Yeah, it looks pretty neat. The two reasons I'm a little hesitant is that it doesn't include the April patches which we need now (Sasser) and my boss probably wouldn't want us deploying software from an unknown source (which also may be buggy) on our department's computers.
Yeah, you can also order all patches from M$ themselves.. I forget the link but you can order all patches on CD for free.. I had it come to me but the curior never left it at my house, and wanted me to come pick it up..
Yep, I ordered that as soon as it came out, and it finally came, but since the CD was made in Februrary, it doesn't have any of the patches that just came out in April (ie the one that patches against the Sasser worm), so it's back to making CDs by hand.
I work at a computer science department, and I'm currently compiling a CD of patches that people have to install before they get on the internet. Right now, the number of patches is nearing 30.
Yeah, it completely astounds me how Verisign was unable to write a line of code which would have given the guy back his domain, which was clearly stolen from him.
I'd rather have a bigger screen at the cost of some color and video quality.
Hmm.... Looks like I've found a buyer for my 5 year old 10" black and white TV. In fact, I'll sell it to you for the same price as this gadget, just 100 bucks.
Yeah, it really gives a new meaning to "dot bomb."
Specifics from the Slyck Article
on
Kazaa-lite Shut Down
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The main thing that people may not be getting is that not only is Sharman shutting down the Kazaa Lite download sites (which in it of itself would not be so much of a problem since it can be distributed over P2P), it's also making the new client (2.5) not let K-Lite (or any Kazaa under 2.4 for that matter) participate in its shares, basically banning it from the mainstream Kazaa network. If we factor in the fact that K-Lite users generally disable becoming a supernode, this becomes a real problem.
However, the article also mentions that there is DietK which strips all of the adware off of Kazaa (although it doesn't have all of the other nice features of K-Lite), and other clients which are still compatible with the fast track network.
How should I spend this moeny? Maybe we can start some sort of collective slashdot "Anti-RIAA/MPAA fund" out of all the checks we get. I doubt we could all agree on 1 use for the moeny that hurts the RIAA, but it's sure be nice (and fun).
You should listen to the RIAA more often. All we would need to do is make a new p2p sharing program.
From my perspective, the benifits of Advanced Server are 1) Thoroughly tested more advanced kernel, 2) Stability 3) Longer Lifetime (5 years) 4) Much better support.
The first two really could be achieved from building from source, using debian or gentoo. However, items 3 and 4 for an enterprise matter a lot. Why do you think Microsoft has supported NT 4.0 all these years? The thing is that if you're completely confident that your staff is as capable as redhat or you plan to build large portions of the OS from source, get RH 9, or even better Debian or Gentoo. However, if you're like most enterprises, who have people who have messed around with linux, have a couple linux system administration books lying around, but really couldn't solve a big crisis if it hit them, the AS version is your cup of tea. For mission critical use, I'd choose the AS version every time, if it weren't for the cost.
I have always wondered about this problem, and let's see if the slashdot community has any input. If, for example, the RIAA employs people to use P2P services to see who is trading illegal files, then these people theoretically would be downloading these files and during that time, making it available to other people to download. Since it's the RIAA who's making it available for people to download and they are the legal owners of the copyright to that file, haven't they just legitimized sharing that particular file?
1) Slashdot posts and article.
2) Reporters surf slashdot for ideas and writes an article on a magazine or paper.
3) Slashdot viewers surf other news sites and submits the story to Slashdot
Developers always start off thinking they can do what the competition does, except faster and smaller. The Mozilla project themselves started off that way. I remember in the early days them proudly announcing their rendering engine would fit on a floppy disk.
And sometimes they succeed. Look at Phoenix: smaller, faster, portable, and still compatible.
Joel Spolski wrote a good article on rewriting software in this way, and despite the fact that KHTML was already there, it fits into his theories quite well. Sometimes you don't have much choice, the old Netscape codebase was SO bad it could never have gone further, but it's something that's done in dire straits only.
Once again, I point out the Phoenix example. v7 is smaller (I'm comparing w/o java), faster (at least in my opinion), more standards friendly, and didn't take that long to rewrite to boot.
Conclusion, a good rewrite for the sake of speed and efficiency, as well as compatibility and compactness can be done, should be done, and will be done, but it requires dedicated coders who know what they're doing, have a vision of what they wwant their product to come out looking like, and who are good.
The point he is trying to make, in my case, is that companies may, under the current policy, use the said clause to specifically sabotage a GPLed piece of software that is trying to implement a standard.
An example of this would be if a commercial corporation (call it company X) comes up with a new piece of technology (call it WWW++ for here), which instantly becomes a hit. So, there is a big push for WWW++ to become a web standard, and company X agrees that they have the write to us WWW++, but only in terms of web development. However, since this is incompatible with the GPL, what this would mean is that anything trying to implement WWW++ cannot be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, singlehandedly by making a popular web standard, a company can say that this web standard cannot be used under certain licenses. We all know companies which would like to do this.
What is being proposed instead, would take away that clause. It would not harm commercial implementations of the standard at all. In fact, commercial implementations would even benifit from the removal of the clause because it would give them more freedom of action. What the removal of the clause would do is ultimately give developers more freedom to work with the next generation web standards, to foster the kind of innovativeness on the part of the developers without having to constantly looking for patent violations, and to continue the tradition of the free web as much as possible.
What I need is a nice simple mp3 to ogg converter for windows
Converting from 1 compression format to another compression format is always a bad idea since usually they compress differently, and what happens is that you're taking the already degraded sound and degrading it further. That said, if you insist on converting your entire 20 GB MP3 library over to ogg, Audacity should work quite nicely (although you have to do that one file at a time).
A lot of geeks, myself included, use OS X because it works so damn well.
You're right, and it is not just geeks. The reason why a lot of people like using OS X is because it is beautiful, easy, and works with a unity of perspective. Linux's biggest asset and biggest liability is its open-ended open-sourceness. Everyone has this vision of how they want their product to be like, so the OS ends up with five hundred visions all put into one place. Instead of the beautiful vision each developer comes up with, it is a patchwork of different ideas. Linux is powerful, fast, with some of the most state-of-art computer science it behind it. However, what it lacks is a central vision, a goal, or an unity of purpose. Some companies are trying unify it, Torvalds is trying to unify it, but until it stops being a patchwork and more of a unified product, Linux will have a hard time convincing average desktop users to switch.
What I'm trying to understand is why does everybody and their brother build a brand new P2P network (or try to)? This is another geek vs. businessman thing where a bunch of geeks are creating things for no apparent reason whatsoever other than the fact they may think it's "cool".
What Gnutella is trying to do is make an open, operable standard which then can be implemented by many clients, thus simultaneously making all of those clients better, and therefore making so that even though there are many clients, the network they are on is good.
In a sense P2P networks are similar to encryption methods. New compression methods will constantly be discovered. The reason why people choose to use them even though it will break compatiblity with old clients is that they're better (smaller, faster, etc...). P2P is at the same stage compression methods were 10 years ago. Some people come up with new P2P networks as an academic exercise. Others implement them because they are better than what they have. Your argument may make sense 10 years from now when the P2P process is nearly optimized (similar to compression now), and then, the more people we have sharing one network, the better. However, when there is signifcant room for improvement, it is always better to implement the new standards instead of trying to maintain compatibility with the old ones.
RTF has been in office for years and it is an open, portable standard readable on many platforms and with many programs. The problem is that Microsoft chooses to retain their obfuscated binary format as the default save type for documents.
Even though RTF is and open standard, many programs which claim compatibility are still not 100% compatible, and can screw up things like embedded images. I supposed Microsoft's implementation of XML will be similar. It will be open, but the more complicated documents would still be displayed differently by non-Microsoft products. It would also force everyone to switch to Microsoft XML, or at least be compatible with it, retaining the dominance of Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it looks pretty neat. The two reasons I'm a little hesitant is that it doesn't include the April patches which we need now (Sasser) and my boss probably wouldn't want us deploying software from an unknown source (which also may be buggy) on our department's computers.
Yeah, you can also order all patches from M$ themselves.. I forget the link but you can order all patches on CD for free.. I had it come to me but the curior never left it at my house, and wanted me to come pick it up..
Yep, I ordered that as soon as it came out, and it finally came, but since the CD was made in Februrary, it doesn't have any of the patches that just came out in April (ie the one that patches against the Sasser worm), so it's back to making CDs by hand.
I work at a computer science department, and I'm currently compiling a CD of patches that people have to install before they get on the internet. Right now, the number of patches is nearing 30.
Yeah, it completely astounds me how Verisign was unable to write a line of code which would have given the guy back his domain, which was clearly stolen from him.
I'd rather have a bigger screen at the cost of some color and video quality.
Hmm.... Looks like I've found a buyer for my 5 year old 10" black and white TV. In fact, I'll sell it to you for the same price as this gadget, just 100 bucks.
Last time i checked, the NTFS write support was not mature enough to be used fulltime. Has anyone used this? Is the write support completely reliable?
I couldn't say for sure how Mandrake is doing it, but there is fully functional ntfs read/write support out there: Captive NTFS
Wait for Mandrakelinux 10.0 Official... it will be 100% bug free...
Right... I guess the bugs that are fixed after 10.0 is released will make it 150% bug free then.
Yeah, it really gives a new meaning to "dot bomb."
The main thing that people may not be getting is that not only is Sharman shutting down the Kazaa Lite download sites (which in it of itself would not be so much of a problem since it can be distributed over P2P), it's also making the new client (2.5) not let K-Lite (or any Kazaa under 2.4 for that matter) participate in its shares, basically banning it from the mainstream Kazaa network. If we factor in the fact that K-Lite users generally disable becoming a supernode, this becomes a real problem.
However, the article also mentions that there is DietK which strips all of the adware off of Kazaa (although it doesn't have all of the other nice features of K-Lite), and other clients which are still compatible with the fast track network.
Unfortunately, there is no AOL client that runs on Linux. The AOL client runs only on Windows.
That's not strictly true. There is penggy, currently being developed that will enable AOL connectivity.
How should I spend this moeny? Maybe we can start some sort of collective slashdot "Anti-RIAA/MPAA fund" out of all the checks we get. I doubt we could all agree on 1 use for the moeny that hurts the RIAA, but it's sure be nice (and fun).
You should listen to the RIAA more often. All we would need to do is make a new p2p sharing program.
From my perspective, the benifits of Advanced Server are 1) Thoroughly tested more advanced kernel, 2) Stability 3) Longer Lifetime (5 years) 4) Much better support.
The first two really could be achieved from building from source, using debian or gentoo. However, items 3 and 4 for an enterprise matter a lot. Why do you think Microsoft has supported NT 4.0 all these years? The thing is that if you're completely confident that your staff is as capable as redhat or you plan to build large portions of the OS from source, get RH 9, or even better Debian or Gentoo. However, if you're like most enterprises, who have people who have messed around with linux, have a couple linux system administration books lying around, but really couldn't solve a big crisis if it hit them, the AS version is your cup of tea. For mission critical use, I'd choose the AS version every time, if it weren't for the cost.
I have always wondered about this problem, and let's see if the slashdot community has any input. If, for example, the RIAA employs people to use P2P services to see who is trading illegal files, then these people theoretically would be downloading these files and during that time, making it available to other people to download. Since it's the RIAA who's making it available for people to download and they are the legal owners of the copyright to that file, haven't they just legitimized sharing that particular file?
Great, now I can use the my penny ram sinks and paper cooling system on a new dual G4.
I see how the cycle goes now:
1) Slashdot posts and article.
2) Reporters surf slashdot for ideas and writes an article on a magazine or paper.
3) Slashdot viewers surf other news sites and submits the story to Slashdot
So now every site can be slashdotted twice.
Roxio managed to buy most of Roxio's assets, but it did not assume any of the company's pending liabilities.
That's pretty nice I wish I could buy up all of my own assets and hot have to pay for any of my liabilities.
Developers always start off thinking they can do what the competition does, except faster and smaller. The Mozilla project themselves started off that way. I remember in the early days them proudly announcing their rendering engine would fit on a floppy disk.
And sometimes they succeed. Look at Phoenix: smaller, faster, portable, and still compatible.
Joel Spolski wrote a good article on rewriting software in this way, and despite the fact that KHTML was already there, it fits into his theories quite well. Sometimes you don't have much choice, the old Netscape codebase was SO bad it could never have gone further, but it's something that's done in dire straits only.
Once again, I point out the Phoenix example. v7 is smaller (I'm comparing w/o java), faster (at least in my opinion), more standards friendly, and didn't take that long to rewrite to boot.
Conclusion, a good rewrite for the sake of speed and efficiency, as well as compatibility and compactness can be done, should be done, and will be done, but it requires dedicated coders who know what they're doing, have a vision of what they wwant their product to come out looking like, and who are good.
The point he is trying to make, in my case, is that companies may, under the current policy, use the said clause to specifically sabotage a GPLed piece of software that is trying to implement a standard.
An example of this would be if a commercial corporation (call it company X) comes up with a new piece of technology (call it WWW++ for here), which instantly becomes a hit. So, there is a big push for WWW++ to become a web standard, and company X agrees that they have the write to us WWW++, but only in terms of web development. However, since this is incompatible with the GPL, what this would mean is that anything trying to implement WWW++ cannot be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, singlehandedly by making a popular web standard, a company can say that this web standard cannot be used under certain licenses. We all know companies which would like to do this.
What is being proposed instead, would take away that clause. It would not harm commercial implementations of the standard at all. In fact, commercial implementations would even benifit from the removal of the clause because it would give them more freedom of action. What the removal of the clause would do is ultimately give developers more freedom to work with the next generation web standards, to foster the kind of innovativeness on the part of the developers without having to constantly looking for patent violations, and to continue the tradition of the free web as much as possible.
What I need is a nice simple mp3 to ogg converter for windows
Converting from 1 compression format to another compression format is always a bad idea since usually they compress differently, and what happens is that you're taking the already degraded sound and degrading it further. That said, if you insist on converting your entire 20 GB MP3 library over to ogg, Audacity should work quite nicely (although you have to do that one file at a time).
A lot of geeks, myself included, use OS X because it works so damn well.
You're right, and it is not just geeks. The reason why a lot of people like using OS X is because it is beautiful, easy, and works with a unity of perspective. Linux's biggest asset and biggest liability is its open-ended open-sourceness. Everyone has this vision of how they want their product to be like, so the OS ends up with five hundred visions all put into one place. Instead of the beautiful vision each developer comes up with, it is a patchwork of different ideas. Linux is powerful, fast, with some of the most state-of-art computer science it behind it. However, what it lacks is a central vision, a goal, or an unity of purpose. Some companies are trying unify it, Torvalds is trying to unify it, but until it stops being a patchwork and more of a unified product, Linux will have a hard time convincing average desktop users to switch.
What I'm trying to understand is why does everybody and their brother build a brand new P2P network (or try to)? This is another geek vs. businessman thing where a bunch of geeks are creating things for no apparent reason whatsoever other than the fact they may think it's "cool".
What Gnutella is trying to do is make an open, operable standard which then can be implemented by many clients, thus simultaneously making all of those clients better, and therefore making so that even though there are many clients, the network they are on is good.
In a sense P2P networks are similar to encryption methods. New compression methods will constantly be discovered. The reason why people choose to use them even though it will break compatiblity with old clients is that they're better (smaller, faster, etc...). P2P is at the same stage compression methods were 10 years ago. Some people come up with new P2P networks as an academic exercise. Others implement them because they are better than what they have. Your argument may make sense 10 years from now when the P2P process is nearly optimized (similar to compression now), and then, the more people we have sharing one network, the better. However, when there is signifcant room for improvement, it is always better to implement the new standards instead of trying to maintain compatibility with the old ones.
RTF has been in office for years and it is an open, portable standard readable on many platforms and with many programs. The problem is that Microsoft chooses to retain their obfuscated binary format as the default save type for documents.
Even though RTF is and open standard, many programs which claim compatibility are still not 100% compatible, and can screw up things like embedded images. I supposed Microsoft's implementation of XML will be similar. It will be open, but the more complicated documents would still be displayed differently by non-Microsoft products. It would also force everyone to switch to Microsoft XML, or at least be compatible with it, retaining the dominance of Office.