As to "programmers are encouraged to use mysql_connect()", well that might be in your neck of the woods. By my 2nd year of development I had written a custom connection class to handle it all, protect the data from injection and do any number of modelling that I needed it to.
Stop doing that. There's no reason to write a custom connection class for Mysql. There are plenty already, and you're probably doing it wrong. mysql_connect() is supposed to connect to a unix-domain socket, not an IP address. Using IP for mysql is slower, and a security risk. If your "custom connection class" requires a hostname, it's wrong.
"Regular expressions are so prevalent"??? I have written stuff for Google Maps, Inform's API, CakePHP, e107, phpbb, punbb, and hundreds of other php junk and used regular expression maybe once. Could you please list any php app package that uses them heavily?
PHP has for much of its history been criticized for not offering the full capabilities of object-oriented programming (OOP).
Yeah, that's exactly why it's criticized. It has nothing to do with the fact it takes them three releases to fix a simple integer overflow, that they thought "safe_mode" was an access control system, that "require" pulls in files unexpectedly from malicious sites. It has nothing to do with the fact that mysql_connect() takes arguments, and programmers are encouraged to use mysql_connect() in a way that makes it incompatible with the default mysql install. It has nothing to do with the fact that regular expressions are so prevalent and yet there is no syntax for them. It has nothing to do with the fact that the language mutates drastically with toplevel global configuration variables.
Seriously, it has nothing to do with the fact we're sick and tired of cleaning scripts written by people who don't know what they're doing, and we like blocking access to your site for major vulnerabilities. We actually love it how when your script gets owned, you don't notice for months because you do the development on the server, all the while jerkoffs are udp-flooding from your site. Because you'll never pay for this usage, and you'll expect us to fix your script, it doesn't matter because we're just really upset that it isn't "offerring the full capibilities of object-oriented programming".
That and we sometimes wonder what it would be like to fling poo...
Businesses are mortified by the idea of software that is zero-cost. They know it because it's unrealistic to assume they're getting something for nothing, and just telling them those costs are in consulting or hiring instead doesn't make them feel any better.
Instead, I focus on avoiding lock-in, where lock-in is if you pick a vendor, and they go south, (or you do), you're shit out of luck; Whichever vendor your chose is going to make it as difficult as possible for you to ever use another vendor, but if they go out of business, then so do you.
Free Software means if you don't like it, you can hire anyone to fix it. Non-Free software means if you don't like it, you only have one choice as to who to hire-and you'd better hope you can afford it.
MacPorts or Fink give you all those *nix apps on OSX. you can have the best of apts, or BSD Ports and have a pretty GUI too. It is the best way to install things like nmap and ethereal.
A software catalog, however valuable, isn't really the best part of apt. If you aren't getting all of your applications' upgrade paths managed through/etc/apt/sources.list then you're missing out on conflict resolution. Without debconf, you lose out on robust configuration tracking. Without the thousands of users with your exact configuration, you simply won't experience all that fantastic QA.
Yeah, the clearly superior QA and software catalog remain the number one reason I use a Debian or Fedora based distribution for everything. I don't think it's possible for Apple or Microsoft to do this, and so as the benefits continue to be experienced, so will Linux continue its in-roads.
You'll have to take that up with him. He referred to the change log of the software, so unless the change log is also wrong, I'm more inclined to take his word than yours, since you've offered no evidence.
I've offered plenty of evidence. I pointed out exactly which version the feature was possible. The mysterious other party is probably pointing at The PulseAudio "Oldnews" page which indicates 2006-04-13 version 0.8 was when the pavucontrol was written. Pulseaudio, like Jack and Nas have had the ability to have per-application volume controls that predates this event: Try ESD-enabled xmms with polypaudio and you'll see that xmms "esd volume" controls only xmms.
So the tactic here is to change the definition of "LiveCD" until it only fits Linux?
How exactly did I do this? I offered a link that included a definition, you said Mac OS did this, but I pointed out Linux did it first.
Tell me what the difference between the Ubuntu LiveCD and the Mac OS 8 CD I have on my shelf is.
Straw man.
Difference between Slackware 2floppy X and your mac os 8 is that the slackware run came first, and that it could also run on a pair of floppies (instead of just a cd+floppy emulation)
Well, then, you sir are a weasel for changing the definition of "LiveCD" until the Mac OS Classic CDs no longer fit it. By your own definition.
You say Mac OS 8 did it in 1997, and I say Linux did it in 1994. What exactly did I change my definition to? I simply rejected all versions of Mac OS 7 because I can't verify it and frankly neither can you. Versions prior to 7.5 would be old enough to qualify (perhaps) but I'm not sure that 7.5 worked as you suggest. I'd be happy being wrong on this point because I'd still not be sure that the idea originated with Mac OS, just as I'm not sure that pavucontrol was based on Vista as you keep insisting.
In fact, I'd say you're making a bold claim by saying that Microsoft invented anything that has advanced the state of the art, but you'd probably weasel around that one too.
They sure seem to have innovated that sound volume feature this thread is about.
No, it's not about that. It's whether Closed-source software advances the state of the art or not. I say it doesn't when it becomes a monopoly, which is inevitable and natural. The sound volume feature was an example of innovation in Free Software.
You're trying to convince me, that means you have to do the legwork.
No, I'm not trying to convince you. You're already convinced. If you want to debate on something, you have to make a demonstration, or you can challenge a point if you are trying to learn, but you are diluded if you think I care enough about you to try and convince you.
But don't bother in this case, because another poster has: PulseAudio didn't have the feature in question until after Vista betas were out.
The question was whether Pulseaudio got the feature as a result of Vista announcing it. It didn't: the fact that you could do it over a year before the Vista-announcement is evidence enough. The other poster is wrong, or talking about something else and you can't tell the difference.
I have no clue what Apple puts up for download on their site.... I don't know anything about NeXT, I'm afraid. But Macintosh had the LiveCD concept down long before I ever heard of anything from Linux on the subject.
You don't know anything about a lot of things. LiveCD isn't a bootable CD, nor is it a bootable CD with a graphical shell. Linux has had something "like it" since the early 1990's, whereas MacOS never really did.
When you link to a site that's (apparently) out-of-date and broken and you know it, what kind of reaction did you expect? Der.
I expected nothing. You're a weasel and you know it. I know it too. You made an accusation that turned out to be wrong. You're now backpedling by saying that not only does the Free Software community have to be inventive, they have to succeed on the first try, with the original people. You've built a straw-man, and you're a jerk. A complete kneebiter.
Then explain the volume control this thread is about. It's not in OS X, it's *now* in Linux, but it was in Windows Vista first.
Pulseaudio's presentation is fantastic, which is clearly an improvement over the existing technology, satisfying my definition of innovation.
If that's not a demonstration that they are advancing the state of the art, what would satisfy you?
It's not a demonstration that they are advancing the state of the art if its a reaction to an expectation. You are arguing that features are still being copied if PulseAudio implements presentation after a Windows beta. PulseAudio had an implementation of the technologies first, and its current implementation is better. If you've selected some other definitions you're unwilling to share that make this so, then you have a tautology and cannot be wrong. People who do this are called weasels.
Depends, how is it innovative? You can be the "best" of something while innovating nothing, look at something like the iPod if you need an example.
Google disagrees with you. Innovative means: being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original" which Microsoft doesn't do. They hold back development with licensing costs and monopolies; which is infact another definition of the term innovative (Suggesting new business opportunities that should be considered by the business in order to maximise profits) but not what most people consider to be the definition of the term.
Re-evaluate your argument in light of a specific definition of Innovative, and we might be able to continue.
I have a laptop; what is an RTP sink and why would I find it useful? I Googled the term and I can't find any sites that explain what the hell it is or why I care, only sites that explain how to use it.
My laptop has terrible speakers on it. I usually have a computer in the same room as me with decent speakers. Pulseaudio automatically can send audio output to better (nearby) speakers using multicast RTP. When I take my laptop to work, I can use the speakers there.
As to the rest of your question- why you would find it useful or why would you care, I have no idea. You obviously don't care about using the best technologies or you wouldn't be using what someone else considers to be the best. I use what I think is the best- partially because if there's something I don't like, I fix it.
The first link has no information on when "polypaudio" added support for changing the volume of individual applications. So whether or not the PulseAudio developers supported it in response to Vista or not remains to be seen.
No, but you can still download the version mentioned and try it for yourself. If you're genuinely interested in being wrong, you could've done this. If you're just trying to be obstructionist and obtuse then you're a waste of my time.
[Chandler] looks like Microsoft Outlook or even a configured Lotus Notes to me. Except more cluttered. Maybe it does something hugely innovative I'm not seeing from the screenshots, I dunno, if so you'll have to be more specific.
No, I don't. If you'd bother to try it you'd see that it doesn't work like Outlook at all. It meets my definition of innovative, but perhaps not yours. I have no idea what your definition of innovative is as you haven't provided it.
Every Mac OS version that shipped on CD (until OS X, that is, versions 7.0-9.2 or so) could boot to a usable, fully functional, desktop from CD. Not innovative. (Note that Wikipedia is wrong on this count, per usual; Mac OS's CD boot wasn't solely a diagnostic tool, it was fully functional, if less-configurable.)
Uh, I can't verify this but MacOS 7.5 as freely downloaded cannot be used in this fashion. I can get a reduced-feature interface that definitely provides a graphical shell- but you've been able to boot X off two floppies for longer than that and I didn't count it either. Real LiveCDs are fully functioning systems- you can save your data to a hard disk or a flash-drive, "install" programs, and use them generally as you like. It's most similar to NeXT's hard-drive swap system, but without actually having to require a hard-drive (or swapping it for that matter).
So far, the best one you got is Dashboard. Too bad the project is obviously abandoned.
Actually it isn't. It's now part of BigBoard, which is most certainly not abandoned. It doesn't surprise me that you have no idea what you'r
Answer me honestly: Does PulseAudio have that feature because they heard it would be in Windows Vista? Honestly, now, please give me an answer.
A quick google says that PulseAudio used to be called Polypaudio, and at least as far back as 2004 it was a usable esound replacement. Vista announced it over a year later. Never mind the fact that pulseaudio has a large number of features that Vista only wishes it could implement. The RTP sinks and sources is fantastic for laptop users.
Because if PulseAudio implemented the feature after seeing that it was in a Longhorn beta, or hearing stories of Microsoft developing it, then I'd say "that thing that Microsoft is doing" is a pretty good definition. (At least as far as this case goes.)
On the other hand, if people have been asking for this feature for years, and Microsoft gets around to it after someone else did it, then what does that mean for Microsoft?
A better example would be something that Microsoft or Apple *hasn't* done. Do you have one?
I'm sorry, Pulseaudio fucking rocks. I love having every application being able to have a different volume setting. And that's just what tickled me most recently. This asshat believes that innovation comes from economic stimulation because he defines innovation as that thing that Microsoft is doing.
If you instead note that Microsoft has seen greater economic benefit by holding back the state of the art, it becomes easier to see this idea as a load of horseshit, or is the author still waiting for Cairo and Longhorn?
Red Hat clearly recognizes this, as their core business model comes from them hiring experts in Linux. Ubuntu might be philanthropy, or it might not, but it has experts as well, and experts competing to advance the state of the art is what makes Free Software the best system for the development of the information industry.
Microsoft has a long history of announcing new vaporware whenever someone does something interesting to try and keep as many people waiting until the Microsoft branded version comes out. Anyone remember Cairo? Microsoft was going to have us using a fulltext searchable metadata-rich filesystem back in the early 1990's so we didn't have to retrain to build on NeXT. Microsoft was going to be bringing us pen-based computers in the late 1980's so nobody should early-adopt with Dylan on Newton.
They don't have any intention of getting Windows to run on the OLPC. If they can buy enough time for the OLPC to run out of money, they don't have to do anything, and that is more like Microsoft. So long as Microsoft has presence in a market, the market remains stalled, and the state of the art languishes.
Incidentally, the static typing is what makes fancy method/member completion in IDEs like Eclipse/Netbeans possible too. You'll not be seeing tools like that for JavaScript any time soon.
You're thinking of explicit typing, not static typing, and you're still wrong because Smalltalk gets fancy method/member completion and it doesn't have static nor explicit typing.
You have pointed out that those terms of the EULA *may* be invalid, and I've countered by pointing out that it really doesn't matter whether MS can enforce the EULA through the courts; i f MS wishes to exercise enforcement of them by implementing technical measures they are free and within their rights to do so.
If you meant to suggest that when you said this:
most people with XP Pro VLK/MSDN didn't actually have a legit version of XP Pro.
I myself was on an infringing VLK edition for a while, because my 'legit' was an original retail upgrade,
and
When genuine advantage came out and got in my face and I got tired of hacking around it I reverted to the legit copy.
you actually and honestly meant "legit" to mean "the kind officially blessed by Microsoft" instead of "legal", then you must be an idiot. Do you really not know the meaning of the word "legit"? Or perhaps do you really think enough people think "legit" means something other than "legal" that you could say "legit" without having to qualify yourself further?
Setting aside the pointless ad hominem,
I am not saying your argument is worthless because you're intellectually dishonest. I am saying your argument is worthless and you're intellectually dishonest. It isn't "ad hominem" to call someone stupid and dishonest, or any other names- and I suggest that you find out what "ad hominem" means.
I am curious about the 'technically correct but morally wrong' as that makes no sense at all. "morally wrong"? How do you get THERE?
I said you're dishonest because you alluded to- and now seem to be claiming that you really meant that OEM licenses are non-transferable because Microsoft will make it difficult to transfer them, when you originally said legit which I believe any sane person would refer to its legal status.
If I'm wrong, then you're an idiot because everyone knows "legit" is a legal status. But if I'm right, you're an asshole for trying to redefine "legit" in your replies just to make your statements technically correct.
Now you think about that. I'll be honest here, if you say you're an idiot and actually have some screwed up definition of "legit" I probably won't believe you because I believe the rest of your posts were remarkably well written. I think you were probably trying to change the argument to validate what you said earlier. Don't do that.
Still wrong: Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988) says that the EULA isn't valid.
They can enforce their licensing policy simply by declining to re-activate it on the new hardware.
And I can modify their software to function correctly, see Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991)
Tivo has technological features to prevent you from actually running the code if modify it.
TiVO has nothing to do with this. You said that "OEM versions are non-transferable to new units." and you weren't talking about practical justification, but legal ones: "You will find that MANY pirated copies of windows (at least in the western hemisphere) are 'justified' in terms of I pirated XP because my last computer had OEM XP, it died, and the system restore disk wouldn't work on my new PC. Technically that is an infringing copy, as OEM versions are non-transferable to new units."
That's patently false, and bringing up TiVO is intellectually dishonest. I see now that you are a coward and are simply attempting to backpedal your argument into something "technically" correct, but morally wrong.
Novell's case ruled that the rights granted to the owner under Copyright have nothing to do with purchaser. Microsoft cannot exclude the user of a piece of software by "technically" selling it to an OEM (say Dell). It is perfectly legal to remove that activation nonsense, and perfectly legal to move the software from one machine to another. Stop suggesting otherwise.
This just isn't true, and the result of Microsoft v. Zamos demonstrates that even Microsoft knows this isn't true.
Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997) ruled that the purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale, "... and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement. Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder upon transfer of title."
Nevertheless, you are wrong. Apologize immediately, and seek out everyone you have offered this illegal and ill-informed legal advice to and apologize to them as well.
While most end-users get their software from their distro, where do you think the distros get it from?
Either you didn't understand me, or you think Gentoo is a good idea.
The distribution serves a vital role, where they test combinations of packages. They caught that hylafax and wu-ftpd couldn't be installed on the same machine at the same time. Freebsd users were surprised that xferstats suddenly broke when doing a routine update, but Debian users didn't even notice.
As for the buck-passing thing...it happens with linux too. The application team blames the platform team which blames the distro which blames glibc, and they in turn say that the distro needs to upgrade to the latest version, which isn't compatible with the distro's compiler....and so it goes.
Did you read what you wrote?
When the application team tries to manage the deployed installation, they break it. Whether Microsoft does it, or when Oracle does it, or when the GIMP team does it. It never works.
The distribution makes sure that all of those things work together. That's their job. If you want to run upstream, you're leaving the distribution. That's called Gentoo, or FreeBSD, or Windows. When you've got a farm of a few dozen machines, all different, there's a significant value in having a outside team that has tested all of your configurations.
Microsoft doesn't provide it, but Debian and Fedora do.
The problem is that MS is under the gun. Sometimes they release too soon, and blam it bites them in the butt.
You really think that the reason Linux updates are so reliable and stable is that they can do more testing?
Linux sites have a far wider array of configuration differences than Windows systems do: Not the least of which being multiple cpus and generations of systems, Windows in the enterprise is kept solely single-use because Windows admins know maintainability is hard, but Linux in the enterprise tends to have a larger number of functions because the Linux admins know maintainability is a solved problem.
The reason both is true is a social effect of getting software from "third parties"- that is, a cloud of developers that do not communicate with eachother. Whenever one of them does something "tricky" or "wrong", generally speaking nobody else in the cloud knows that they are doing it (When they do, it's called a "known incompatibility").
Linux distributions don't have "third parties"- most Linux admins get all of their software from the distribution itself. That means there's no cloud where "that's a problem with your other vendor", or "that's a problem with running Microsoft Exchange on the same server as IIS", and so on. The buck stops immediately, it gets resolved and everyone benefits.
Historically, other unix suppliers have had the same problem, and a lot of people just assumed it was (practically) unsolvable until groups like Debian and Red Hat- looking to solve a particular technical problem (of managing the necessary modularity of a GNUish system) also built up the social framework necessary to solve this very social problem.
Microsoft simply cannot do this. It's not a matter of "just making better patches", they need to be the sole supplier of software in order to solve this problem, and their users need to be able to patch and redistribute that software. Not just legally, but actually encouraged to do so.
Mounting/tmp for noexec isn't useful for security. People just go:/lib/ld-linux.so.2/tmp/udpshit (or they write it in perl, or python, or some other crap) and the program runs anyway.
Interpreters (whether for binary, or mere "script" interpreters) should check the X_OK bit on their scripts and libc-makers should make access check/etc/mtab.
Administrators should block outgoing UDP traffic (except to their dnscache user) and block outgoing port tcp 25 except to their remote-smtp user. In fact, it should be the default to install a dnscache and a outgoing smtp relay in this way (properly firewalled), but too many misguided site admins and ISPs block DNS traffic...
I thought it sounded more along the lines of setting thread or process level meta data that the scheduler uses to assist it in providing priority.
What gave you that idea? He said 8-core machine--run "only Outlook" here, run applications on these 4 cores, OS only here, explorer here, etc - that sounds exactly like a naive explanation of CPU affinity.
Assuming that he doesn't know about cpu affinity seems a little unlikely considering his job.
His job? He's the "Chief Evangelist Officer" - he's a paid fanboy. His skillset should include (well) evangelism, perhaps writing or speaking, maybe some social skills. I see no reason he should know anything about Linux, nor anything about SMP implementation.
OR maby you don't understand what he is asking for.
You think it's possible that he's not asking for CPU (and possibly IRQ) affinity settings?
I'd assume that's what he's asking for because that is what's in the task manager, but you're right, I might not understand what he's asking for.
However, given that he says (8-core machine--run "only Outlook" here, run applications on these 4 cores, OS only here, explorer here, etc.) I think that infact I do know what he's talking about. It's a bit muffled from talking through his colon, but that sounds exactly like CPU affinity settings.
sched_setaffinity(2) has been around for a while now, and is a fine way to modify the CPU affinity settings on Linux.
DHCP doesn't give a network admin any more control over a network, either. That's just a silly statement. How does having a server doling out IP addresses make it any easier to control a network?
That straw man giving you trouble, son?
DHCP provides configuration, and is not, nor was ever intended to be a system of access control. DHCP is practically required for netbooting, and is a fine way to distribute system configuration (e.g. nfsroot) of a network.
The fact that you have been using it wrong doesn't mean the rest of us have been.
Please stop perpetuating the myth that Gentoo == Linux From Scratch
Gentoo users are QA department of one. Same with Linux from Scratch, so tell me exactly why they're different?
Is it because its slightly easier to become a QA department of one with Gentoo? Or is this some kind of perverted dishonest pedantic bullshit where you do different commands to accomplish the same tasks?
Or is it just because you're one of those people who put vinyl stickers on your car for extra horsepower?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, it has nothing to do with the fact we're sick and tired of cleaning scripts written by people who don't know what they're doing, and we like blocking access to your site for major vulnerabilities. We actually love it how when your script gets owned, you don't notice for months because you do the development on the server, all the while jerkoffs are udp-flooding from your site. Because you'll never pay for this usage, and you'll expect us to fix your script, it doesn't matter because we're just really upset that it isn't "offerring the full capibilities of object-oriented programming".
That and we sometimes wonder what it would be like to fling poo...
Businesses are mortified by the idea of software that is zero-cost. They know it because it's unrealistic to assume they're getting something for nothing, and just telling them those costs are in consulting or hiring instead doesn't make them feel any better.
Instead, I focus on avoiding lock-in, where lock-in is if you pick a vendor, and they go south, (or you do), you're shit out of luck; Whichever vendor your chose is going to make it as difficult as possible for you to ever use another vendor, but if they go out of business, then so do you.
Free Software means if you don't like it, you can hire anyone to fix it. Non-Free software means if you don't like it, you only have one choice as to who to hire-and you'd better hope you can afford it.
Yeah, the clearly superior QA and software catalog remain the number one reason I use a Debian or Fedora based distribution for everything. I don't think it's possible for Apple or Microsoft to do this, and so as the benefits continue to be experienced, so will Linux continue its in-roads.
Difference between Slackware 2floppy X and your mac os 8 is that the slackware run came first, and that it could also run on a pair of floppies (instead of just a cd+floppy emulation)You say Mac OS 8 did it in 1997, and I say Linux did it in 1994. What exactly did I change my definition to? I simply rejected all versions of Mac OS 7 because I can't verify it and frankly neither can you. Versions prior to 7.5 would be old enough to qualify (perhaps) but I'm not sure that 7.5 worked as you suggest. I'd be happy being wrong on this point because I'd still not be sure that the idea originated with Mac OS, just as I'm not sure that pavucontrol was based on Vista as you keep insisting.
In fact, I'd say you're making a bold claim by saying that Microsoft invented anything that has advanced the state of the art, but you'd probably weasel around that one too.
Google disagrees with you. Innovative means: being or producing something like nothing done or experienced or created before; "stylistically innovative works"; "innovative members of the artistic community"; "a mind so innovational, so original" which Microsoft doesn't do. They hold back development with licensing costs and monopolies; which is infact another definition of the term innovative (Suggesting new business opportunities that should be considered by the business in order to maximise profits) but not what most people consider to be the definition of the term.
Re-evaluate your argument in light of a specific definition of Innovative, and we might be able to continue.
My laptop has terrible speakers on it. I usually have a computer in the same room as me with decent speakers. Pulseaudio automatically can send audio output to better (nearby) speakers using multicast RTP. When I take my laptop to work, I can use the speakers there.
As to the rest of your question- why you would find it useful or why would you care, I have no idea. You obviously don't care about using the best technologies or you wouldn't be using what someone else considers to be the best. I use what I think is the best- partially because if there's something I don't like, I fix it.
No, but you can still download the version mentioned and try it for yourself. If you're genuinely interested in being wrong, you could've done this. If you're just trying to be obstructionist and obtuse then you're a waste of my time.
No, I don't. If you'd bother to try it you'd see that it doesn't work like Outlook at all. It meets my definition of innovative, but perhaps not yours. I have no idea what your definition of innovative is as you haven't provided it.
Uh, I can't verify this but MacOS 7.5 as freely downloaded cannot be used in this fashion. I can get a reduced-feature interface that definitely provides a graphical shell- but you've been able to boot X off two floppies for longer than that and I didn't count it either. Real LiveCDs are fully functioning systems- you can save your data to a hard disk or a flash-drive, "install" programs, and use them generally as you like. It's most similar to NeXT's hard-drive swap system, but without actually having to require a hard-drive (or swapping it for that matter).
Actually it isn't. It's now part of BigBoard, which is most certainly not abandoned. It doesn't surprise me that you have no idea what you'r
Do you want ketchup with your crow? Or do you really think Microsoft was advancing the state of the art when they stopped MSIE as long as they did?
I'm sorry, Pulseaudio fucking rocks. I love having every application being able to have a different volume setting. And that's just what tickled me most recently. This asshat believes that innovation comes from economic stimulation because he defines innovation as that thing that Microsoft is doing.
If you instead note that Microsoft has seen greater economic benefit by holding back the state of the art, it becomes easier to see this idea as a load of horseshit, or is the author still waiting for Cairo and Longhorn?
Red Hat clearly recognizes this, as their core business model comes from them hiring experts in Linux. Ubuntu might be philanthropy, or it might not, but it has experts as well, and experts competing to advance the state of the art is what makes Free Software the best system for the development of the information industry.
Microsoft has a long history of announcing new vaporware whenever someone does something interesting to try and keep as many people waiting until the Microsoft branded version comes out. Anyone remember Cairo? Microsoft was going to have us using a fulltext searchable metadata-rich filesystem back in the early 1990's so we didn't have to retrain to build on NeXT. Microsoft was going to be bringing us pen-based computers in the late 1980's so nobody should early-adopt with Dylan on Newton.
They don't have any intention of getting Windows to run on the OLPC. If they can buy enough time for the OLPC to run out of money, they don't have to do anything, and that is more like Microsoft. So long as Microsoft has presence in a market, the market remains stalled, and the state of the art languishes.
Use offlineimap to synchronize [push] your mail to google's servers, then set your sender domain inside gmail to whatever your real domain is.
most people with XP Pro VLK/MSDN didn't actually have a legit version of XP Pro.
I myself was on an infringing VLK edition for a while, because my 'legit' was an original retail upgrade,
and
When genuine advantage came out and got in my face and I got tired of hacking around it I reverted to the legit copy.
you actually and honestly meant "legit" to mean "the kind officially blessed by Microsoft" instead of "legal", then you must be an idiot. Do you really not know the meaning of the word "legit"? Or perhaps do you really think enough people think "legit" means something other than "legal" that you could say "legit" without having to qualify yourself further?I am not saying your argument is worthless because you're intellectually dishonest. I am saying your argument is worthless and you're intellectually dishonest. It isn't "ad hominem" to call someone stupid and dishonest, or any other names- and I suggest that you find out what "ad hominem" means.I said you're dishonest because you alluded to- and now seem to be claiming that you really meant that OEM licenses are non-transferable because Microsoft will make it difficult to transfer them, when you originally said legit which I believe any sane person would refer to its legal status.
If I'm wrong, then you're an idiot because everyone knows "legit" is a legal status. But if I'm right, you're an asshole for trying to redefine "legit" in your replies just to make your statements technically correct.
Now you think about that. I'll be honest here, if you say you're an idiot and actually have some screwed up definition of "legit" I probably won't believe you because I believe the rest of your posts were remarkably well written. I think you were probably trying to change the argument to validate what you said earlier. Don't do that.
That's patently false, and bringing up TiVO is intellectually dishonest. I see now that you are a coward and are simply attempting to backpedal your argument into something "technically" correct, but morally wrong.
Novell's case ruled that the rights granted to the owner under Copyright have nothing to do with purchaser. Microsoft cannot exclude the user of a piece of software by "technically" selling it to an OEM (say Dell). It is perfectly legal to remove that activation nonsense, and perfectly legal to move the software from one machine to another. Stop suggesting otherwise.
This just isn't true, and the result of Microsoft v. Zamos demonstrates that even Microsoft knows this isn't true.
Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997) ruled that the purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale, "... and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement. Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder upon transfer of title."
http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cni-copyright/msg12460.html shows some more discussion on this subject if you're actually interested.
Nevertheless, you are wrong. Apologize immediately, and seek out everyone you have offered this illegal and ill-informed legal advice to and apologize to them as well.
The distribution serves a vital role, where they test combinations of packages. They caught that hylafax and wu-ftpd couldn't be installed on the same machine at the same time. Freebsd users were surprised that xferstats suddenly broke when doing a routine update, but Debian users didn't even notice.Did you read what you wrote?
When the application team tries to manage the deployed installation, they break it. Whether Microsoft does it, or when Oracle does it, or when the GIMP team does it. It never works.
The distribution makes sure that all of those things work together. That's their job. If you want to run upstream, you're leaving the distribution. That's called Gentoo, or FreeBSD, or Windows. When you've got a farm of a few dozen machines, all different, there's a significant value in having a outside team that has tested all of your configurations.
Microsoft doesn't provide it, but Debian and Fedora do.
Linux sites have a far wider array of configuration differences than Windows systems do: Not the least of which being multiple cpus and generations of systems, Windows in the enterprise is kept solely single-use because Windows admins know maintainability is hard, but Linux in the enterprise tends to have a larger number of functions because the Linux admins know maintainability is a solved problem.
The reason both is true is a social effect of getting software from "third parties"- that is, a cloud of developers that do not communicate with eachother. Whenever one of them does something "tricky" or "wrong", generally speaking nobody else in the cloud knows that they are doing it (When they do, it's called a "known incompatibility").
Linux distributions don't have "third parties"- most Linux admins get all of their software from the distribution itself. That means there's no cloud where "that's a problem with your other vendor", or "that's a problem with running Microsoft Exchange on the same server as IIS", and so on. The buck stops immediately, it gets resolved and everyone benefits.
Historically, other unix suppliers have had the same problem, and a lot of people just assumed it was (practically) unsolvable until groups like Debian and Red Hat- looking to solve a particular technical problem (of managing the necessary modularity of a GNUish system) also built up the social framework necessary to solve this very social problem.
Microsoft simply cannot do this. It's not a matter of "just making better patches", they need to be the sole supplier of software in order to solve this problem, and their users need to be able to patch and redistribute that software. Not just legally, but actually encouraged to do so.
Mounting /tmp for noexec isn't useful for security. People just go: /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tmp/udpshit (or they write it in perl, or python, or some other crap) and the program runs anyway.
/etc/mtab.
Interpreters (whether for binary, or mere "script" interpreters) should check the X_OK bit on their scripts and libc-makers should make access check
Administrators should block outgoing UDP traffic (except to their dnscache user) and block outgoing port tcp 25 except to their remote-smtp user. In fact, it should be the default to install a dnscache and a outgoing smtp relay in this way (properly firewalled), but too many misguided site admins and ISPs block DNS traffic...
I'd assume that's what he's asking for because that is what's in the task manager, but you're right, I might not understand what he's asking for.
However, given that he says (8-core machine--run "only Outlook" here, run applications on these 4 cores, OS only here, explorer here, etc.) I think that infact I do know what he's talking about. It's a bit muffled from talking through his colon, but that sounds exactly like CPU affinity settings.
sched_setaffinity(2) has been around for a while now, and is a fine way to modify the CPU affinity settings on Linux.
DHCP provides configuration, and is not, nor was ever intended to be a system of access control. DHCP is practically required for netbooting, and is a fine way to distribute system configuration (e.g. nfsroot) of a network.
The fact that you have been using it wrong doesn't mean the rest of us have been.
Is it because its slightly easier to become a QA department of one with Gentoo? Or is this some kind of perverted dishonest pedantic bullshit where you do different commands to accomplish the same tasks?
Or is it just because you're one of those people who put vinyl stickers on your car for extra horsepower?