I read people who like GUI's, people who like CLI. They both have their place in this world. I like GUI for things that require GUIs, such as Photo editing, Word Processing (even Wordperfect 5.1 has a GUI) etc. However, when it comes to Admin I'll use the CLI any day of the week. Why? Because it is direct. I don't need to go Start-Control-Panel-Administrative Tools-Computer Management-Domain Users...Right click, change password...No, all I need to do is passwd user as root.
Now, why do people not like CLI, especially newbies? Because it isn't tolerant. If I do something wrong in Windows, I'll get an error message (usually cryptic) and the chance to try again with a click or two. On a CLI, when I have spent 5 minutes writing out a command to find that I get one character wrong, I get an error (usually with a little helpful advice) and have to re-type (or use bash and edit) the line. Windows is a little more tolerant than CLI, but CLI is the powerhorse...Once you learn to use it correctly, you never go back
Another poster suggested having a little paper-clip on the command line...If I EVER see that I will hurl my monitor from the top of a really tall building, followed by a deletion of the OS in question (in the meantime I have bought a new LCD screen to replace my broken one, good excuse) that does not have an in-yer-face help that is about as helpful as a plane is to a bird.
If I buy a product, it can come with as many bells and whistles on it as it likes...That is why I buy it...
If, however, I choose to remove part of that said product and add a third-party product, then I have the right to be able to remove it. I do not want 2 media players...I want 1...The one I choose.
Why can't I uninstall the in-built defragger, or the scandisk? These should be bolts on an OS, not "PART" of the OS. Let me install what I want...
In reality this "let me install what I want" is plainly obvious...Linux...
(And for all you nerds out there I am writing this at work where I am forced onto a windows platform)
In the end, however, we are talking about an "operating system", not a kernel. It is more akin to saying that RedHat can't distribute the media player of its choice with their product. Is it such a bad thing to bundle software into my product offering? I don't think so. What is wrong is the use of that leverage by hiding APIs, lock in OEM agreements etc...That is where we have to tackle M$, not in petty "oooh, you shouldn't have that login screen because company X, Y and Z have login programs. Your abusing your monopoly..." blah blah.
I am not pro-M$, but let them friggin develop their own OS in the way they want. Just stop them shoving it down our necks.
As you can see, our header is at the top for licensing (honour starts scribling).
Now here is the Linux code (repeat from above minus SCO copyright) Yer honour...
Honour: Mr McBride, the last time I looked you were not the copyright holders in 1977, so explain to me how you could have copyrighted code for a system that was owned by AT&T in 1977?
Darl: Ah, well, you see, your honour. Once we got the rights off of Novell for UNIX IP, we decided to change the copyright into our name and so doctored (lawyer stands up and requests an immediate recess...) the copyright...I'll think I'll stop there.
Honour: So if you are prepared to doctor the original code and present that rather than the orignal...
The problem is consoles, especially for FPS games. With the little joystick for directional viewing, one cannot get the same accuracy and speed that you can from a mouse (or preferably trackball for those spin moments...thumb control is ace).
So why blame consoles? Well, developers tend these days to develop for console and then port to PC. As console controls are as above, the difficulty is reduced to compensate. When it is ported, the difficulty always seems to low. However, I do prefer to be able to ACTUALLY finish a game before I get bored of it or devoting my entire existance to it (wife comes to mind) so I'm kinda torn.
"They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"
Let me get this right, SCO is first going to sue the companies that bought their licenses to protect themselves from being sued? What's wrong with THAT?
Is "purchase of license"="proof of use" in SCO's mind? The irony is laughable
I wouldn't necessarily remove the hard-drive at all. However, I would use this new RAM as a streamer from the hard drive/dvd drive. As you are playing the game, the cd/hard drive streams the next levels data on the Flash. Then, when the XBox needs it, it requests it from the Flash and not the slow mechanical devices.
Don't know how feasible this is but it is an idea.
If I were the ISP in question I would look long and hard at what the FBI might have put onto the systems...Some backdoors, sniffers etc. I hardly see what taking the hardware to a lab can do over onsite data mining. I would bet my bottom dollar that there is something the FBI put on those machines...
I would recommend that the ISP gets all the user data (non-executable) off into storage, wipe clean, re-install everything, copy data back on...Problem is that the setup for this would be exhaustive and time-consuming. However, if there is an IRC informant tool that has been added to this (I remember slashdot articles concerning a system developed by FBI or CIA on a system to snoop) it would conflict with the ISP's promise of security and privacy...
da da dum de dum.
da da dum de dum.
da da dum de dum.
Termihuman III, coming to a cinema near you.
In the year 2250, a small pocket resistance of humans find the means to develop an organic gooker. Using the power of jelly to disable our circuit boards, they start a highly accurate military campaign to overrun the machines...
Tron and Tran, are a simple couple thrown together in this all-action, pistol pumping, explosion-full chase between man and machine. Will their love be enough to conquer the invading humans, or will the humans finally overcome the race they created.
Rated 18 with scenes of sex with hoover connectors and frequent uses of acronyms.
I agree with the majority that you will have to suffer for this mistake of yours.
However, I do want to say that considering this is a service, it would be nice if Microsoft would, at a minimum, check utilisation of their Live! system before issuing a subscription update. I mean, this is only courtesy.
Secondly, I am pretty damned sure that the email is not the only contact detail that Microsoft has on Live! users. A phone call, a little letter, even a message coming up on your XBox when you boot it (ok, not valid in this case, but then can be checked against to see if users have received it, it is online for god's sake) to let the user know. Just a single email is not sufficient for the service industry.
No, your right. CFC and PFC are naturally high in the global scheme of things (not). Don't fool yourself, we are at fault. I agree that a quick change back would not be good, but nature won't just suddenly erase levels of CFC and PFC cause we stop producing it. It will take time...a long time...
I am writing concerning the article written by Stephen Evans entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty.'
While I agree with the author that the MyDoom virus is a sophisticated way of attacking companies, I find that his links to any 'preservation [of] the open-source Linux operating system' to be rather lacking (if not downright non-existant.
Let's get facts straight first:
Sco is not seeking at least 1 Billion dollars. Initially this was true, but it has increased its litigation to 3 Billion dollars.
There is no court case between linux users and SCO. The court case is between SCO and IBM. The actual litigation is to decide whether IBM breached their contract with SCO and allowed SCO code into the Linux Source Tree.
Now let's look at his theory that should be 'at the top of any investigator's list'.
A grudged Linux user writes a virus to attack a company that is attacking the very foundation of his/her own business...Linux.
I concur that this is a possible reasoning, especially in the mindset of SCO and any other corporate software (especially Operating Systems) makers. To enforce this idea, let's look at SCO claiming that the GPL (General Public License) is unconstituional:
Bear in mind that we know that SCO refuses to allow us access (albeit under a re-inforced Non-disclosure agreement that prevents us from working on linux afterwards) to the code that they are complaining about. Also remember that SCO wasn't always SCO. In fact it was Caldera (a linux distributor) and that original SCO is now Tarantula (spelling???).
Now, how about this for a theory:
SCO knows that they're attacking Linux users. They know that their site is currently redundant. They realise they can black the name of all Linux users quite easily by attacking themselves. After which, they can claim, possibly, that Linux users are terrorists against the proper functioning or corporate America and therefore should be prevented from distribution and/or continuation. Considering Miscrosoft is the biggest contributor to SCO currently this would not be too far from reality, especially considering that Microsoft have already been found guilty of law in California. If they can abuse their monopoly in one way it is only natural that they could do it in another. They also have the perfect access to their code that allows them to exploit their opertating systems.
Now, this is also a theory based on 'non-facts' but just as valid a one. Print it, if you so wish because it is just as valid as the above mentioned article.
So my complaint is that while it is all well and good to print articles based on non-facts, please look at the whole range of possibilities rather than just the one that, unsurprisingly, supports the corporations.
Erm, well I think that is the point MS tries to sell...
Don't like it the way it is, don't buy it!
I am no advocate for MS software, but if you are going to use a car analogy at least try and use it in an anti-MS way. This car (a Maybach for example) comes with a TV in the back of every chair (except the rear ones), a bar etc. etc. etc. It is friggin expensive, but you pay for what you get! Don't want the bar? Tough, the bar is there. Don't like it, don't buy it. We can take the no-sale, we're rich...
I have been reading with interest the latest (as in the last year or so) patents that you have been granting. I am suprised at your responses and view many having prior art.
I believe that you have a serious problem with your "prior-art" database. I think you should get onto your DBA to sort out why when I enter "URL" in the search field it returns "0 results found."
If we manage to slashdot all these sites all the time:
how come/. never gets/.'d?
What the hell are/. running over at/. to maintain/.'s high speed at all times allowing/. readers access?
Everyone must come through the/. site so the/. site must be hammered at least as much as other sites...
Slashdot Mirror
Now, why do people not like CLI, especially newbies? Because it isn't tolerant. If I do something wrong in Windows, I'll get an error message (usually cryptic) and the chance to try again with a click or two. On a CLI, when I have spent 5 minutes writing out a command to find that I get one character wrong, I get an error (usually with a little helpful advice) and have to re-type (or use bash and edit) the line. Windows is a little more tolerant than CLI, but CLI is the powerhorse...Once you learn to use it correctly, you never go back
Another poster suggested having a little paper-clip on the command line...If I EVER see that I will hurl my monitor from the top of a really tall building, followed by a deletion of the OS in question (in the meantime I have bought a new LCD screen to replace my broken one, good excuse) that does not have an in-yer-face help that is about as helpful as a plane is to a bird.
If, however, I choose to remove part of that said product and add a third-party product, then I have the right to be able to remove it. I do not want 2 media players...I want 1...The one I choose.
Why can't I uninstall the in-built defragger, or the scandisk? These should be bolts on an OS, not "PART" of the OS. Let me install what I want...
In reality this "let me install what I want" is plainly obvious...Linux...
(And for all you nerds out there I am writing this at work where I am forced onto a windows platform)
In the end, however, we are talking about an "operating system", not a kernel. It is more akin to saying that RedHat can't distribute the media player of its choice with their product. Is it such a bad thing to bundle software into my product offering? I don't think so. What is wrong is the use of that leverage by hiding APIs, lock in OEM agreements etc...That is where we have to tackle M$, not in petty "oooh, you shouldn't have that login screen because company X, Y and Z have login programs. Your abusing your monopoly..." blah blah.
I am not pro-M$, but let them friggin develop their own OS in the way they want. Just stop them shoving it down our necks.
Show off
Bill: Yeah, its gonna make me loads of Bills...har har har har
a few weeks later in court
Darl: Your honour, these are the specific areas that we are complaining about. As you can see we have our original code...
#Copyright SCO 1977
...
...}
#All rights reserved
#
init main() {...
As you can see, our header is at the top for licensing (honour starts scribling).
Now here is the Linux code (repeat from above minus SCO copyright)
Yer honour...
Honour: Mr McBride, the last time I looked you were not the copyright holders in 1977, so explain to me how you could have copyrighted code for a system that was owned by AT&T in 1977?
Darl: Ah, well, you see, your honour. Once we got the rights off of Novell for UNIX IP, we decided to change the copyright into our name and so doctored (lawyer stands up and requests an immediate recess...) the copyright...I'll think I'll stop there.
Honour: So if you are prepared to doctor the original code and present that rather than the orignal...
The clang of the prison door shuts tight...
Admitting having worked for SCO and not posting anonymous? Blimey, your a brave one! I might mod your post up just to offset the damage.
Erm, yeah. The other 60 odd dollars are made up from replacing perfectly good parts...
A /. reader is one that has the page open continuously during work hours. It is fundamental to be considered /. reader.
So why blame consoles? Well, developers tend these days to develop for console and then port to PC. As console controls are as above, the difficulty is reduced to compensate. When it is ported, the difficulty always seems to low. However, I do prefer to be able to ACTUALLY finish a game before I get bored of it or devoting my entire existance to it (wife comes to mind) so I'm kinda torn.
"They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"
Let me get this right, SCO is first going to sue the companies that bought their licenses to protect themselves from being sued? What's wrong with THAT?
Is "purchase of license"="proof of use" in SCO's mind? The irony is laughable
ORACLE...Maybe IBM is not big enough fish for them and they want to try and get more legal FUD going...
EV1Servers.Net .net crowd is paying the SCO FUD propoganda...
Uh-huh, you guessed it...Balmer is balmy, Gates is [are] open. The
This post holds the info you need. In the link there is the phone number of the principle contact Robert Smith, and a fax.
Karem
Don't know how feasible this is but it is an idea.
I would recommend that the ISP gets all the user data (non-executable) off into storage, wipe clean, re-install everything, copy data back on...Problem is that the setup for this would be exhaustive and time-consuming. However, if there is an IRC informant tool that has been added to this (I remember slashdot articles concerning a system developed by FBI or CIA on a system to snoop) it would conflict with the ISP's promise of security and privacy...
I have 2 things to say to you SCO:
01000110010101010100001101001011001000000101100101 00111101010101
and
01011001010011110101010100100000010100110100100001 00111101010101010011000100010000100000010000100100 01010010000001000001010100110100100001000001010011 01010001010100010000100000010011110100011000100000 01011001010011110101010101010010010100110100010101 00110001000110
da da dum de dum.
da da dum de dum.
Termihuman III, coming to a cinema near you.
In the year 2250, a small pocket resistance of humans find the means to develop an organic gooker. Using the power of jelly to disable our circuit boards, they start a highly accurate military campaign to overrun the machines...
Tron and Tran, are a simple couple thrown together in this all-action, pistol pumping, explosion-full chase between man and machine. Will their love be enough to conquer the invading humans, or will the humans finally overcome the race they created.
Rated 18 with scenes of sex with hoover connectors and frequent uses of acronyms.
A film by Widget Jones.
However, I do want to say that considering this is a service, it would be nice if Microsoft would, at a minimum, check utilisation of their Live! system before issuing a subscription update. I mean, this is only courtesy.
Secondly, I am pretty damned sure that the email is not the only contact detail that Microsoft has on Live! users. A phone call, a little letter, even a message coming up on your XBox when you boot it (ok, not valid in this case, but then can be checked against to see if users have received it, it is online for god's sake) to let the user know. Just a single email is not sufficient for the service industry.
Karem
No, your right. CFC and PFC are naturally high in the global scheme of things (not). Don't fool yourself, we are at fault. I agree that a quick change back would not be good, but nature won't just suddenly erase levels of CFC and PFC cause we stop producing it. It will take time...a long time...
I am writing concerning the article written by Stephen Evans entitled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty.'
While I agree with the author that the MyDoom virus is a sophisticated way of attacking companies, I find that his links to any 'preservation [of] the open-source Linux operating system' to be rather lacking (if not downright non-existant.
Let's get facts straight first:
Sco is not seeking at least 1 Billion dollars. Initially this was true, but it has increased its litigation to 3 Billion dollars.
There is no court case between linux users and SCO. The court case is between SCO and IBM. The actual litigation is to decide whether IBM breached their contract with SCO and allowed SCO code into the Linux Source Tree.
Now let's look at his theory that should be 'at the top of any investigator's list'.
A grudged Linux user writes a virus to attack a company that is attacking the very foundation of his/her own business...Linux.
I concur that this is a possible reasoning, especially in the mindset of SCO and any other corporate software (especially Operating Systems) makers. To enforce this idea, let's look at SCO claiming that the GPL (General Public License) is unconstituional:
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31975.html
Bear in mind that we know that SCO refuses to allow us access (albeit under a re-inforced Non-disclosure agreement that prevents us from working on linux afterwards) to the code that they are complaining about. Also remember that SCO wasn't always SCO. In fact it was Caldera (a linux distributor) and that original SCO is now Tarantula (spelling???).
Now, how about this for a theory:
SCO knows that they're attacking Linux users. They know that their site is currently redundant. They realise they can black the name of all Linux users quite easily by attacking themselves. After which, they can claim, possibly, that Linux users are terrorists against the proper functioning or corporate America and therefore should be prevented from distribution and/or continuation. Considering Miscrosoft is the biggest contributor to SCO currently this would not be too far from reality, especially considering that Microsoft have already been found guilty of law in California. If they can abuse their monopoly in one way it is only natural that they could do it in another. They also have the perfect access to their code that allows them to exploit their opertating systems.
Now, this is also a theory based on 'non-facts' but just as valid a one. Print it, if you so wish because it is just as valid as the above mentioned article.
So my complaint is that while it is all well and good to print articles based on non-facts, please look at the whole range of possibilities rather than just the one that, unsurprisingly, supports the corporations.
Yours sincerely,
Don't like it the way it is, don't buy it!
I am no advocate for MS software, but if you are going to use a car analogy at least try and use it in an anti-MS way. This car (a Maybach for example) comes with a TV in the back of every chair (except the rear ones), a bar etc. etc. etc. It is friggin expensive, but you pay for what you get! Don't want the bar? Tough, the bar is there. Don't like it, don't buy it. We can take the no-sale, we're rich...
Karem
Karem
I have been reading with interest the latest (as in the last year or so) patents that you have been granting. I am suprised at your responses and view many having prior art.
I believe that you have a serious problem with your "prior-art" database. I think you should get onto your DBA to sort out why when I enter "URL" in the search field it returns "0 results found."
Karem
Remove the need to spend half an hour putting your jacket on and connecting all the cables...
Karem
Just a few little question:
If we manage to slashdot all these sites all the time:
how come /. never gets /.'d? /. running over at /. to maintain /.'s high speed at all times allowing /. readers access? /. site so the /. site must be hammered at least as much as other sites...
What the hell are
Everyone must come through the
Karem