It's possible that evolution is still taking place, but it's causing the populace to diverge into different groups instead of just the ones who live and the ones who die. There is plenty of natural selection going on, which allows for evolution without a bunch of genetic mutation. That the weak can still subsist and reproduce just creates population bubbles. It wouldn't be a pretty sight if actual competition for resources should once again become necessary (oh wait.. uh oh.)
I can't believe that I haven't seen more people coming down on the side of atime. I use it to troubleshoot very frequently. For example, if I try to start something up and it fails, I can easily see if it got as far as reading its config file by checking the atime on it. When I'm looking through a machine to find out what files are relevant to its current config, I can do an ls -lUrt and see what files were read recently and which haven't been touched for years. Yes, there are machines out there that have been cranking away doing production work for years. To do something, and then see what that something touched, is very handy.
Also, you can kind of see what an intruder did on a machine by looking at the atimes on the shared libraries, header files, etc. on a machine that you think may have been compromised, especially if that machine normally just grinds away doing a couple different things most of the time.
Seriously, that's what the noatime flag is for if you want it. But I would never use it unless I had a damn good reason.
I just donated a minute ago, and I'm getting a spiffy t-shirt out of the deal. I've been meaning to give a little something to the EFF for a long time - it feels good.
Gnome is Open Source. If you want things done differently, and there is sufficient energy behind your philisophy, fork it and become the dominant branch. There's nothing stopping you.
And yet, you are not in control of your technology. Make all of the money you can if it gives you pleasure. The simple fact is that you are using hundreds of megabytes of software as a blunt, clumbsy tool. Impress me with cleverness, not lame unverifiable claims.
The Norton Utilities for dos was a set of utilities that attempted to fill in what was missing from DOS. A hex editor, repair filesystems, investigate system info, search for strings in files, etc. etc.. This all exists in Linux already. To make a gui front end for some of it might be interesting, but as for duplicating the functionality of the existing utils, don't bother. The Norton Utilities for Linux already exists, it's just standard equipment.
1. If Microsoft is broken up, there will be a company that will be completely dependent on revenue from the Windows operating sysems. I don't see such a company changing its business model so as to free the source and become a services company; the change is too drastic. They would fight toothe and nail until the bitter end.
2. If Microsoft is NOT broken up, and the source to Windows is opened, the whole of Microsoft will still be focused on developing for Windows only. They would still employ most of the people who work on the code. There will be other distributions, but the Value-Added Official MS version would still be bought by lots of people and corporations. Basically, Microsoft could continue to bundle features into Windows and sell it, unhindered by accusations of monopoly.
Case 1 provides lots of innovation bearing competition for the personal computer industry. Case 2 just shifts the balance a little bit and even opens up the door for more anti-competitive practices. I sincerely hope that the government doesn't settle for a second rate solution.
The analogy that he uses is very weak. The only way that distributing the means to view the information on a DVD is akin to distributing the keys to a department store is if every customer was assigned a key to the store. Only if the customer has a key are they allowed to shop there. And you have to buy the key in the first place, because the store controls the production of the keys. And if you move to a different area, you have to purchase a new key to access the local store.
It seems to me that he left himself wide open to debate in court by using that weak analogy. DVDs are a transport for content. Is it right for a corp. to control the means of transport with such precision? To segment markets, introducing incompatibilities that make their products valueless for resale in a global marketplace?
People don't buy DVD players to tap into the product of a few elite corporations. They buy them because they want to own a device that allows them to use next generation content. Are we to allow ourselves to be so shortsighted as to accept the DVD medium as a conduit for the transfer of large amounts of money directly into the pockets of entrenched titans, while stripping the public of rights that they cherish? I understand the problem that they see, but their solution is weak and would have to trample on our established rights to keep alive.
It's about the car being manufactured with an engine that self destructs and the hood welded shut. It's about the driver getting injured if some wiseguy puts a brick in the road with a hat on top of it. It's about being obliged to take the car to a Microsoft service center for any repairs, because nobody else can get any parts. (What do you do if your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere?) There are so many other parallels. Can't steer if the power steering goes out. Can't brake if the power brakes go out. When you blow a fuse the locks and windows won't work. You have to pay extra for more than one passenger at a time. As you drive along, more and more inexplicable grinding noises accumulate. And you have to do a full overhaul to get rid of them.
I suppose that it could, if you read the patent itself you saw that not only do they specify tcp/ip over the internet but over the lan as well. The way it was worded, does this mean that the same type of operation over non- tcp/ip networks does not fall under the patent?
Unless they did something completely off the wall like phrase the law like: "any form of textual communication sent by one individual and addressed to another shall be taxed." it will be trivial to come up with free alternatives.
Maybe they will realize this and do something a little more useful like create a new epost office that offers guaranteed delivery and/or legally binding email with digital signatures or something. Charge for something new instead of leaching off of something that's already in place. Wouldn't it be amazing if the government actually did something clever?
It seems to me like the amount of energy it would take to put a system of taxation in place for email would be enough to create something usefull.
Look at this (partial) output from a program called ent written by John "Random" Walker, founder of Autodesk. "Chi square distribution" is a common test used to test random number generators. 0-1% or 99-100% means 'probobly not random', 1-5% to 95-99% means suspect. From 5-95% means the data appears to be random.
--For a large tar compressed with gzip: Chi square distribution for 3283104 samples is 26434.55, and randomly would exceed this value 0.01 percent of the times.
--For the same file encrypted with PGP: Chi square distribution for 3264143 samples is 252.38, and randomly would exceed this value 50.00 percent of the times.
As you can see, to this test compressed data looks completely non-random, and PGP encrypted data looks perfectly random. I get the same result with other compression tools other than gzip, like bzip2 and compress.
One of the main areas that Microsoft is actively persuing is the ISP market. Microsoft wants every ISP to use MS software and MS protocols to serve up information to consumers.
Now, suppose that Microsoft is successful in creating a platform that acts as a replacement for UNIX in an ISP. They're trying hard - packaging their Microsoft Commercial Internet System (MCIS) with Exchange to get it in the door of companies that have built around Exchange. So what?
Here's their aim: to cash in on a new market, a market that should be Linux all the way. Internet integration - the interconnection of all of the little cell phones and Palm Pilots of the world. People are going to love it when their Pilot beeps in their pocket to tell them that slashdot just got updated, and they'll pay good money for it. MS wants all of the hardware companies to develop their little devices around the MS software so ISPs will _have_ to use it, companies that want to have their employees wired will _have_ to use it.
So it's pretty clear to me why a language like this could be useful. Abstraction of lovely _standard_ internet protocols, so that they can be wielded with effect, creating a nice open platform for a new generation of interconnected devices.
Is your board a SB16 with the VIBRA chip? If so, here's a comment directly out of the 2.2.3 kernel patch.
+ Hello again, + + Playing with a SB Vibra 16x soundcard we found it very difficult +to setup because the kernel reported a lot of DMA errors and wouldn't +simply play any sound. + A good starting point is that the vibra16x chip full-duplex facility +is neither still exploited by the sb driver found in the linux kernel +(tried it with a 2.2.2-ac7), nor in the commercial OSS package (it reports +it as half-duplex soundcard). Oh, I almost forgot, the RedHat sndconfig +failed detecting it;) + So, the big problem still remains, because the sb module wants a +8-bit and a 16-bit dma, which we could not allocate for vibra... it supports +only two 8-bit dma channels, the second one will be passed to the module +as a 16 bit channel, the kernel will yield about that but everything will +be okay, trust us. + The only inconvenient you may find is that you will have +some sound playing jitters if you have HDD dma support enabled - but this +will happen with almost all soundcards...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not bricked if you can fix it without modifying the hardware. It's a nice term -- stop destroying it.
It's possible that evolution is still taking place, but it's causing the populace to diverge into different groups instead of just the ones who live and the ones who die. There is plenty of natural selection going on, which allows for evolution without a bunch of genetic mutation. That the weak can still subsist and reproduce just creates population bubbles. It wouldn't be a pretty sight if actual competition for resources should once again become necessary (oh wait.. uh oh.)
I can't believe that I haven't seen more people coming down on the side of atime. I use it to troubleshoot very frequently. For example, if I try to start something up and it fails, I can easily see if it got as far as reading its config file by checking the atime on it. When I'm looking through a machine to find out what files are relevant to its current config, I can do an ls -lUrt and see what files were read recently and which haven't been touched for years. Yes, there are machines out there that have been cranking away doing production work for years. To do something, and then see what that something touched, is very handy.
Also, you can kind of see what an intruder did on a machine by looking at the atimes on the shared libraries, header files, etc. on a machine that you think may have been compromised, especially if that machine normally just grinds away doing a couple different things most of the time.
Seriously, that's what the noatime flag is for if you want it. But I would never use it unless I had a damn good reason.
I just donated a minute ago, and I'm getting a spiffy t-shirt out of the deal. I've been meaning to give a little something to the EFF for a long time - it feels good.
Gnome is Open Source. If you want things done differently, and there is sufficient energy behind your philisophy, fork it and become the dominant branch. There's nothing stopping you.
And yet, you are not in control of your technology. Make all of the money you can if it gives you pleasure. The simple fact is that you are using hundreds of megabytes of software as a blunt, clumbsy tool. Impress me with cleverness, not lame unverifiable claims.
The Norton Utilities for dos was a set of utilities that attempted to fill in what was missing from DOS. A hex editor, repair filesystems, investigate system info, search for strings in files, etc. etc.. This all exists in Linux already. To make a gui front end for some of it might be interesting, but as for duplicating the functionality of the existing utils, don't bother. The Norton Utilities for Linux already exists, it's just standard equipment.
1. If Microsoft is broken up, there will be a company that will be completely dependent on revenue from the Windows operating sysems. I don't see such a company changing its business model so as to free the source and become a services company; the change is too drastic. They would fight toothe and nail until the bitter end.
2. If Microsoft is NOT broken up, and the source to Windows is opened, the whole of Microsoft will still be focused on developing for Windows only. They would still employ most of the people who work on the code. There will be other distributions, but the Value-Added Official MS version would still be bought by lots of people and corporations. Basically, Microsoft could continue to bundle features into Windows and sell it, unhindered by accusations of monopoly.
Case 1 provides lots of innovation bearing competition for the personal computer industry. Case 2 just shifts the balance a little bit and even opens up the door for more anti-competitive practices. I sincerely hope that the government doesn't settle for a second rate solution.
The analogy that he uses is very weak. The only way that distributing the means to view the information on a DVD is akin to distributing the keys to a department store is if every customer was assigned a key to the store. Only if the customer has a key are they allowed to shop there. And you have to buy the key in the first place, because the store controls the production of the keys. And if you move to a different area, you have to purchase a new key to access the local store.
It seems to me that he left himself wide open to debate in court by using that weak analogy. DVDs are a transport for content. Is it right for a corp. to control the means of transport with such precision? To segment markets, introducing incompatibilities that make their products valueless for resale in a global marketplace?
People don't buy DVD players to tap into the product of a few elite corporations. They buy them because they want to own a device that allows them to use next generation content. Are we to allow ourselves to be so shortsighted as to accept the DVD medium as a conduit for the transfer of large amounts of money directly into the pockets of entrenched titans, while stripping the public of rights that they cherish? I understand the problem that they see, but their solution is weak and would have to trample on our established rights to keep alive.
It's about the car being manufactured with an engine that self destructs and the hood welded shut. It's about the driver getting injured if some wiseguy puts a brick in the road with a hat on top of it. It's about being obliged to take the car to a Microsoft service center for any repairs, because nobody else can get any parts. (What do you do if your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere?) There are so many other parallels. Can't steer if the power steering goes out. Can't brake if the power brakes go out. When you blow a fuse the locks and windows won't work. You have to pay extra for more than one passenger at a time. As you drive along, more and more inexplicable grinding noises accumulate. And you have to do a full overhaul to get rid of them.
Hmm, there's probably more?
I suppose that it could, if you read the patent itself you saw that not only do they specify tcp/ip over the internet but over the lan as well. The way it was worded, does this mean that the same type of operation over non- tcp/ip networks does not fall under the patent?
Unless they did something completely off the wall like phrase the law like: "any form of textual communication sent by one individual and addressed to another shall be taxed." it will be trivial to come up with free alternatives.
Maybe they will realize this and do something a little more useful like create a new epost office that offers guaranteed delivery and/or legally binding email with digital signatures or something. Charge for something new instead of leaching off of something that's already in place. Wouldn't it be amazing if the government actually did something clever?
It seems to me like the amount of energy it would take to put a system of taxation in place for email would be enough to create something usefull.
Look at this (partial) output from a program called ent written by John "Random" Walker, founder of Autodesk. "Chi square distribution" is a common test used to test random number generators. 0-1% or 99-100% means 'probobly not random', 1-5% to 95-99% means suspect. From 5-95% means the data appears to be random.
--For a large tar compressed with gzip:
Chi square distribution for 3283104 samples is 26434.55, and randomly would exceed this value 0.01 percent of the times.
--For the same file encrypted with PGP:
Chi square distribution for 3264143 samples is 252.38, and randomly would exceed this value 50.00 percent of the times.
As you can see, to this test compressed data looks completely non-random, and PGP encrypted data looks perfectly random. I get the same result with other compression tools other than gzip, like bzip2 and compress.
One of the main areas that Microsoft is actively persuing is the ISP market. Microsoft wants every ISP to use MS software and MS protocols to serve up information to consumers.
Now, suppose that Microsoft is successful in creating a platform that acts as a replacement for UNIX in an ISP. They're trying hard - packaging their Microsoft Commercial Internet System (MCIS) with Exchange to get it in the door of companies that have built around Exchange. So what?
Here's their aim: to cash in on a new market, a market that should be Linux all the way. Internet integration - the interconnection of all of the little cell phones and Palm Pilots of the world. People are going to love it when their Pilot beeps in their pocket to tell them that slashdot just got updated, and they'll pay good money for it. MS wants all of the hardware companies to develop their little devices around the MS software so ISPs will _have_ to use it, companies that want to have their employees wired will _have_ to use it.
So it's pretty clear to me why a language like this could be useful. Abstraction of lovely _standard_ internet protocols, so that they can be wielded with effect, creating a nice open platform for a new generation of interconnected devices.
Is your board a SB16 with the VIBRA chip?
;)
If so, here's a comment directly out of the 2.2.3 kernel patch.
+ Hello again,
+
+ Playing with a SB Vibra 16x soundcard we found it very difficult
+to setup because the kernel reported a lot of DMA errors and wouldn't
+simply play any sound.
+ A good starting point is that the vibra16x chip full-duplex facility
+is neither still exploited by the sb driver found in the linux kernel
+(tried it with a 2.2.2-ac7), nor in the commercial OSS package (it reports
+it as half-duplex soundcard). Oh, I almost forgot, the RedHat sndconfig
+failed detecting it
+ So, the big problem still remains, because the sb module wants a
+8-bit and a 16-bit dma, which we could not allocate for vibra... it supports
+only two 8-bit dma channels, the second one will be passed to the module
+as a 16 bit channel, the kernel will yield about that but everything will
+be okay, trust us.
+ The only inconvenient you may find is that you will have
+some sound playing jitters if you have HDD dma support enabled - but this
+will happen with almost all soundcards...