome, and comes out much less elegant looking source wise, to say the least. At least, that was my experience with java. I think the exception mechanism would lead more to the typical windows style program, were newfile is oneaction, and open is another ( and new file buffers stay "untitled' until you save ).
You left off forth; its forth like with it' respect to weird and a little hard to learn operators. And preponderance of. It's also forth-like w/ respect to its interpreter speed.
Let me just confirm my geek status, by replying twice to a D&D topic. PSIONICS were optional. Very optional, that's why they were in the back of the book. I'm surprised 5d4 #2 pencils weren't launched over his DM screen doing 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 2 points of damage and bloodying his nose. I think your making this up.
I never played with psionics, I thought it was too much crap. If I let someone in as a cross-over thing, they had to very careful not to piss-off any druids... And that's the thing with the optional rules. Some, subclasses start to suck with them, and Some suck w/o 'em. Like Illusionists. Cool if you play with Weapon speed, casting time, spell components, and ESP. the attack with dual weapons rule for high DEX, that was buried in the DMG. Has many spells with only verbal componet. And those Minor, and major creation spells. Sucked ass w/o those rules. I was captured some many times playing D&D, I started playing Illusionists just so I'd have an edge in those situtations -- later, I learned some DM's just had 1 plot.
That was the most claring thing about the article. Tolkiens influence is mostly limited to abilities of the elves, dwarves, and the subtypes of the halfings/hobbits. Anyway,in Tolkien's world it seems like you have to really be some kind of demi-god or subangel/demon type do use any magic. Quick, name a magic user in LOTR, or isn't an elf w/ a ring, or some kind of mi-ar (sp?). Gygax lists a large bilbilography in AD&D DMG 1st ed., many books and series are listed. and I think maybe, you're overstepping if you imply Jack Vance, exclusively -- But closer than the article at any rate. TO Me i don't care about d20. D&D went down hill about the time of 3rd ED rules, maybe the descent is now steeper.
I see they now own STARWARS , too BAD. One of the cleverest RPGS was the original STARWARS RPG by West end games. You just used d6 and lots of them. Minimal Charts. The more d6's you had in in skill/ability the more normal the bell-curve, less erratic, and some point, and around midlevel, easy task are automatic As opposed to, the D&D rule, were no matter that your character is now 20th level Fighter-Lord with 10 retainers and a castle of men,there's still a 1-in-20 chances that you'll slip, trip, fall on your ass, do 1-4 points of damage to yourself, and chip (-1) your vorpal sword.
>Microsoft has previously shared some of its source code with some companies, U.S. >government agencies, foreign governments and universities under tight restrictions >that prevent such organizations from making it publicly available. ( earthlink ) O.K. to a foreign goverment 'tight restrictions' basically means "don't do this, because it will piss us of' I mean what's the enforcement going to be? What serious repurcussion?
Consider how much Windows is used as part of the infrastructure for the U.S and our allies. Consider that terrorists target infrastructure. Consider that knowning what the enemy knows, or could trivially determine is useful. With open source, you can know anything the enemy might learn. If you can learn it from the source, they could learn it from the source. You might be able to infer when they could have learned it, from when the source was made available. You can back track an determine if a system was ever really exploitable... maybe even years later.. Could be really useful to determine if it's possible a machine with classified data could have ever been hacked. If you can determine that it didn't ever run the vulnerable service during the time it was running the vulnerable O.S. verision, you can breathe a sigh of relief, and move on. But, with Windows you'd have to remember to breathe! Anyway, with open source any decent admin could trivally determine this... or could ask any other decent admin. The point I making is with Open Source security issues are more fully disclosed, giving who ever's job it is to clean up afterwards, more information to work with.
[Insert one's favorite diatribe on the Fallacy of Security through Obscurity here.]
Re:Why do big companies want pseudo-compiled langs
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps the original author should have said / trivially/easy to decompile. And thats decompile not disassemble. In other words getting back the C++ with only withspace changes (indenting) and no comments -- but, actually, it sounds like they lose variable names, etc. I think some old basics and maybe applescript would decompile and give you the same names, ( bigfunc not func10234. )
Anyway, if they want to steal the logic, then,yeah, there are C (& C++ )decompilers, but whats the logic going to look like after/optimizing/? Working out that the compiler unrolled an inner loop from the assembler can be SO much fun. And can look less like the original than, say , an interative VS recursive imp.
If it takes them to do a K-MAP to work out how the other guy did it, then they just did as much work to steal it from the other guy as do it-- or nearly...
Then again obfuscation/is/ probably doable just ADD in junk to the logic, loads of crap look like if ( ( VERSION + YEAR ) / 2000.0 2.0 )
g= JUNKVariable1 * 1000 +... / etc else
g= REALformula REPEAT ADINiFINITUM if they'll never get the real names back then that should munge things a bit.
Anyway--- I'm up late at night just to reply to a random note;-] And I say how would we know how to know whether or not a bacteria that did in fact die from acid rain may or may not have created something that resembled an art form somewhere on the surface of mars? And if first life did that then what;-]?
And if we found what looked like a random tear drop later? then what? Or perhaps a large form of a colony of one-celled etc, etc, & et al.
HMM... anyone one care if it turned out both sides of that argument were wrong?
Anyway, still.. somewhere in my possesion I have in a frame of something that looks like a pie-plate art from 1st grade going on second, and you have you seen that picture from mars? Well if you haven't then the jokes on heisenberg and your electron too BAH-BUMP-BUMP
IMO, there so much hyper-bole that , on the net, where one can't really see the expression of the contenance, or the tone of the voice, that one can't really tell legimate feelings of offense from Mock-offense. Let me explain a little. Someone could have lost a loved one on that island, in that battle, in fact let me turn P.C. on it's side at point out, that as I understand, the no-one in the orginial iconographic picture survived that war, so a relative of one of the american soldiers pictured in the originial, could have a reaction, different than that the artists intends. The intent, IMO, was to capture the struggle ( and the glory that comes ) of working on a Open Source O.S. as portable as NetBSD by borrowing on the originial, which has similiar themes.... Then there's the guys who think that something's lame, and even though not personally offended, they quickly craft the most vritiolic, and in my consideration 'facil', attack, just to serve their desire to argue against, and quickly polarize the argument. And, once polarized the argument is, just so much, easier to deal with, kind of like dealing with 1-bit color bit-maps, and it's , so easy to apply those filters isn't it. (Not aiming at you)
Anyway, having gotten that of my chest, let's see what conclusions follow: Pro/Anti U.S. sentiments become academic, as even a patriot might have a reaction, if not , in fact offense, would be in-apropriate for the purpose of logo. The art itself is derivative in composition, establishing its theme of 'struggle' by borrowing on the theme of the original. And, the work isn't that good, the deamons or devils don't look that much like the BSD beastie at all,
What's so wrong with Pencil? Abstract wierd font logos is very 1980's IMO. EA's (Electronic Arts) Logo was the best of the genre, and I feel that that really thats stuff has become cookie-cutter, mainly complained about by Comerical Artists looking for work... As far the GNU... regarding Net's logo, it isn't the pencil in itself, but the fact that its large, and doesnt resemble the classic beasty, and as someone said in another thread they resemble the noids... The thing is too big To/some/ extent pencil art from an actual contributer to the project to me has more value than a formaliac profesional going-rate-per-hour work. To me that kind of abstract type face logo stuff, has been doon so much, so many tools to do just, that its hardly even applied art, but has become a very/safe/ , bland, choice.
What? No, first appearance was 4.2 BSD manuals published by Usenix Association. Google for Timeline_0378_BsdDaemon.jpg Or if this link is still good: http://www.old-computers.com/history/images /Timeli ne_0378_BsdDaemon.jpg
At any rate they must keep Beastie, IMO, in fact I'd loose interest in NetBSD if they did, moving away from Beastie suggests moving away from BSD historic roots. Something more like the original.. Or Maybe just get the rights to use one of the better T-Shirt logos.
Well since they're aliases I have to wonder what the problem is -- why would you want to keep them around? "Poof" is brilliant, optimized for the average case use. "I don't use IE bye, gone.. POOF" . Now,I don't need to delete the desktop alias as well. (Perhaps Mac is trying to enforce some desktop neatness, but that's cool imo) As far locking, neat but don't really need it with the POOF. Yeah, I've once or twice accidently dragged something into dock, but it doesnt actually move anything it just makes an alias and drops that into the dock, so it is really easy and intuitive to fix it, by dragged it off. Perhaps Apple is shooting for a dock that easy to use for transient/temporaral uses w/o needing to clutter the deskop.. I'm doing this alot this week so I'll add it to the dock, next week you dragged it off and 'POOF its gone' still wherever you installed it, of course...
Here's what the should add, if it isn't already in 10.3: Dragging to iconified finder folders in dock should act as if drag. to window. I might be able to add that with a script though...
>Because all of the man hours spent building up Gnome were spent on KDE (or >K-Office, Konquerer, etc), the code would be much tighter, with greater functionality. Accept for that fact, that no, it would not. I hear this all the time mainly from users who don't really do any coding or development. I mean if everyone was getting paid by Linus or Stallman to code by the hour or whatever I guess there'd be a point. But mostly, people work on these projects because they care to. They want to, They have a desire to. And with opensource, more importantly they can, w/o having to rewrite everything from scratch. I don't think adding a few overlords with whips will help. AND it isn't wasted effort, if they learn one thing, use whatever they do for 1 day, or even just feel some satisfaction, then there is some return. You may not reap the benefits, but so what... AND besides programs are forked everyday, really, in a loose sense of the word. What if you make 3 prototypes for 3 differents designs for the same app? Kind of like forks. What if , instead of arguing for 3 months over which implementation is the most effecient, you have the parties code and test it and profile it in 3 days? Every #ifdef is a fork of sorts. The real difference is control, that the user as the power to work on to develop what he uses. He doesn't need permission, or a concensus, or even a quorum. And then on the otherhand there's the point of the few, that it's all wasted because its done for free. Who does the programmer make up for the calories spent on homeostatis, and making new neuropathways while he or she develops? He doesn't, he or she , is in fact losing money just to give software away! No wonder people want to stop it;-]
Oh yeah, forget joe-six-pack, he just wants what everyone else has. If you really want joe-six-pack, make a system with linux and whatever desktop, and throw in about 60 gigs of pron into the install.
Huh?
I think it's about groups. And the fact that, groups became a way to harvest people's email. And Yahoo is perhaps too polite. Not that I'm perfect, but I can read between the lines... eventually anyway. Anyway... What I hate is when I never,/NEVER/ speculated about that maybe, because I didn't believe there was any maybe there at all... AND then the woman and the little girl and my english writing class colluded to have me out in the hallway where she could describe exactly, in no uncertain terms why SHE would never go out with me. Of course, after that I realized it was like some horrible story, where 'leading someone down the garden path' is explained -- She didn't care 1 bit, and she proved it to me. AND then made damn sure I had to hire an escort to go to prom, but luckily for top dollar you can find one that can act;-]
>Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web? Fine and arrest? No. But, potentially they coud be considered an 'attractive nuissance' and sued. Actually, I think this would make sense, if a machine gets hacked over, and over again, and you're getting continually DOS'ed from it, you want to do something. In the past you could talk to their uplink... but now I'd guess, the only legal thing to do would be sue them.. I wonder, how long before the precedent is set, and what OS will the offending machine have on it?
>its "crown jewels"-- in the public domain. And 3 more times in the article... Seriously, this is a gross error. If microsoft placed their software int the public domain it would have many, many implications. It imply one could copy at will... Or one could compile from the PD'ed source code and then distribute copies, or even sell. Developers could even opensource it. Public domain is not the same as Open Source, and Open Source is not the same as limited access to the source. OpenSource implies the user has a least some power to change the source as well just see it, among others thing.
This guy must have no idea what Public Domain software is. Seriously, if it the article was true, anyone could make any kind of minute change to the PD'ed windows code, and then slap their own copyright on it. And maybe if sue M$ 20 years later in a SCO style suit... Which would make M$ wish they kept the copyrights and GPL'ed it;-] Seriously, placing software in the public domain is like abdicating your copyright... it becomes everyone's.
Good point. What about the plantir (sp) ? Long time since I 've last reat LOTR but as I recall Wormtongue (in the tower ) starts throwing things at Gandalf , he throws out the plantir, by mistake, and is then thrown out of the tower. Saruman would be heard yelling and cursing , but not actually seen. One of the hobbits find the stone, is tempted by the 'evil eye'... later wormtongue snatches it up and looks in it and goes MAD... I hope that scene is in there. I like the everything he's done so far w/ the eye. Don't mean to spoil, but as I recall Saruman is there, but not actually seen, so I can hope.
Yeah, dd does it. There were, at one time, linux boot-roots out there just for this. More recently, I noticed a few gui-wrappers to dd for mac OS X out there as well. As I speak shell, I did something like this to backup my ibook's hd before I repartitioned: dd if=/dev/rdisk0 bs=8k | gzip | ssh linuxbox ' dd bs=8k of=/mnt/bigpart/ibook_rdisk0.img.gz' Actually, I think I used 'split' in place of dd to get around a 2 gig file limit. ( Man split)
btw/dev/random will hang at times until the entropy pool is suffiently random to continue./dev/urandom won't, but shred is probably the better choice, if you want something more than using/dev/zero. But, I guess one could script the whole thing security wipe thing, maybe something like: yes WIPEPATTERNASASCII | dd bs=8k of=/dev/parttowipe
ATTN moderators: if dd as drive image is funny , then yes to imp a security wipe has to be funny, $(yes)?
>biggest problem i have is with some cds developing mysterious "spots". there is a >little speck with a discoloured ring around it, that can fall off, but even if it doesnt the >disc is ruined. anyone have any idea what it might be that's touching my discs and >doing this to them? The fungus amungus?:-]
Seriously, that could be the fungus discussed in the article. Fred Langa should see if he's a carrier, the Nature article noted that the fungus could infect the human respitatory track. I could imagine licking the label could spread the infection. Or perhaps the mold is already living the the adhesive backing ??? Interesting that you say the label side is the more sensitive. I'm going to test that out. But , if that is true why would front to front CD (data to data ) contact be so detrimental? The two premises seem somewhat contradictory.
The article sugguests that problem is the sides What about a sealant? Or could we dip our CD's in some kind of wax, have them look like a playstation disk on both sides... and still work?
I think, a couple of thousand would have noticed it, had it gotten in. GCC will issue a warning for that one, so it's not very clever at all, really. I'm always catching those warning messages out of the corner of my eye, I'm sure I'd notice this one, notice that it wasn't from the assembler, and then either 1. blindly add the enclosing (). OR, 2. freak-out. Either way, I'm sure I'd notice it;-].
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, but I like the girls costume better ;-] RECOUNT!
I was thinking the exact same thing. Also, consider that those old servers were probably running an O.S. version similiarly dated. And, thats a point as well: With *nix you can get to a point where you just stop upgrading, because its not necessary to up grade, in other words once you got everything working and patched, you can just stop, and focus your own stuff.
Perhaps, their real reason to upgrade was the hardware was too old to get a support contract, that could be problem. Hardware can wear out. And, once something gets really old its support costs can really escalate. Look at terminal costs. Simple curses terminals, are incredibly expensive for their real value, I'd expect them to cost about 1/3 of what they cost.
I couldn't find who you qouted there... but I had to comment: 'orthogonal'? ;-] ( And impropery overloaded the term from math as well! )
I thought that had to with language design, and syntax, I'm kind of hazy on it actually, but I thought it was like
being able to use syntax basically any way you want, and if you say couldn't do an if() inside a for(), but could
do a for inside an f then it wasn't. I'm kinda thinking exceptions lead to less orthogonality since it lead to uncatched exceptions are syntax errors if anything... But, actually I thought it was just a term Computer Science professors made up to generate a more diffuse grade distribution
But what does it have to do with return codes vs exceptions?
Anyway... Another point, is that exceptions vs return codes can affect design. Take unix programs
like ed,vi, and emacs, etc: If you try to visit a file and it exists, the prog reads the file in, you edit the buffer, and saves back to that name when you save; if the file doesn't exist, then this is just a simpler case of the general problem, you just don't need to read in. But, trying to the same thing with exceptions, is much more cumbersome, and comes out much less elegant looking source wise, to say the least. At least, that was my experience with java.
I think the exception mechanism would lead more to the typical windows style program, were newfile is oneaction, and open is another ( and new file buffers stay "untitled' until you save ).
You left off forth; its forth like with it' respect to weird and a little hard to learn operators.
And preponderance of. It's also forth-like w/ respect to its interpreter speed.
Let me just confirm my geek status, by replying twice to a D&D topic.
PSIONICS were optional. Very optional, that's why they were in the back of the book.
I'm surprised 5d4 #2 pencils weren't launched over his DM screen doing
2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 2 points of damage and bloodying his nose. I think your making this up.
I never played with psionics, I thought it was too much crap. If I let someone in
as a cross-over thing, they had to very careful not to piss-off any druids...
And that's the thing with the optional rules. Some, subclasses start to suck with them, and Some suck w/o 'em. Like Illusionists. Cool if you play with Weapon speed, casting time, spell components, and ESP. the attack with dual weapons rule for high DEX, that was buried in the DMG. Has many spells with only verbal componet. And those Minor, and major creation spells. Sucked ass w/o those rules. I was captured some many times playing D&D, I started playing Illusionists just so I'd have an edge in those situtations -- later, I learned some DM's just had 1 plot.
That was the most claring thing about the article. Tolkiens influence is mostly limited
to abilities of the elves, dwarves, and the subtypes of the halfings/hobbits.
Anyway,in Tolkien's world it seems like you have to really be some kind of demi-god or subangel/demon type do use any magic. Quick, name a magic user in LOTR, or
isn't an elf w/ a ring, or some kind of mi-ar (sp?). Gygax lists a large bilbilography
in AD&D DMG 1st ed., many books and series are listed. and I think maybe, you're overstepping if you imply Jack Vance, exclusively -- But closer than the article at any rate. TO Me i don't care about d20. D&D went down hill about the time of 3rd ED rules,
maybe the descent is now steeper.
I see they now own STARWARS , too BAD. One of the cleverest RPGS was the original STARWARS RPG by West end games. You just used d6 and lots of them. Minimal Charts. The more d6's you had in in skill/ability the more normal the bell-curve, less erratic, and some point, and around midlevel, easy task are automatic As opposed to, the D&D rule, were no matter that your character is now 20th level Fighter-Lord with 10 retainers and a castle of men,there's still a 1-in-20 chances that you'll slip, trip, fall on your ass, do 1-4 points of damage to yourself, and chip (-1) your vorpal sword.
>Microsoft has previously shared some of its source code with some companies, U.S.
>government agencies, foreign governments and universities under tight restrictions
>that prevent such organizations from making it publicly available. ( earthlink )
O.K. to a foreign goverment 'tight restrictions' basically means "don't do this, because it will piss us of' I mean what's the enforcement going to be? What serious repurcussion?
Consider how much Windows is used as part of the infrastructure for the U.S and our allies. Consider that terrorists target infrastructure. Consider that knowning what the enemy knows, or could trivially determine is useful. With open source, you can know anything the enemy might learn. If you can learn it from the source, they could learn it from the source. You might be able to infer when they could have learned it, from when the source was made available. You can back track an determine if a system was ever really exploitable... maybe even years later.. Could be really useful to determine if it's possible a machine with classified data could have ever been hacked. If you can determine that it didn't ever run the vulnerable service during the time it was running the vulnerable O.S. verision, you can breathe a sigh of relief, and move on. But, with Windows you'd have to remember to breathe! Anyway, with open source any decent admin could trivally determine this... or could ask any other decent admin. The point
I making is with Open Source security issues are more fully disclosed, giving who ever's job it is to clean up afterwards, more information to work with.
[Insert one's favorite diatribe on the Fallacy of Security through Obscurity here.]
Perhaps the original author should have said / trivially /easy to decompile.
,yeah, there are C (& C++ )decompilers, but whats the logic going to look like after /optimizing/? Working out that the compiler unrolled an inner loop from the assembler can be SO much fun. And can look less like the original than, say , an interative VS recursive imp.
/is/ probably doable just ADD in junk to the logic, ... / etc
And thats decompile not disassemble. In other words getting back the C++
with only withspace changes (indenting) and no comments -- but, actually, it sounds like they lose variable names, etc. I think some old basics and maybe applescript would decompile and give you the same names, ( bigfunc not func10234. )
Anyway, if they want to steal the logic, then
If it takes them to do a K-MAP to work out how the other guy did it, then they just did as much work to steal it from the other guy as do it-- or nearly...
Then again obfuscation
loads of crap look like
if ( ( VERSION + YEAR ) / 2000.0 2.0 )
g= JUNKVariable1 * 1000 +
else
g= REALformula
REPEAT ADINiFINITUM
if they'll never get the real names back then that should munge things a bit.
Anyway--- I'm up late at night just to reply to a random note ;-] ;-]?
And I say how would we know how to know whether or not a bacteria that did in fact die from acid rain may or may not have created something that resembled an art form somewhere on the surface of mars? And if first life did that then what
And if we found what looked like a random tear drop later? then what?
Or perhaps a large form of a colony of one-celled etc, etc, & et al.
HMM... anyone one care if it turned out both sides of that argument were wrong?
Anyway, still.. somewhere in my possesion I have in a frame of something that looks like a pie-plate art from 1st grade going on second, and you have you seen that picture
from mars?
Well if you haven't then the jokes on heisenberg and your electron too
BAH-BUMP-BUMP
P.S. Or perhaps as well... yours truly etc etc
IMO, there so much hyper-bole that , on the net, where one can't really see the expression of the contenance, or the tone of the voice, that one can't really tell legimate feelings of offense from Mock-offense. Let me explain a little. Someone could have lost a loved one on that island, in that battle, in fact let me turn P.C. on it's side at point out, that as I understand, the no-one in the orginial iconographic picture survived that war, so a relative of one of the american soldiers pictured in the originial, could have a reaction, different than that the artists intends. The intent, IMO, was to capture the struggle ( and the glory that comes ) of working on a Open Source O.S. as portable as NetBSD by borrowing on the originial, which has similiar themes....
Then there's the guys who think that something's lame, and even though not personally offended, they quickly craft the most vritiolic, and in my consideration 'facil', attack, just to serve their desire to argue against, and quickly polarize the argument. And, once polarized the argument is, just so much, easier to deal with, kind of like dealing with 1-bit color bit-maps, and it's , so easy to apply those filters isn't it.
(Not aiming at you)
Anyway, having gotten that of my chest, let's see what conclusions follow:
Pro/Anti U.S. sentiments become academic, as even a patriot might have a reaction, if not , in fact offense, would be in-apropriate for the purpose of logo.
The art itself is derivative in composition, establishing its theme of 'struggle' by borrowing on the theme of the original. And, the work isn't that good, the deamons or devils don't look that much like the BSD beastie at all,
http://www.bsdmall.com/tshirts.html
;-]
They should see if their $100 would get them rights to use one these T-shirt logos
I like the Architect one... and, I may have installed Netbsd just so I could wear the shirt, but I'll never tell
What's so wrong with Pencil? Abstract wierd font logos is very 1980's IMO. ... regarding Net's logo, it isn't the pencil in itself, but the fact that its large, and doesnt resemble the classic beasty, and as someone said in another thread they resemble the noids... The thing is too big /some/ extent pencil art from an actual contributer to the project to me has more value than a formaliac profesional going-rate-per-hour work. To me that kind of abstract type face logo stuff, has been doon so much, so many tools to do just, that its hardly even applied art, but has become a very /safe/ , bland, choice.
EA's (Electronic Arts) Logo was the best of the genre, and I feel that that really thats stuff has become cookie-cutter, mainly complained about by Comerical Artists looking for work... As far the GNU
To
What? No, first appearance was 4.2 BSD manuals published bys /Timeli ne_0378_BsdDaemon.jpg
Usenix Association. Google for Timeline_0378_BsdDaemon.jpg
Or if this link is still good:
http://www.old-computers.com/history/image
At any rate they must keep Beastie, IMO, in fact I'd loose interest in NetBSD
if they did, moving away from Beastie suggests moving away from BSD historic roots.
Something more like the original.. Or Maybe just get the rights to use
one of the better T-Shirt logos.
Well since they're aliases I have to wonder what the problem is -- why would you want to keep them around? "Poof" is brilliant, optimized for the average case use. "I don't use IE bye, gone.. POOF" . Now ,I don't need to delete the desktop alias as well.
(Perhaps Mac is trying to enforce some desktop neatness, but that's cool imo)
As far locking, neat but don't really need it with the POOF. Yeah, I've once or twice
accidently dragged something into dock, but it doesnt actually move anything it just makes an alias and drops that into the dock, so it is really easy and intuitive to fix it, by
dragged it off. Perhaps Apple is shooting for a dock that easy to use for transient/temporaral uses w/o needing to clutter the deskop.. I'm doing this alot this week so I'll add it to the dock, next week you dragged it off and 'POOF its gone' still wherever you installed it, of course...
Here's what the should add, if it isn't already in 10.3:
Dragging to iconified finder folders in dock should act as if drag. to window.
I might be able to add that with a script though...
> Well recently I've seen at least one each for "IT Manager" ...
;-]
Your supervisor had 6 monthes training and can read? -- Lucky bastard!
After watching it, I felt like I wanted to betray humanity just to hookup with the hot-cylon babe.
>Because all of the man hours spent building up Gnome were spent on KDE (or ;-]
>K-Office, Konquerer, etc), the code would be much tighter, with greater functionality.
Accept for that fact, that no, it would not. I hear this all the time mainly from users who don't really do any coding or development. I mean if everyone was getting paid by Linus or Stallman to code by the hour or whatever I guess there'd be a point. But mostly, people work on these projects because they care to. They want to, They have a desire to. And with opensource, more importantly they can, w/o having to rewrite everything from scratch.
I don't think adding a few overlords with whips will help.
AND it isn't wasted effort, if they learn one thing, use whatever they do for 1 day, or even just feel some satisfaction, then there is some return. You may not reap the benefits, but so what...
AND besides programs are forked everyday, really, in a loose sense of the word.
What if you make 3 prototypes for 3 differents designs for the same app? Kind of like forks. What if , instead of arguing for 3 months over which implementation is the most effecient, you have the parties code and test it and profile it in 3 days? Every #ifdef is a fork of sorts. The real difference is control, that the user as the power to work on to develop what he uses. He doesn't need permission, or a concensus, or even a quorum.
And then on the otherhand there's the point of the few, that it's all wasted because its done for free. Who does the programmer make up for the calories spent on homeostatis, and making new neuropathways while he or she develops? He doesn't, he or she , is in fact losing money just to give software away! No wonder people want to stop it
Oh yeah, forget joe-six-pack, he just wants what everyone else has. If you really want joe-six-pack, make a system with linux and whatever desktop, and throw in about 60 gigs of pron into the install.
Huh? /NEVER/ speculated about that maybe, because I didn't believe there was any maybe there at all... AND then the woman and the little girl and my english writing class colluded to have me out in the hallway where she could describe exactly, in no uncertain terms why SHE would never go out with me. Of course, after that I realized it was like some horrible story, where 'leading someone down the garden path' is explained -- She didn't care 1 bit, and she proved it to me. AND then made damn sure I had to hire an escort to go to prom, but luckily for top dollar you can find one that can act ;-]
I think it's about groups. And the fact that, groups became a way to harvest people's
email. And Yahoo is perhaps too polite. Not that I'm perfect, but I can read between the lines... eventually anyway.
Anyway... What I hate is when I never,
Question: Were your parent's aware? Yes or NO?
Child: [ deleted because none of us are on the jury ]
>Should we fine and arrest people who keep vulnerable systems on the web?
Fine and arrest? No. But, potentially they coud be considered an 'attractive nuissance'
and sued. Actually, I think this would make sense, if a machine gets hacked over, and over again, and you're getting continually DOS'ed from it, you want to do something. In the past you could talk to their uplink... but now I'd guess, the only legal thing to do would be sue them.. I wonder, how long before the precedent is set, and what OS will the offending machine have on it?
>its "crown jewels"-- in the public domain.
;-] Seriously, placing software in the public domain is like abdicating your copyright... it becomes everyone's.
And 3 more times in the article... Seriously, this is a gross error.
If microsoft placed their software int the public domain it would have many, many
implications. It imply one could copy at will... Or one could compile from the PD'ed source code and then distribute copies, or even sell. Developers could even opensource it. Public domain is not the same as Open Source, and Open Source is not the same as limited access to the source. OpenSource implies the user has a least some power to change the source as well just see it, among others thing.
This guy must have no idea what Public Domain software is.
Seriously, if it the article was true, anyone could make any kind of minute change to the PD'ed windows code, and then slap their own copyright on it. And maybe if sue M$ 20 years later in a SCO style suit... Which would make M$ wish they kept the copyrights and GPL'ed it
Good point. What about the plantir (sp) ? Long time since I 've last reat LOTR but as I recall Wormtongue (in the tower ) starts throwing things at Gandalf , he throws out the plantir, by mistake, and is then thrown out of the tower. Saruman would be heard yelling and cursing , but not actually seen.
One of the hobbits find the stone, is tempted by the 'evil eye'... later wormtongue snatches it up and looks in it and goes MAD... I hope that scene is in there.
I like the everything he's done so far w/ the eye.
Don't mean to spoil, but as I recall Saruman is there, but not actually seen, so I can hope.
Yeah, dd does it. There were, at one time, linux boot-roots out there just for this. :
/dev/random will hang at times until the entropy pool is suffiently random to continue. /dev/urandom won't, but shred is probably the better choice, if you want something more than using /dev/zero.
More recently, I noticed a few gui-wrappers to dd for mac OS X out there as well.
As I speak shell, I did something like this to backup my ibook's hd before I repartitioned
dd if=/dev/rdisk0 bs=8k | gzip | ssh linuxbox ' dd bs=8k of=/mnt/bigpart/ibook_rdisk0.img.gz'
Actually, I think I used 'split' in place of dd to get around a 2 gig file limit. ( Man split)
btw
But, I guess one could script the whole thing security wipe thing, maybe something like:
yes WIPEPATTERNASASCII | dd bs=8k of=/dev/parttowipe
ATTN moderators: if dd as drive image is funny , then yes to imp a security wipe has to be funny, $(yes)?
>biggest problem i have is with some cds developing mysterious "spots". there is a :-]
>little speck with a discoloured ring around it, that can fall off, but even if it doesnt the
>disc is ruined. anyone have any idea what it might be that's touching my discs and
>doing this to them?
The fungus amungus?
Seriously, that could be the fungus discussed in the article. Fred Langa should see if he's a carrier, the Nature article noted that the fungus could infect the human respitatory track. I could imagine licking the label could spread the infection. Or perhaps the mold is already living the the adhesive backing ???
Interesting that you say the label side is the more sensitive. I'm going to test that out.
But , if that is true why would front to front CD (data to data ) contact be so detrimental? The two premises seem somewhat contradictory.
The article sugguests that problem is the sides What about a sealant? Or could we dip our CD's in some kind of wax, have them look like a playstation disk on both sides... and still work?
I think, a couple of thousand would have noticed it, had it gotten in. ;-].
GCC will issue a warning for that one, so it's not very clever at all, really.
I'm always catching those warning messages out of the corner of my eye, I'm sure I'd notice this one, notice that it wasn't from the assembler, and then either 1.
blindly add the enclosing (). OR, 2. freak-out. Either way, I'm sure I'd notice it