Look at nVidias drivers. There's nothing but a stub in the kernel. The rest is in userspace and closed.
Yes, and the reason there is a seperate stub to interface nVidia's drivers with the kernel, is because nVidia doesn't want to risk having to open-source their drivers because they're interfaced with GPL-ed code.
Whether the GPL should include the interfaces as well, is up to discussion. Some GPL advocates or lawyers may think yes, some may think no.
Personally, I think licenses/copyrights should exclude any kind of interface, and be limited to to hardware/software that implements them.
Ofcourse, there's no law against not documenting 'internal' interfaces, describing interfaces in proprietary documents, or under non-disclosure agreements. Regardless of how one would feel about that.
But what really amazes me is how slow companies like Dish are to understand the benefits that the GPL brings them. (..) Not only does it make excellent business sense to re-release improvements to GPL'd software as cleanly and transparently as possibly, but it makes sense to release proprietary software exactly the same way.
I think most businesses still underestimate the added value it gives to customers, if products can be extended/upgraded in 'unintended' ways. I suppose the thinking may be something like "this year, we sell you something with a fixed set of functions, so if you want something extra that we come up with next year, then you'll have to buy again". If customers can upgrade and extend functionality themselves, the product may last a lot longer, and businesses may feel they lose out on sales of newer products. And maybe business feel that added value for customers != added value for the company. Note this is a lot of speculation on my part.
What they fail to realize, is that a longer lasting product is one that is a) more appreciated, and b) is worth more (=could be sold at a higher price). It's no different from the pricing difference between a cheap model car, and say... a <insert your favourite top-of-the-line car maker here>. The latter is a lot more expensive, but still very much worth its money. Not only because of the name, but by including quality parts, more attention to detail, better service, and so forth. Both cars will get you from A to B, but the expensive model may even be cheaper... in the long run, when you drive enough miles in it. And by breaking down less often, and give you more time before you need a new car.
The 'quality' part gives a product a higher profit margin, and the 'customer satisfaction' keeps customers coming back. So that added customer value does equal added value for the company.
It just shows that few companies understand this, or prefer to go for the quick buck as opposed to keeping their customers happy for a long time.
Sure, it sounds great. And there's even a working prototype and cost estimate for a 40" model. But how far off is that possibility?
With flatscreen tech making such fast advances, I've decided to postpone replacement of my CRT as long as possible. Basically, until it dies, or the image quality goes down badly.
With most computer components, we've gotten used to something like 2-3 year life cycles. If you make a less-than-optimal purchase, too bad, but replacement will follow fairly quick.
But monitors/TV's, like washing machines, typically last quite a bit longer. So I'll be happy if my CRT lasts another year, so that better/cheaper flatscreens are on sale, when the time comes. Maybe this technology has arrived in the shops by then.
I've seen some comments by people involved with NetBSD, complaining about lack of hardware or developer support for some lesser-used platforms/machines (and as you will know, NetBSD runs on some exotic hardware).
This example shows how things should work when supporting any specific hardware/software combination. If you want something done, donate some time by making contributions, fixes, testing, helping out developers with information about the hardware, etc. Or donate money or hardware. Or help developers by giving access to the hardware (remote shell, test their fixes etc., whatever helps).
If nobody cares about support for a particular software/hardware combination, then what is lost? Software support for hardware that nobody uses anymore. Anything remotely popular will do just fine.
Apparantly Sun cares enough to throw some hardware at the NetBSD project. Good for them, and why not? Anyway, it's nice to see the NetBSD project helped out like this.
I've seen some projects use a bonus system. Works something like this:
Users of the software can make feature requests (as usual), and you may add things yourself to this wishlist.
For each item, you make an estimate of how much effort it would take to implement the feature, or how much money you'd want yourself to do it. You could use a bidding system to let other developers (freelance, or project contributors, whatever) make a better offer. Note: a $$ amount need not reflect fair compensation for the work involved. Any contributor can have his/her own reasons on why to do it for that money (prestige, fun, interesting, 'will code for food', whatever).
For each item, users of the software can donate or commit to paying -some- amount for implementation of a feature. Likewise, users can apply their own reasons for raising or lowering their rewards. When donations+commitments reach a currently standing offer, collect the money and have the feature implemented.
Think it was a BeOS- or Amiga-related project where I saw this done before, maybe other projects have used this to get things done.
-IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen
Wrong! The whole issue about these RFID tags, is that its owner loses any control, and knowledge about when, where his/her ID is read, by who, and for what purpose. Anyone (criminals included) could read a RFID tag, anytime, anywhere, without me knowing, or without telling me what the hell for.
Non-RFID equipped documents may be machine-readable in other ways (chip, barcode, magnetic strip). But each time they're used, I'll know it, watch it being used, see who's asking me, and be informed what for. RFID tags simply throw your permission/control in the use of your ID card, out the door. And for what? Ease of use? How long does it take to scan a barcode anyway? (Answer: 0.1 seconds max). And to grab an ID card from wherever you keep it, and put it back? (Answer: a couple of seconds if you know where it is, and you should know, since they're important documents).
As for law enforcement purposes, the need to ID everybody to keep the streets safe, is flawed reasoning. Stop a bus filled with people, and ID everyone. Safer ride now? Bullshit, you'd know who is on that bus, but if you don't search people+luggage, everybody could be armed to the teeth, and you wouldn't know about that. Drive safely now!
A nutcase carrying a bomb onto a plane isn't dangerous because he's a nutcase, but because he carries a bomb onto a plane. Law enforcement should concentrate on that (prevent bombs from being carried onto planes). And if possible, on that alone.
--Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.
FTA: "it is thought the greatest reservoir of retained water on the Red Planet could be found beneath the planet's surface."
Well duh, like it is on earth: you have the surface of the ocean (where it meets the air), and most of the water is below that. Go figure (gravity and all).
I don't think the end of the road is certain, but I'll bet it means curtailed development of entertainment in digital form.
Sure, the end of the road is pretty certain, and goes something like this:
If content is digital, it can be copied easily.
If it can be copied, it will be copied.
If people want a copy, they can get a copy (and not pay, if they don't feel like it).
The content producer can make money by selling physical media (with the content), licensing, online sales, whatever. If it's made cheaper, more media/licenses will be bought, but less profit per sale. If more expensive, more profit per sale, but smaller numbers sold. Optimum somewhere in between.
DRM (+ lawyers) ultimately change nothing of the above, only serve to push the numbers a bit in one direction or another. Oh yeah, and
DRM and lawyers add an additional cost for everybody.
So musicians will continue to make music, people will keep listening to whatever they like (and spend money on that, when they feel like it), some industry folks will keep trying to squeeze money from all this, DRM will continue to be broken, and some lawyers will receive fat paychecks. The most succesful businesses will be those that adapt to new circumstances.
And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).
And since some older or less secure hashing algorithms might be fooled (modified file, same checksum), use multiple checksum methods. For example, provide both an MD5 and SHA-1 hash for each release package.
In theory, somebody could cook up a modified file that gives the same hash. But modifying a file and still have multiple hash algorithms produce the same checksums, is very, very, much harder to do -- if not impossible.
Just post those hashes on trusted servers, and any file that matches both (or more) hashes must be your package.
My thoughts exactly. As soon as you move things, there's a chance something will go wrong. Shit happens.
But... You do realize that the (human) driver is one of the failure points? Frankly I'd be happy to get into a car and have the driving done for me. So I could enjoy the landscape, read a book, or have fun with other passengers. Or be able to drive drunk, without risking the lives of other people.
When or how? When the technology has shown to be safer than driving the car yourself. Which won't be anytime soon, especially not when MSFT is involved.
It's like robots doing medical procedures. It will be commonplace one day, and I'll be okay with that. But the technology has to prove itself first. Real-world use over several years would be a bare minimum for me. And no, I'm not volunteering for beta-testing.
Sounds like some sort of overflow problem. Hmmm....
That depends. I suppose you could call the software involved here mission-critical. In that case one might expect limits like the ~32000/month to be documented (not in this case if I read it right). If that limit had been documented, then the failure would not have been overflow, but not RTFM/using the system out-of-spec, which is management/operator error.
Also it matters how exceeding a limit is handled (graceful degradation). Did this system say: "I'm stuffed, I can't take no more input for a while" or did it say "Oh dear, I'm confused, I'll be doing totally silly crap now". In the first case, the failure is partial and you can still get some work done. In the latter case (=what happened here?), you're totally screwed once you reach that limit.
The people you're targeting get paid $50 a month (..) The thing about developing nations, is not that they're poor, it's that the divide between the rich and the poor is vast.
Personally I have no problem with a vast difference in wealth between the richest and poorest in this world. It's not the size of this scale that matters, but how low the bottom end is.
Differences in income between $50 or $50K a month don't worry me, but that $50 a month lower end, not enough to provide you with food in your mouth, a roof over your head, clean drinking water, basic healthcare or education, does worry me.
And for what it's worth, poor people that wander the streets with nothing but the clothes on their back, that don't know where their next meal comes from, can be found anywhere. There's just more of them in 3rd world countries.
And there are other reasons people don't have PC's, like that the box + monitor + wiring + CD's + papers doesn't fit in their interior, or that they don't like gaming or have better things to do than surf the internets 5 hours a day. Or don't want to spend the time on dealing with dialog boxes, hardware/OS upgrades or spyware cleanup.
$100 for a computer should be enough for everyone.
First, the client can be really bare bones (i.e. no HD, minimal RAM, low-end graphics, low processesor speeds, etc) so they can be cheap ($170 + monitor from WalMart or donated machines).
Yep, thin clients are great, when used in the right places. And they have many advantages. But... price isn't one of them. Not yet, anyway.
Where I live, PC's up to around 200 MHz. (original Pentium and below) are effectively free. You want one? Look around, hand over a sixpack of beer, and you have one.
Now with a $170 budget, I can get you a (used) PC that includes monitor, and beats the crap out of any thin client you can find for same money.
How come? Well, we all know electronics today are 'cheap' thanks to the sheer numbers they're produced in. Apparantly in today's world, a standard beige box with off-the-shelf components, is still cheaper (to produce, or second-hand), than a book-sized thin client produced in limited numbers.
For a business, the numbers may differ. If you'd use old hardware in a thin-client like fashion, you might have to hire someone, to manage parts, build and repair boxes fulltime. In that scenario, it may be cheaper to spend $170 once on thin clients, and very little after that on managing the hardware. But the savings here are not hardware, but management costs. Which I think is the advantage of thin clients anyway.
I hope some day (maybe soon) these economics will change, and make smaller/smarter boxes cheaper than equal performing WalMart beige boxes. Because they have many advantages, and I happen to like small+smart boxes. Even if they're still a bit bigger, like Mini-ITX or Shuttle XPC's.
What exactly is the purpose of the LSB spec these days?
Basically, to define a reference platform with a specified set of functionality. As in: If "distro XYZ complies with the LSB", then "functionality A, B and C is guaranteed to be present, and working". See it as a sort of certification, a la Red Hat enterprise distro. Something application builders can use as a guaranteed base to build on, and distro's that choose to comply with it, should then be guaranteed to run these applications.
It doesn't mean every Linux distro should support it. But between Linux distro's that DO, there would be better consistency across distro's. So that it's easier to move an application suite from one LSB-compliant distro to another LSB-compliant distro. As opposed to making a shitload of changes to adapt your app to another distro.
If you're a distro builder, I'd say: support the LSB as far as you can, if it isn't too much trouble, and helps your user base. If you're an application builder, make sure your app works according to LSB guidelines, if it isn't too much trouble, and helps your user base.
If you're looking for a "one size fits all": forget it. There is no such thing in Linux land, and while useful, having that may not even be a Good Thing(tm). Developers should just pick appropriate standards to support. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wrote "Unix-style". Built my own Linux system from source ages ago a la Linux From Scratch, waiting for next releases of NetBSD and FreeBSD to take these for a spin, and writing these comments from Gentoo Linux. Does that count?
Ask Van Gogh how his "exchange of thoughts" went with people who belived in the same type of extremism as Bin Laden does.
Assuming you refer to the murder of Dutch filmmaker/publicist Theo van Gogh: I can remember a pre-9/11 era where mr.van Gogh wasn't very loved by many either, but 'tolerated'.
Then, 9/11 came. I remember seeing the images on CNN, with people amazed that some terrorists were willing to steer full passenger planes into scyscrapers. My thoughts were something like: "whatever happens next, the world won't be the same after this". A super-manhunt for the brains behind it could have followed.
Then, Mr. Bush came up with his anti-terrorist propaganda, and in Afghanistan waaaayyyyy more people died than in the NYC events, most victims being plain citizens, and soldiers defending their home soil against the US-led 'invaders'. Sure some terrorists were killed, but a minority of the casualties.
And before you knew it, every muslim became a terrorist suspect, and muslims/non-muslims worldwide were looking at each other with fear. IMHO this divide is what led to mr. van Gogh getting murdered. After all, he'd been living here for ages, and no problem earlier.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget Guantanamo Bay, shall we?
Sure us Dutch people may have permissive laws (and believe me, it's not much different from countries around us), but at least we prefer to deal with things in a practical manner, instead of blindly acting, and asking questions later. Thanks again mr. Bush, for confusing the minds of our leaders.
"If you had been following best practice and surfing the web as a normal user, a dirty hacker could still run code, but they could not wipe out your system without first gaining root.
Also, it's easily to accidentally trash the system configuration if you are operating as root when not necessary."
Yep, doing things as non-root user protects your system from getting screwed up, so that your system will keep working as expected, while your data (in your home directory) may get thrashed, deleted, or leaked/snooped on.
Here's my problem with this: while this helps, the fact is, my data happens to be the most valuable stuff on my computer. I can fix/reinstall an OS, but I probably can't retrieve data that got deleted. If a hacker gets user level access, then my system may keep working o.k., but my user data is still up for grabs.
So for starters: a good backup strategy is your friend. Next: reliable working software, so that exploits aren't there in the 1st place, user-level or otherwise.
I still have to see a security model that's:
Easy to understand, even for Grandma's
Protects user's data (and with 'protect' I also mean prevention from leaking read-only data using spyware-like methods), AND
Still keeps it easy for users to access/modify same data.
If you know of a good model that meets ALL above points simultaneously, please let us know. And frankly, the Unix permissions model doesn't cut it. It's hard to understand for Grandma, and even with proper permissions set, all sorts of data that should be considered private to processes/users, is leaked in a variety of ways. And a flaw in your browser may destroy any non-browser related data inside your home directory.
The Unix-style users/permissions model may be useful, but it's nowhere near optimal by any metric. IMHO it's more like a clumsy fix, that tries to minimize the effect of unreliable software. After all, if software on your system would NOT contain any exploitable bugs, and 'just work' as documented, how much use would there be left for Unix-style security? At least on single-user systems (normal user = also admin): little.
Do you really think non-violent resistance would have prevented nazi exterminations?
Don't like to get into this Nazi discussion, but to answer your question: YES.
As a Dutchman, I read a while ago that most jews deported from the Netherlands during WWII, weren't caught on the streets by German soldiers, but snitched on/given away by fellow countrymen. It wasn't Germans that found them, but Dutch people themselves that destroyed the lives of their (jewish) neighbours, in exchange for rewards, immunity, some favours, whatever. All the German command needed to do, was put out those rewards, and follow the leads they received.
And German soldiers that drove these people in the gas chambers, you say they had no choice? Sure, a refusal to obey orders might have meant a bullet on the spot, but don't kid yourself here: These soldiers knew what was going on, and sure had the choice of saying: "NO, I won't do this. If you'll shoot me then, do what you have to, but I won't co-operate with this". Instead they chose (en masse) to push these millions of victims towards their death.
This is very comparable to US anti-terrorism propaganda of the last few years. Sure, terrorism is a problem, but have US actions made the world a safer place? I think when the next generation Bin Ladens have grown up, we'll see how much damage the US has done to world peace and eh... 'freedom'.
Now if US citizens wish to screw up their own lives: okay, have fun. But the sad part: Their bullying of allies and smaller countries makes many countries follow their lead. Just the other day, a Dutch airliner heading for Mexico, was refused passage through US air space. Terrorists on board? Who knows, but essentially it's the US setting the agenda in many parts of the world, even if measures are violating local law. Like passenger data that's turned over to US intelligence, possibly in violation of European law.
And the scary part: all this propaganda has caused US citizens to really believe that terrorism is the #1 problem in the world. Are you kidding me? Worse than poverty? Worse than hunger? HIV? Civil wars? Let's face it: how many people are killed each year by terrorist acts? I suspect even plane crashes (world's safest way of travel) kill more people. My chances of getting struck by lightning are way higher than running into a Bin Laden follower. And speaking of the man, I fear the results of Mr. Bush's actions more than this terrorist turning up at my doorstep. Mr. Laden, if you're reading this: I don't like you either, but you're welcome at my place for a coffee and exchange of thoughts. Mr. Bush, if you're reading this, you're welcome here for a good kick in your b*tt.
Freedom starts with saying: NO! Live free, or die. You can take away my life, but you can't take away my freedom. Damn, I love these quotes;-)
"Oh I'm sorry, our voice recognition equipment seems to be malfunctioning... But never mind that, Sir. Just try and make a full sentence that makes any sense whatsoever, and I'm sure your answer will be all the verification we need."
1. Don't run as administrator. Create another account as restricted user for daily use. Most spyware requires administrator rights to install.
No. This works real well in Linux and OSX, but not in Windows. It produces way more headaches than it solves, because the concept of not running with admin rights is still fairly new in the Windows world (..)
I think I should point out some practical experience here, that suggests the opposite. A number of months ago, I helped clean spyware off my parents' PC. Installed Firefox, and my dad agreed to set it up as default browser, so that URL's opened by other programs use Firefox too. Don't underestimate the significance of this; if you can convince grandma to use the safer browser by default, make it so. If you need to, rename the "Firefox" icon as "Internet".
Installed recent versions of common plugins (Flash, Java & QuickTime IIRC), and asked my dad NOT to agree/install any other plugins after that, only make a note of what's felt as 'missing'. So you have Firefox, you have all common plugins (working! and recent versions). Not enough? Then either that site is badly designed and should be avoided, or additional 'plugins' may mean 'malware'. If I overlooked some popular plugin, my dad will let me know on my next visit.
Next, I setup separate user accounts, without passwords. I felt that asking my dad to enter a password each time was too much hassle, but he agreed that clicking on his name, once during bootup, was OK (you take what you can get). Account setup was easy, my dad knows how to use admin account if he needs to install something, but normal work is done as non-priviliged user.
Ofcourse I enabled automatic updates (WinXP), and in this case ignored the firewall setting, since there's a hardware-based firewall box between the ADSL connection and my dad's PC. Regardless of quality, a harder nut to crack than any software-based firewall (decent password set, and any outside-access options disabled on that thingie). A hardware-based firewall also makes OS reinstalls safer/easier.
The only changes my dad sees: a single click on his name on bootup, and a slightly different looking browser program. A couple of months later, I asked my dad what he had noticed lately. Only comments along the lines of 'one or two programs complaining about being unable to install something, but nothing that got in the way of normal use'. I explained him that there was a good chance, that these programs complaining where likely stuff he wouldn't want/need on his PC anyway, so these rare 'unable to install something' dialogue boxes could be regarded as positive signs.;-)
It produces way more headaches than it solves (..)
Assuming the above scenario could work for many Joe Sixpacks and grandma's, your claim is obviously flawed. A priviliged admin account is needed either for installing software, running applications with special needs, or performing special tasks. Exactly the sort of thing Joe Sixpacks and grandma's DON'T DO (or SHOULDN'T be doing!). So they'll be fine with a non-priviliged user account.
For folks where this is not the case ('advanced/power user'), you can assume they know what they're doing. If not, those users only have themselves to blame for not RTFM.
So as you state, a couple of simple steps like this can prevent 99% of the problems. Read: not producing, but preventing headaches. All of the above was easy and took little time, and I don't expect to spend much effort on cleaning virus/spyware crap from that machine in the future. If anything, the next step would be buying a "Linux for dummies" book, and installing a newby-friendly distro a la Mandrake or Ubuntu. My dad already tried to install Linux once, so he's definitely interested.;-)
With the massive fraud by the operators of this site today (..)
What on earth are you talking about, my dear friend?
I mean, I used to think that Slashdot was going down the drain with them countless trolls, duped stories, and crazy moderation.
How wrong I was! (and I hereby sincerely apologize to the editors for not appreciating the true value of their work). Many sites all over the web are posting crazy hoaxes, where you need to Google, or wait a day an re-check, just to find out if it was true or not.
In contrast, Slashdot stayed close to its roots, and posted a row of quality stories about 'Stuff that matters'. And for a change, moderators outdid themselves to separate good from bad comments, prime example being this story.
Really, the last few hours have returned my faith in Slashdot as one of THE best tech-related news sites. Thumbs up, and keep 'm coming, Taco!
Today, we find ourselves in the middle. Its not quite as plug and play as Windows or Macintosh, but its got some. Our minds are left thinking "Is this mainsteam or not?", and we don't know where to settle.
Thanks for your well reasoned comment! Reading it, my mind said: Pling!! The effect you describe has been coined under the name "Uncanny Valley". Basically: 'not good enough to pass for the real thing', but past the stage where you can just laugh at it. That in-between can give an uncomfortable feel. I Googled a bit, but as often, Wikipedia has a good description. (poor Wiki getting pounded all the time;-)
I'm not sure if you're right, but it's an interesting view. I myself think that plain inertia, and some 'fear of the unknown' plays a big role in Linux acceptance. And maybe people don't really hate Windows as much as they claim, but have sort of learned to love it, with all its quirks and/or blue screens.
Besides: Linux is about choice, and (too many) choices make people's heads hurt. Just handing over something, and saying: "use this, push that button, and that thingie there works like so from now on" works good for many people.
But from what I read, Linux keeps going strong, Mac use is up, and Firefox keeps eating IE market share. Makes me pretty optimistic.
(on distro's converging)
Couldn't agree more. Whenever you visit DistroWatch, maybe half the distro's out there, are somehow Debian-based (like Knoppix and its numerous variants). But many look like "me too!" projects. Choice is good, but only as long as there's something clear to choose between. Big or small, ready-to-go or advanced user, bleeding edge or server-farm stable, etc. It would be good if there were a handful of distro's with clearly visible (different) targets, but without the numerous look-alikes. I for one, will never touch a distro if it doesn't make a clear statement on what sets it apart from the rest.
You're right, this is just a matter of time, some shake-out/reshuffling will happen. Maybe even original Debian will get lost in this. But who cares? All the work done on it, lives on in its descendants.
Why are you reading this sig?!? Isn't my comment interesting enough, or what?
Gnome:KDE:: Xfree86:X.org (..) Anybody have any insights on this topic?
You must be new here? That's called Free/Open Source software. Use whatever suits your needs. If you like A, use A. If you like B, use B. If it's not good enough, (help) fix it, or make something better yourself. Either way, don't bitch about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at nVidias drivers. There's nothing but a stub in the kernel. The rest is in userspace and closed.
Yes, and the reason there is a seperate stub to interface nVidia's drivers with the kernel, is because nVidia doesn't want to risk having to open-source their drivers because they're interfaced with GPL-ed code.
Whether the GPL should include the interfaces as well, is up to discussion. Some GPL advocates or lawyers may think yes, some may think no.
Personally, I think licenses/copyrights should exclude any kind of interface, and be limited to to hardware/software that implements them.
Ofcourse, there's no law against not documenting 'internal' interfaces, describing interfaces in proprietary documents, or under non-disclosure agreements. Regardless of how one would feel about that.I think most businesses still underestimate the added value it gives to customers, if products can be extended/upgraded in 'unintended' ways. I suppose the thinking may be something like "this year, we sell you something with a fixed set of functions, so if you want something extra that we come up with next year, then you'll have to buy again". If customers can upgrade and extend functionality themselves, the product may last a lot longer, and businesses may feel they lose out on sales of newer products. And maybe business feel that added value for customers != added value for the company. Note this is a lot of speculation on my part.
What they fail to realize, is that a longer lasting product is one that is a) more appreciated, and b) is worth more (=could be sold at a higher price). It's no different from the pricing difference between a cheap model car, and say... a <insert your favourite top-of-the-line car maker here>. The latter is a lot more expensive, but still very much worth its money. Not only because of the name, but by including quality parts, more attention to detail, better service, and so forth. Both cars will get you from A to B, but the expensive model may even be cheaper... in the long run, when you drive enough miles in it. And by breaking down less often, and give you more time before you need a new car.
The 'quality' part gives a product a higher profit margin, and the 'customer satisfaction' keeps customers coming back. So that added customer value does equal added value for the company.
It just shows that few companies understand this, or prefer to go for the quick buck as opposed to keeping their customers happy for a long time.
With flatscreen tech making such fast advances, I've decided to postpone replacement of my CRT as long as possible. Basically, until it dies, or the image quality goes down badly.
With most computer components, we've gotten used to something like 2-3 year life cycles. If you make a less-than-optimal purchase, too bad, but replacement will follow fairly quick.
But monitors/TV's, like washing machines, typically last quite a bit longer. So I'll be happy if my CRT lasts another year, so that better/cheaper flatscreens are on sale, when the time comes. Maybe this technology has arrived in the shops by then.
This example shows how things should work when supporting any specific hardware/software combination. If you want something done, donate some time by making contributions, fixes, testing, helping out developers with information about the hardware, etc. Or donate money or hardware. Or help developers by giving access to the hardware (remote shell, test their fixes etc., whatever helps).
If nobody cares about support for a particular software/hardware combination, then what is lost? Software support for hardware that nobody uses anymore. Anything remotely popular will do just fine.
Apparantly Sun cares enough to throw some hardware at the NetBSD project. Good for them, and why not? Anyway, it's nice to see the NetBSD project helped out like this.
Users of the software can make feature requests (as usual), and you may add things yourself to this wishlist.
For each item, you make an estimate of how much effort it would take to implement the feature, or how much money you'd want yourself to do it. You could use a bidding system to let other developers (freelance, or project contributors, whatever) make a better offer. Note: a $$ amount need not reflect fair compensation for the work involved. Any contributor can have his/her own reasons on why to do it for that money (prestige, fun, interesting, 'will code for food', whatever).
For each item, users of the software can donate or commit to paying -some- amount for implementation of a feature. Likewise, users can apply their own reasons for raising or lowering their rewards. When donations+commitments reach a currently standing offer, collect the money and have the feature implemented.
Think it was a BeOS- or Amiga-related project where I saw this done before, maybe other projects have used this to get things done.
-IF the standardized "machine readable technology" (which almost all state issues IDs already have in the form of a bar code, magnetic strip, etc.) ends up being RFID, you must at least concede that this standardization is based on consistency, functionality, and ease of use, not a desire to build a nationwide network of centrally administered RFID detectors for the purposes of tracking every citizen
Wrong! The whole issue about these RFID tags, is that its owner loses any control, and knowledge about when, where his/her ID is read, by who, and for what purpose. Anyone (criminals included) could read a RFID tag, anytime, anywhere, without me knowing, or without telling me what the hell for.
Non-RFID equipped documents may be machine-readable in other ways (chip, barcode, magnetic strip). But each time they're used, I'll know it, watch it being used, see who's asking me, and be informed what for. RFID tags simply throw your permission/control in the use of your ID card, out the door. And for what? Ease of use? How long does it take to scan a barcode anyway? (Answer: 0.1 seconds max). And to grab an ID card from wherever you keep it, and put it back? (Answer: a couple of seconds if you know where it is, and you should know, since they're important documents).
As for law enforcement purposes, the need to ID everybody to keep the streets safe, is flawed reasoning. Stop a bus filled with people, and ID everyone. Safer ride now? Bullshit, you'd know who is on that bus, but if you don't search people+luggage, everybody could be armed to the teeth, and you wouldn't know about that. Drive safely now!
A nutcase carrying a bomb onto a plane isn't dangerous because he's a nutcase, but because he carries a bomb onto a plane. Law enforcement should concentrate on that (prevent bombs from being carried onto planes). And if possible, on that alone.
--Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.Well duh, like it is on earth: you have the surface of the ocean (where it meets the air), and most of the water is below that. Go figure (gravity and all).
Sure, the end of the road is pretty certain, and goes something like this:
So musicians will continue to make music, people will keep listening to whatever they like (and spend money on that, when they feel like it), some industry folks will keep trying to squeeze money from all this, DRM will continue to be broken, and some lawyers will receive fat paychecks. The most succesful businesses will be those that adapt to new circumstances.
And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).
Oh and BTW: "illegal" is not the same as "wrong".
In theory, somebody could cook up a modified file that gives the same hash. But modifying a file and still have multiple hash algorithms produce the same checksums, is very, very, much harder to do -- if not impossible.
Just post those hashes on trusted servers, and any file that matches both (or more) hashes must be your package.
Hey! How nice to see you visiting Slashdot, Mr. Clinton.
My thoughts exactly. As soon as you move things, there's a chance something will go wrong. Shit happens.
But... You do realize that the (human) driver is one of the failure points? Frankly I'd be happy to get into a car and have the driving done for me. So I could enjoy the landscape, read a book, or have fun with other passengers. Or be able to drive drunk, without risking the lives of other people.
When or how? When the technology has shown to be safer than driving the car yourself. Which won't be anytime soon, especially not when MSFT is involved.
It's like robots doing medical procedures. It will be commonplace one day, and I'll be okay with that. But the technology has to prove itself first. Real-world use over several years would be a bare minimum for me. And no, I'm not volunteering for beta-testing.
That depends. I suppose you could call the software involved here mission-critical. In that case one might expect limits like the ~32000/month to be documented (not in this case if I read it right). If that limit had been documented, then the failure would not have been overflow, but not RTFM/using the system out-of-spec, which is management/operator error.
Also it matters how exceeding a limit is handled (graceful degradation). Did this system say: "I'm stuffed, I can't take no more input for a while" or did it say "Oh dear, I'm confused, I'll be doing totally silly crap now". In the first case, the failure is partial and you can still get some work done. In the latter case (=what happened here?), you're totally screwed once you reach that limit.
The people you're targeting get paid $50 a month (..) The thing about developing nations, is not that they're poor, it's that the divide between the rich and the poor is vast.
Personally I have no problem with a vast difference in wealth between the richest and poorest in this world. It's not the size of this scale that matters, but how low the bottom end is.
Differences in income between $50 or $50K a month don't worry me, but that $50 a month lower end, not enough to provide you with food in your mouth, a roof over your head, clean drinking water, basic healthcare or education, does worry me.
And for what it's worth, poor people that wander the streets with nothing but the clothes on their back, that don't know where their next meal comes from, can be found anywhere. There's just more of them in 3rd world countries.
And there are other reasons people don't have PC's, like that the box + monitor + wiring + CD's + papers doesn't fit in their interior, or that they don't like gaming or have better things to do than surf the internets 5 hours a day. Or don't want to spend the time on dealing with dialog boxes, hardware/OS upgrades or spyware cleanup.
$100 for a computer should be enough for everyone.
First, the client can be really bare bones (i.e. no HD, minimal RAM, low-end graphics, low processesor speeds, etc) so they can be cheap ($170 + monitor from WalMart or donated machines).
Yep, thin clients are great, when used in the right places. And they have many advantages. But... price isn't one of them. Not yet, anyway.
Where I live, PC's up to around 200 MHz. (original Pentium and below) are effectively free. You want one? Look around, hand over a sixpack of beer, and you have one.
Now with a $170 budget, I can get you a (used) PC that includes monitor, and beats the crap out of any thin client you can find for same money.
How come? Well, we all know electronics today are 'cheap' thanks to the sheer numbers they're produced in. Apparantly in today's world, a standard beige box with off-the-shelf components, is still cheaper (to produce, or second-hand), than a book-sized thin client produced in limited numbers.
For a business, the numbers may differ. If you'd use old hardware in a thin-client like fashion, you might have to hire someone, to manage parts, build and repair boxes fulltime. In that scenario, it may be cheaper to spend $170 once on thin clients, and very little after that on managing the hardware. But the savings here are not hardware, but management costs. Which I think is the advantage of thin clients anyway.
I hope some day (maybe soon) these economics will change, and make smaller/smarter boxes cheaper than equal performing WalMart beige boxes. Because they have many advantages, and I happen to like small+smart boxes. Even if they're still a bit bigger, like Mini-ITX or Shuttle XPC's.What exactly is the purpose of the LSB spec these days?
Basically, to define a reference platform with a specified set of functionality. As in: If "distro XYZ complies with the LSB", then "functionality A, B and C is guaranteed to be present, and working". See it as a sort of certification, a la Red Hat enterprise distro. Something application builders can use as a guaranteed base to build on, and distro's that choose to comply with it, should then be guaranteed to run these applications.
It doesn't mean every Linux distro should support it. But between Linux distro's that DO, there would be better consistency across distro's. So that it's easier to move an application suite from one LSB-compliant distro to another LSB-compliant distro. As opposed to making a shitload of changes to adapt your app to another distro.
If you're a distro builder, I'd say: support the LSB as far as you can, if it isn't too much trouble, and helps your user base. If you're an application builder, make sure your app works according to LSB guidelines, if it isn't too much trouble, and helps your user base.
If you're looking for a "one size fits all": forget it. There is no such thing in Linux land, and while useful, having that may not even be a Good Thing(tm). Developers should just pick appropriate standards to support. Nothing more, nothing less.
I wrote "Unix-style". Built my own Linux system from source ages ago a la Linux From Scratch, waiting for next releases of NetBSD and FreeBSD to take these for a spin, and writing these comments from Gentoo Linux. Does that count?
Assuming you refer to the murder of Dutch filmmaker/publicist Theo van Gogh: I can remember a pre-9/11 era where mr.van Gogh wasn't very loved by many either, but 'tolerated'.
Then, 9/11 came. I remember seeing the images on CNN, with people amazed that some terrorists were willing to steer full passenger planes into scyscrapers. My thoughts were something like: "whatever happens next, the world won't be the same after this". A super-manhunt for the brains behind it could have followed.
Then, Mr. Bush came up with his anti-terrorist propaganda, and in Afghanistan waaaayyyyy more people died than in the NYC events, most victims being plain citizens, and soldiers defending their home soil against the US-led 'invaders'. Sure some terrorists were killed, but a minority of the casualties.
And before you knew it, every muslim became a terrorist suspect, and muslims/non-muslims worldwide were looking at each other with fear. IMHO this divide is what led to mr. van Gogh getting murdered. After all, he'd been living here for ages, and no problem earlier.
Oh yeah, and let's not forget Guantanamo Bay, shall we?
Sure us Dutch people may have permissive laws (and believe me, it's not much different from countries around us), but at least we prefer to deal with things in a practical manner, instead of blindly acting, and asking questions later. Thanks again mr. Bush, for confusing the minds of our leaders.
Also, it's easily to accidentally trash the system configuration if you are operating as root when not necessary."
Yep, doing things as non-root user protects your system from getting screwed up, so that your system will keep working as expected, while your data (in your home directory) may get thrashed, deleted, or leaked/snooped on.
Here's my problem with this: while this helps, the fact is, my data happens to be the most valuable stuff on my computer. I can fix/reinstall an OS, but I probably can't retrieve data that got deleted. If a hacker gets user level access, then my system may keep working o.k., but my user data is still up for grabs.
So for starters: a good backup strategy is your friend. Next: reliable working software, so that exploits aren't there in the 1st place, user-level or otherwise.
I still have to see a security model that's:
If you know of a good model that meets ALL above points simultaneously, please let us know. And frankly, the Unix permissions model doesn't cut it. It's hard to understand for Grandma, and even with proper permissions set, all sorts of data that should be considered private to processes/users, is leaked in a variety of ways. And a flaw in your browser may destroy any non-browser related data inside your home directory.
The Unix-style users/permissions model may be useful, but it's nowhere near optimal by any metric. IMHO it's more like a clumsy fix, that tries to minimize the effect of unreliable software. After all, if software on your system would NOT contain any exploitable bugs, and 'just work' as documented, how much use would there be left for Unix-style security? At least on single-user systems (normal user = also admin): little.
Don't like to get into this Nazi discussion, but to answer your question: YES.
As a Dutchman, I read a while ago that most jews deported from the Netherlands during WWII, weren't caught on the streets by German soldiers, but snitched on/given away by fellow countrymen. It wasn't Germans that found them, but Dutch people themselves that destroyed the lives of their (jewish) neighbours, in exchange for rewards, immunity, some favours, whatever. All the German command needed to do, was put out those rewards, and follow the leads they received.
And German soldiers that drove these people in the gas chambers, you say they had no choice? Sure, a refusal to obey orders might have meant a bullet on the spot, but don't kid yourself here: These soldiers knew what was going on, and sure had the choice of saying: "NO, I won't do this. If you'll shoot me then, do what you have to, but I won't co-operate with this". Instead they chose (en masse) to push these millions of victims towards their death.
This is very comparable to US anti-terrorism propaganda of the last few years. Sure, terrorism is a problem, but have US actions made the world a safer place? I think when the next generation Bin Ladens have grown up, we'll see how much damage the US has done to world peace and eh... 'freedom'.
Now if US citizens wish to screw up their own lives: okay, have fun. But the sad part: Their bullying of allies and smaller countries makes many countries follow their lead. Just the other day, a Dutch airliner heading for Mexico, was refused passage through US air space. Terrorists on board? Who knows, but essentially it's the US setting the agenda in many parts of the world, even if measures are violating local law. Like passenger data that's turned over to US intelligence, possibly in violation of European law.
And the scary part: all this propaganda has caused US citizens to really believe that terrorism is the #1 problem in the world. Are you kidding me? Worse than poverty? Worse than hunger? HIV? Civil wars? Let's face it: how many people are killed each year by terrorist acts? I suspect even plane crashes (world's safest way of travel) kill more people. My chances of getting struck by lightning are way higher than running into a Bin Laden follower. And speaking of the man, I fear the results of Mr. Bush's actions more than this terrorist turning up at my doorstep. Mr. Laden, if you're reading this: I don't like you either, but you're welcome at my place for a coffee and exchange of thoughts. Mr. Bush, if you're reading this, you're welcome here for a good kick in your b*tt.
Freedom starts with saying: NO! Live free, or die. You can take away my life, but you can't take away my freedom. Damn, I love these quotes ;-)
"Yup, everything ok Sir, please move along now"
I think I should point out some practical experience here, that suggests the opposite. A number of months ago, I helped clean spyware off my parents' PC. Installed Firefox, and my dad agreed to set it up as default browser, so that URL's opened by other programs use Firefox too. Don't underestimate the significance of this; if you can convince grandma to use the safer browser by default, make it so. If you need to, rename the "Firefox" icon as "Internet".
Installed recent versions of common plugins (Flash, Java & QuickTime IIRC), and asked my dad NOT to agree/install any other plugins after that, only make a note of what's felt as 'missing'. So you have Firefox, you have all common plugins (working! and recent versions). Not enough? Then either that site is badly designed and should be avoided, or additional 'plugins' may mean 'malware'. If I overlooked some popular plugin, my dad will let me know on my next visit.
Next, I setup separate user accounts, without passwords. I felt that asking my dad to enter a password each time was too much hassle, but he agreed that clicking on his name, once during bootup, was OK (you take what you can get). Account setup was easy, my dad knows how to use admin account if he needs to install something, but normal work is done as non-priviliged user.
Ofcourse I enabled automatic updates (WinXP), and in this case ignored the firewall setting, since there's a hardware-based firewall box between the ADSL connection and my dad's PC. Regardless of quality, a harder nut to crack than any software-based firewall (decent password set, and any outside-access options disabled on that thingie). A hardware-based firewall also makes OS reinstalls safer/easier.
The only changes my dad sees: a single click on his name on bootup, and a slightly different looking browser program. A couple of months later, I asked my dad what he had noticed lately. Only comments along the lines of 'one or two programs complaining about being unable to install something, but nothing that got in the way of normal use'. I explained him that there was a good chance, that these programs complaining where likely stuff he wouldn't want/need on his PC anyway, so these rare 'unable to install something' dialogue boxes could be regarded as positive signs. ;-)
It produces way more headaches than it solves (..)
Assuming the above scenario could work for many Joe Sixpacks and grandma's, your claim is obviously flawed. A priviliged admin account is needed either for installing software, running applications with special needs, or performing special tasks. Exactly the sort of thing Joe Sixpacks and grandma's DON'T DO (or SHOULDN'T be doing!). So they'll be fine with a non-priviliged user account.
For folks where this is not the case ('advanced/power user'), you can assume they know what they're doing. If not, those users only have themselves to blame for not RTFM.
So as you state, a couple of simple steps like this can prevent 99% of the problems. Read: not producing, but preventing headaches. All of the above was easy and took little time, and I don't expect to spend much effort on cleaning virus/spyware crap from that machine in the future. If anything, the next step would be buying a "Linux for dummies" book, and installing a newby-friendly distro a la Mandrake or Ubuntu. My dad already tried to install Linux once, so he's definitely interested. ;-)
Offtopic?!? Hoax or not, parent is right either way, because... story was here yesterday
--- Above clicky thingy provided free of charge as a service to them lazy /. readers.
What on earth are you talking about, my dear friend?
I mean, I used to think that Slashdot was going down the drain with them countless trolls, duped stories, and crazy moderation.
How wrong I was! (and I hereby sincerely apologize to the editors for not appreciating the true value of their work). Many sites all over the web are posting crazy hoaxes, where you need to Google, or wait a day an re-check, just to find out if it was true or not.
In contrast, Slashdot stayed close to its roots, and posted a row of quality stories about 'Stuff that matters'. And for a change, moderators outdid themselves to separate good from bad comments, prime example being this story.
Really, the last few hours have returned my faith in Slashdot as one of THE best tech-related news sites. Thumbs up, and keep 'm coming, Taco!
Thanks for your well reasoned comment! Reading it, my mind said: Pling!! The effect you describe has been coined under the name "Uncanny Valley". Basically: 'not good enough to pass for the real thing', but past the stage where you can just laugh at it. That in-between can give an uncomfortable feel. I Googled a bit, but as often, Wikipedia has a good description. (poor Wiki getting pounded all the time ;-)
I'm not sure if you're right, but it's an interesting view. I myself think that plain inertia, and some 'fear of the unknown' plays a big role in Linux acceptance. And maybe people don't really hate Windows as much as they claim, but have sort of learned to love it, with all its quirks and/or blue screens.
Besides: Linux is about choice, and (too many) choices make people's heads hurt. Just handing over something, and saying: "use this, push that button, and that thingie there works like so from now on" works good for many people.
But from what I read, Linux keeps going strong, Mac use is up, and Firefox keeps eating IE market share. Makes me pretty optimistic.
(on distro's converging)
Couldn't agree more. Whenever you visit DistroWatch, maybe half the distro's out there, are somehow Debian-based (like Knoppix and its numerous variants). But many look like "me too!" projects. Choice is good, but only as long as there's something clear to choose between. Big or small, ready-to-go or advanced user, bleeding edge or server-farm stable, etc. It would be good if there were a handful of distro's with clearly visible (different) targets, but without the numerous look-alikes. I for one, will never touch a distro if it doesn't make a clear statement on what sets it apart from the rest.
You're right, this is just a matter of time, some shake-out/reshuffling will happen. Maybe even original Debian will get lost in this. But who cares? All the work done on it, lives on in its descendants.
Why are you reading this sig?!? Isn't my comment interesting enough, or what?
You must be new here? That's called Free/Open Source software. Use whatever suits your needs. If you like A, use A. If you like B, use B. If it's not good enough, (help) fix it, or make something better yourself. Either way, don't bitch about it.
Arrived recently at a mirror near you ;-)