Anybody ever do things like disguise a 4 GHz P4 in an ancient 8086 machine box?
I did this once. I installed a quad P3 LTSP server in an 8088 case in order to hide it (a new box would have walked off in the night).
While on the subject, is anybody still running old DOS programs in a DOS box on a Windows machine (e.g. a database) because your company is too poor/cheap to upgrade or doesn't want to bother with any free alternatives?"
I know that many are. And many are because they can't run their company without it. I know of and sometimes support one engraving company that still runs an XT DOS box because it has an interfase card to one of their laser engravers. Yes, they have 3 much newer, top of the line laser engravers (one only about 8 months old), but none of them can match the 1988 laser for quality. It's not that the company is too poor/cheap to upgrade or that they don't want to bother with any free alternatives, its that no upgrades/alternitives exist.
I know of many companies that live on early 90's databases where the vendor is out of buisness, and their are not any suitable alternitives. I know of cases where the upgrades from 486-100Mhz/DOS network Database to P4/XP/Windows version is so much slower that it literally doubled the time it takes front office workers to take each call.
I guess my point is that many of those useing old systems do so for a good reason, and not because they are too cheep to do so.
I must admit that this point is %100 correct, and I completely agree with you on it. I will even take it one step further and say it is also unethical and just plain wrong to break into SCO's system and borrow their code as the origional poster sugested. But allow me to play devils advocate for a moment...
and certainly would not help IBM, RedHat or anyone else that is currently suing or being sued by SCO.
If some one were to publish this SysV code in a country (server hosted in a country) that does not have copyright laws, then I could see it being helpful to these companies and the general public.
If it were avalible on such a server, how many line by line comparisons would we have in a week? How far would SCO's stock fall once a few reporters got a hold of it? (remember, reporters could republish a lot of it if it is nessisary for their news reporting WITHOUT SCO's approval, and WITHOUT violating (c) law)
What is relevant is the knowledge of the person leaving the device out in the open....As a responsible Sysadmin, you KNOW what an infected and hijacked PC can do so it is more irresponsible than the local plumber plugging his PC straight into his unfiltered DSL.
Again I ask, at what point is it no longer reasonable to expect that the public to know something is a threat?
The above post is my "moral" take on the issue. I have no idea what the law says on this and do not want people to think I am giving legal advice.
I was about to use one of my mod points in this thread, when I came to this post.
Okay, let's talk about the box of goodies. Let's say you leave a box of weapons outside with full knowledge that a neighborhood kid will probably find it and will likely use the contents for something illegal. If that happens, do you think you are partially responsible for whatever happens?
dboyles goes on to make the point that does not equate running an insecure machine with handing out a small arsenal, and that you aren't responsible for others' actions, you are only liable for your irresponsible action. These are both points I agree with, but the analagy used still bothers me.
Gun's are designed to kill. Computers are not designed for cracking/spaming/etc. If you leave a chain saw out in your back yard, knowing that the kid down the block is (1) a bit whacked, (2) could be a potential danger, and (3) should not be on your property, are you partially responcible for when he kills some one with that chain saw? Now, what if it is the kid on the next block that could be the danger? Or the next city, county state of country? At what point is it no longer reasonable to expect that the public to know something is a threat?
It used to be enough to run a virus scanner every so often. Now you have to start by patching your systems regularly, then move on to running regularly updated virus scanners, installing and updating firewalls for the network, scanning for spyware, installing and updating desktop firewalls, updating spam filters, chasing drivers, updating applications (add more from the endless list here), all to keep a system going. So I ask again, at what point is it no longer reasonable to expect that the public will know something is or could be a threat?
And at what point does the public feel that it is no longer reasonable to expect them to know something is or could be a threat when it comes to that "harmless little box on the desk"?
I for one love Trillian. I would however, like to see trillian come out with a protocol of their own, preferably an open, distributed one. If any one could pull that off, it the people behind Trillian
Most ISP's have stoped relaying mail for domains that they do not host. So I should use the email address somedorkyname1234567890@myisp.com instead of my-prefered-name@my-domain-that-I-pay-to-have-host ed.com because of spammers?
This idea of blocking port 25, while well intentioned, just does not take into account the reality of actualy useing the internet.
Sounds terribly time-consuming to me, without much immediate pay-off for the end-user.
I guess we look at it with different eyes. I see it as a much easier aproach then LaTeX for most end users (after all, very little of what we produce in most settings goes outside of that setting). For most of this, I think we just come from the oposing view points. You do raise an intresting point though:
OTOH, a structure-oriented word processor would be no less easy to use than a presentation-oriented one, and the payoff would be the same.
I would love to know more about how you see this working, as it may be a better stepping stone between the 2 than what I had proposed. (Note: if any of these have been created, I would love to see it!)
But driving is not a natural way for men to travel. Dialing a number is not a natural way to contact one's family. But we do them all the time, because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
True enough. When it comes down to it, no use of tech is really natural, however some things are more natural than others. Turning a wheel to turn a car was more natural than the many of the other methods that were once used. Dialing numbers was a slow progression (50 years IIRC) to get to where it is now.
WYSIWYG has become a way many people think about their documents,
Compare it to the use of pen and paper, or pigment on a cave wall. No, its more the way we normally think about creating a document.
Sounds like AI to me. There's just no way, short of a human, to know what an author is getting at with a particular instance of mark-up.
No, not AI. Just a program that goes through a WYSIWYG document, and at every change in the text asks the user to select from a list what they were doing. The system could remember the previous choices, and make it the default choice. This could convert, what, 80% or so (made up number, just for the sake of argument) of most documents into a markup language fairly easily. The remaining 20% of the document would need some one who understands the markup to go through it and finish it. And since they also have the WYSIWYG document, the humans can then make more inteligent choices, or even fix what the software got wrong.
If you wanted to make it even better, the corrections that were made by the human could be sent pack to the prepress program to help it make better choices the next time around.
That's the genius of LaTeX, and HTML, and any other markup language which attempts to separate content and presentation.
This is also the biggest failing of markup languages. Markup is not a natural way for humans to think about or create content. It's a hack that we humans came up with to make it easier for machines to render what we want them to. Unless you are a programmer, or have otherwise gotten used to working with a markup language, it is just not natural way of thinking about content. WYSIWYG on the otherhand, is a more natural way (and thats why it is used so much).
Replacing the Italics button with Emphasis, Citation, Abbreviation &c. might actually be welcomed by many users.
Anything is possible, but I highly doubt this would fly with most of those that use WYSIWYG in the workplace.
by the time the document has been created, it's too late to add structure, save by back-breaking work.
One of the reasons I think that the person that creates the document should go through it with the program to get to this point. Yes, it would be a ball buster to write the application, and you would want the application to learn how its user formats things in order to fasilitate the process, but it could be done.
No, it is possible to apply a style after the content has been created, its just a matter of how. A tool to make it easier to go between the 2 would do wonders. This document have to go out of the office? OK, run it through PrePress and apply the company style sheet.
I am not sure if I completely agree with you that WYSIWYG was a step backwards. WYSIWYG is good enough for the vast majority of documents we create. No, the problem as I see it is that you can not really take a file from a WYSIWYG program, to a a LaTex type program with any real efficency.
Typographical design is a craft. It takes a real skill to do well. The vast majority of computer users don't have, and will never really want those skills. Right or wrong, that's not going to change any time soon. What we really need is a way to bridge the gap.
New application for OOo: Open Office PrePress. This application should go through the WYSIWYG document WITH the user and figure out what is what (by and large), while maintaining the current look of the document. The resulting file then gets imported to a LaTeX style program for correction, additional formatting, etc.
Now this is the kind of program that would set OOo apart from every one else.
Any one up for starting a project to collect and manage patents for the OSS community? Perhaps a fund to aquier more software could be attached to this (ala Blender)....Pipe dreams have this way of comming true...
I have always wondered why the open source community didn't do the same thing. I am sure that it would be easy enough to start, and that a few of the lawyers among us might take this on. This would give the open source community more than a few nukes of its own to fight back with in cases where we don't have big blue taking the stand. This would go nicely with RH's linux defense fund...
The copyright law is about a deal between the State, We The People, and the corporate scums that needs a carrot.
What really bothers me is that copyright law was origionaly designed to be applied to buisneses. It's use against individuals is a perversion of the intent of the copyright clause. I really wish that point had been argued at the SJC. OTOH, that and the theroy of constitutional repugnancy may one day be heard at the SJC, and stands a much better chance of winning IMHO.
On this we agree. A single unified front would be great. But, it will never happen. The strength of OSS is that every one does what they want and need it to do, not follow some decree or central set of ideas.
That said, I still think that we as a community should include php or other standard scripting language instead of arbitrary, app specific scripting languages.
And I think that if we could find a way to start allowing a few of these OSS scripting languages to find their way into MSO, it would make transitions easier when that time comes.
P.S. I like the idea of unified code. Access killer in the making?
I agree with you that Bruce would fall under the news reporting exception of US 17-92 chapter 1 & 107.
& 107. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Bruce is fairly bulet proof in this. Add to that that many states have laws that specificaly protect news reporting, and SCO would bu up a creek if they were to go after him for this. Some may even allow Bruce to move for the revocation of THEIR claimed copyright under the right circumstances. SCO is stupid, but not that stupid.
Most of the "homeless" people are there because of choices they have made over the course of their lifetimes up to that point.
Last week I was called out to the home of one of my Explorer kids. She ran into a school friend in town, and ended up having this girl over for a swim. While swimming it came out the 14 year old friend had lived most of the pas 3 months homeless, staying under a bridge and showering at a local town pool, or bathing in a stream. While the signs were their, no one had figured it out, nor had any one done anything about it.
This child, like the vast majority of homeless children, had not made any choice that led to her being homeless. With school out, she didn't even know where to go for help (and before you say she should have figured it out, or gone to the police, ask your 14 year old what they would do).
Not every one makes the choice ot be homeless. The vast majority of homeless kids are not homeless by choice. If this system would help them cut through the BS that so often intimidates kids to the point they won't seek help, then its a good thing.
I've used GNUCash. I've tried to hack at the code. But its just about impossible to do without being ready to expend impossible amounts of time on it.
For what its worth, I really like parts of GNUCash. I think that it could use a rewrite to lower some of the barries to entry and use, but I think it could go a very long way to solving a LOT of problems for a LOT of people.
I like the idea of a C/S system for GNUCash. I would love to see a rewrite that puts the power of the current systems engin on the ''server'', tied to a standard SQL database, and accessed by ''cash clients'' that are designed to meet specific needs (e.g. home, generic small office, law office, etc). I could see a lot of groups tinker with a much thinned down client to make it do what they need. I can't see it with the current system.
The "average joe" you have such distain for is who makes up the majority of internet users. THEY are the ones that PAY for most of what goes on. Enough of them start falling in these googleholes, they will stop useing google, and google will either have to change, or die. Better they change now, then when they end up in crisis mode.
Now try asking your grandma what terms she would use when looking for the information on an apple.
While you are correct that google is only an index, would it really be that hard for it to ask if they were looking for apple computers, apple records, the fruit or other, and refine the search for the user?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, I enjoy mine. I mean, how else are you suposed to wake a group of teenagers on a camping trip at 5am?
You know, I don't thing I have ever actually seen a bluetooth device other than on a web page or two. How many of you have?
I know of many companies that live on early 90's databases where the vendor is out of buisness, and their are not any suitable alternitives. I know of cases where the upgrades from 486-100Mhz/DOS network Database to P4/XP/Windows version is so much slower that it literally doubled the time it takes front office workers to take each call.
I guess my point is that many of those useing old systems do so for a good reason, and not because they are too cheep to do so.
If it were avalible on such a server, how many line by line comparisons would we have in a week? How far would SCO's stock fall once a few reporters got a hold of it? (remember, reporters could republish a lot of it if it is nessisary for their news reporting WITHOUT SCO's approval, and WITHOUT violating (c) law)
Gun's are designed to kill. Computers are not designed for cracking/spaming/etc. If you leave a chain saw out in your back yard, knowing that the kid down the block is (1) a bit whacked, (2) could be a potential danger, and (3) should not be on your property, are you partially responcible for when he kills some one with that chain saw? Now, what if it is the kid on the next block that could be the danger? Or the next city, county state of country? At what point is it no longer reasonable to expect that the public to know something is a threat?
It used to be enough to run a virus scanner every so often. Now you have to start by patching your systems regularly, then move on to running regularly updated virus scanners, installing and updating firewalls for the network, scanning for spyware, installing and updating desktop firewalls, updating spam filters, chasing drivers, updating applications (add more from the endless list here), all to keep a system going. So I ask again, at what point is it no longer reasonable to expect that the public will know something is or could be a threat?
And at what point does the public feel that it is no longer reasonable to expect them to know something is or could be a threat when it comes to that "harmless little box on the desk"?
I for one love Trillian. I would however, like to see trillian come out with a protocol of their own, preferably an open, distributed one. If any one could pull that off, it the people behind Trillian
Most ISP's have stoped relaying mail for domains that they do not host. So I should use the email address somedorkyname1234567890@myisp.com instead of my-prefered-name@my-domain-that-I-pay-to-have-host ed.com because of spammers?
This idea of blocking port 25, while well intentioned, just does not take into account the reality of actualy useing the internet.
I guess we look at it with different eyes. I see it as a much easier aproach then LaTeX for most end users (after all, very little of what we produce in most settings goes outside of that setting). For most of this, I think we just come from the oposing view points. You do raise an intresting point though:
I would love to know more about how you see this working, as it may be a better stepping stone between the 2 than what I had proposed. (Note: if any of these have been created, I would love to see it!)
True enough. When it comes down to it, no use of tech is really natural, however some things are more natural than others. Turning a wheel to turn a car was more natural than the many of the other methods that were once used. Dialing numbers was a slow progression (50 years IIRC) to get to where it is now.
Compare it to the use of pen and paper, or pigment on a cave wall. No, its more the way we normally think about creating a document.
No, not AI. Just a program that goes through a WYSIWYG document, and at every change in the text asks the user to select from a list what they were doing. The system could remember the previous choices, and make it the default choice. This could convert, what, 80% or so (made up number, just for the sake of argument) of most documents into a markup language fairly easily. The remaining 20% of the document would need some one who understands the markup to go through it and finish it. And since they also have the WYSIWYG document, the humans can then make more inteligent choices, or even fix what the software got wrong.
If you wanted to make it even better, the corrections that were made by the human could be sent pack to the prepress program to help it make better choices the next time around.
This is also the biggest failing of markup languages. Markup is not a natural way for humans to think about or create content. It's a hack that we humans came up with to make it easier for machines to render what we want them to. Unless you are a programmer, or have otherwise gotten used to working with a markup language, it is just not natural way of thinking about content. WYSIWYG on the otherhand, is a more natural way (and thats why it is used so much).
Replacing the Italics button with Emphasis, Citation, Abbreviation &c. might actually be welcomed by many users.
Anything is possible, but I highly doubt this would fly with most of those that use WYSIWYG in the workplace.
by the time the document has been created, it's too late to add structure, save by back-breaking work.
One of the reasons I think that the person that creates the document should go through it with the program to get to this point. Yes, it would be a ball buster to write the application, and you would want the application to learn how its user formats things in order to fasilitate the process, but it could be done.
No, it is possible to apply a style after the content has been created, its just a matter of how. A tool to make it easier to go between the 2 would do wonders. This document have to go out of the office? OK, run it through PrePress and apply the company style sheet.
I am not sure if I completely agree with you that WYSIWYG was a step backwards. WYSIWYG is good enough for the vast majority of documents we create. No, the problem as I see it is that you can not really take a file from a WYSIWYG program, to a a LaTex type program with any real efficency.
Typographical design is a craft. It takes a real skill to do well. The vast majority of computer users don't have, and will never really want those skills. Right or wrong, that's not going to change any time soon. What we really need is a way to bridge the gap.
New application for OOo: Open Office PrePress.
This application should go through the WYSIWYG document WITH the user and figure out what is what (by and large), while maintaining the current look of the document. The resulting file then gets imported to a LaTeX style program for correction, additional formatting, etc.
Now this is the kind of program that would set OOo apart from every one else.
It is done all of the time. I can think of at least one case that all of us should remember.
Any one up for starting a project to collect and manage patents for the OSS community? Perhaps a fund to aquier more software could be attached to this (ala Blender). ...Pipe dreams have this way of comming true...
I have always wondered why the open source community didn't do the same thing. I am sure that it would be easy enough to start, and that a few of the lawyers among us might take this on. This would give the open source community more than a few nukes of its own to fight back with in cases where we don't have big blue taking the stand. This would go nicely with RH's linux defense fund...
I mean, this HAS to be good for at least a few good digs at SCO's expence...
What really bothers me is that copyright law was origionaly designed to be applied to buisneses. It's use against individuals is a perversion of the intent of the copyright clause. I really wish that point had been argued at the SJC. OTOH, that and the theroy of constitutional repugnancy may one day be heard at the SJC, and stands a much better chance of winning IMHO.
On this we agree. A single unified front would be great. But, it will never happen. The strength of OSS is that every one does what they want and need it to do, not follow some decree or central set of ideas.
That said, I still think that we as a community should include php or other standard scripting language instead of arbitrary, app specific scripting languages.
And I think that if we could find a way to start allowing a few of these OSS scripting languages to find their way into MSO, it would make transitions easier when that time comes.
P.S. I like the idea of unified code. Access killer in the making?
Why not write a PHP/Python/whatever module for MSOffice, and distribute it under BDS, then include the SAME API set in the various OSS products?
How many of you that use MSO would code your scripts in PHP, python or other OSS scripting language if it were avalible?
Bruce is fairly bulet proof in this. Add to that that many states have laws that specificaly protect news reporting, and SCO would bu up a creek if they were to go after him for this. Some may even allow Bruce to move for the revocation of THEIR claimed copyright under the right circumstances. SCO is stupid, but not that stupid.
Wait, maybe not.
I think you left something out. Shouldn't it be: ...5. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all short sell SCO
6. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all issue press releases publicly terminating SCO's right to use the software
7. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all sue SCO for violation of the license and SCO goes away.
8. Complete the short sale as SCO's stock hits the floor
9. Profit
This child, like the vast majority of homeless children, had not made any choice that led to her being homeless. With school out, she didn't even know where to go for help (and before you say she should have figured it out, or gone to the police, ask your 14 year old what they would do).
Not every one makes the choice ot be homeless. The vast majority of homeless kids are not homeless by choice. If this system would help them cut through the BS that so often intimidates kids to the point they won't seek help, then its a good thing.
I've used GNUCash. I've tried to hack at the code. But its just about impossible to do without being ready to expend impossible amounts of time on it.
For what its worth, I really like parts of GNUCash. I think that it could use a rewrite to lower some of the barries to entry and use, but I think it could go a very long way to solving a LOT of problems for a LOT of people.
I like the idea of a C/S system for GNUCash. I would love to see a rewrite that puts the power of the current systems engin on the ''server'', tied to a standard SQL database, and accessed by ''cash clients'' that are designed to meet specific needs (e.g. home, generic small office, law office, etc). I could see a lot of groups tinker with a much thinned down client to make it do what they need. I can't see it with the current system.
Eletist B.S.
The "average joe" you have such distain for is who makes up the majority of internet users. THEY are the ones that PAY for most of what goes on. Enough of them start falling in these googleholes, they will stop useing google, and google will either have to change, or die. Better they change now, then when they end up in crisis mode.
Now try asking your grandma what terms she would use when looking for the information on an apple.
While you are correct that google is only an index, would it really be that hard for it to ask if they were looking for apple computers, apple records, the fruit or other, and refine the search for the user?