notice that this is *physical* hotplug, you already were able to enable/disable CPUs at runtime with/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online (if you enable CPU hotplugging)
Re:The Success of the OS is Predetermined.
on
Why Vista Took So Long
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Windows Vista will not be that succesfull just because it's Microsoft. It's biggest enemy is not linux or Mac, it's Windows XP. The number of available computers that can switch to vista is bigger than the number of new computers sold in the first years since Vista is released. Vista is not a big improvement over XP and many people will not switch. If they don't switch, Microsoft doesn't gets money and investors will pain.
So wait, Microsoft is suing people who tries to steal your credit card number and they're wrong? Actually, they're only suing pages that try to resemble to MSN/hotmail and that try to steal passport passwords. So suing people that makes your company look like burglars is wrong?
I'm surprised you didn't accuse Microsoft of paying all those physers to set up their site just to sue them later and look like they're fighting crime. It'd have been a good end for your sci-fi relate.
Notice that Microsoft is suing only to the people that has set up phising sites that try to look like MSN/hotmail. Is not that so strange that they're doing it.
I like interoperability, but I don't like to see it being forced like this.So you're waiting that a company that does own 95% of a market helps other companies to make products that allow them to steal marketshare?
LOL
I support comercial liberalism, but why I should support comercial libertinism? Capitalism is all about consumer choosing the best alternative. With Microsoft, there're only a single choice. I can't choose a better product (Microsoft won't allow me running a different OS in my AD-powered office), so I can't make the world better by giving my money to the best company. What Microsoft is doing is pure communism. It's funny that liberals hate to see a monopolistic company be forced to help competitors to allow users have more choices, much in the same way communists didn't wanted to allow people to vote to choose a better government.
So, when a private person or company gets to a certain arbitrary size in terms of assets, then the government is allowed to use force to take property from them? You don't understand Europe if you think that we're hidden communists that try to stop big companies from getting big. Microsoft is stoping other companies (and please, don't bother asking for "proofs", makes me laugh) from getting big
It's Microsoft who behaves like communists. Liberals support Microsoft because they think that "big enterprise = always good". But a big enterprise can use its power to stop other enterprises from competing with you, and it's not good. How different is communism from a company that owns virtually all the market and decices himself what the market must do instead of users?
This goes against the roots of liberallism. Capitalism is great but DOES NOT WORK WITHOUT CHOICES. If users can't decide what's better or worse there's not "freedom". Bush & cia don't support liberalism, they support libertinism. Governments must enforce the availability of several choices in order to make capitalism work. It's not "socialism", it's "liberalism". Just because it's a government act doesn't neccesarily means it's "socialism"
In other words, they need to be punished for being successful? Sounds like socialism if not communism to me.
They're not punished for being succesful. They're punished for not allowing anyone else but them to be succesful. EU would not be doing this is if Microsoft didn't have the vast majority of market share and they wouldn't be using that market share to try to stop everyone else from competing with them.
You don't read Scott Adam's blog a lot, do you? Scott Adams is all about parodies and is always laughing about something, specially about the people who takes seriously what he says. His proposal of Bill Gates as president is just yet another funny post of crazy ways to be president of the united states. Just a small example:
"As a political candidate, I would advocate some sort of tax rebate to subsidize Internet porn and Kleenex for single men between the ages of 18 and 35. That way all the potential rapists can more easily afford to exhaust themselves at home. I'd have graphs and charts to make my argument that no other policy would be as effective. My slogan would be "Deal with the root cause." I would call it my Yankee Doodle plan.
All patches from Novell must be rejected, as of now. As well as a statement of our standpoint wrt/ their actions, it can only be assumed that they will include a poison pill that makes Microsoft's case
If MS/Novell releases open source code is because they want to make it opensource. That means that Microsoft/Novell would *agree* on releasing it as opensource code.
If Microsoft wanted to sue Linux companies for patent usage, he could do it without injecting any "poison pill". The patent system is so broken (even MS admits it) that Linux is very probably infringing thousand of Microsoft patents.
the open source community has no way of validating code, and blindly accepts any code offered, assuming that there's no patent infringing code in it.
Of course it hasn't. Are you willing to pay the lawyers? Patents are stupid and most of OSS developers just ignore it, because if we cared about respecting patents we would need to shut down most of the OSS software.
Now I can run pretty much any visual basic program (one of the most used languages in the Real World) under linux and hence switch many people to linux, but people prefers to title it as "novell may be doing some dirty things"
It's amazing how one of the most wonderful news I've heard in months can become FUD. Wake up: Patents already existed before the novell-MS pact. Microsoft has been able to sue companies for years. Getting VBA compatibility is a Good Thing. I only can thank Novell for this code.
Fixed? Yes. Has been the fix sent to 2.0 users? No.
As I already wrote in other comment, it looks like google has added to the blacklist all the possible IP encoding combinations of a single URL.
But google has not added *mixes* of different encodings (the black list would grow too much). Try http://200.0x77.0x87.0x63/ebay/login5878/ - changing 0xc8 by 200. The phising filter doesn't kicks in, and it's still the same site, the same IP - the bug is still there.
and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)
And if there had not been Linux (GNU was already developing Hurd at that time...) there would have been GNU? Yet another chicken/egg stupid question.
I'm sick of this "linus sucks, RMS rocks" attitude, and the contrary. The reason why FOSS is success is because of the COMMUNITY. Both RMS and Linus made possible FOSS. No one was better than other. FOSS is about COOPERATING, about community progress. It's shocking to find people forgetting such important thing FOSS forum trying to put all the success under the back of a single individual. Linus has also made a lot of efforts to make FOSS possible - like not accepting jobs from redhat/suse/etc just to be "fair" to the linux environment, which forced him to keep maintaining the linux kernel despite of the lack of time (which annoyed lot of kernel hackers because of the undermanagement of the project), and so on. He worked hard to make FOSS succesful, so did RMS, so did I, so did you, so did everyone involved.
Yes, time thinks linus did all the job. Everyone thinks the same. Linus didn't search it, history is such a bitch. Just deal with it.
It looks pretty much like google.com but with a different brand and logo. Even the colours in the result page are the same....
The one "new" thing are implicit image search in each search...and google was already doing that with some searchs
So how is this a "testbed search engine"? And why the article writes "the experimental search engine looks very different from Google's Web sites", when from a first look it clearly isn't?
Many people will never update to IE7. The installer passes the WGA, so everyone with a pirated XP copy who do not want to crack the WGA or download firefox will just keep using IE6
This is also why IE7 is not being "forced", like the misleading news comment says. Microsoft can't enforce it, I've heard that in fact they add a "no, and don't ask again" option
So, from a geek to a geek, parakey looks more like a sort of IM-like, "social" program, that tries to unify IM, email, archive sharing, photo sharing/sending, calendar, blog (everything that can be considered "social", that these days means almost everything, even sharing experiences between sysadmins).... and unifying it with a server/client model like God Intended to replace the protocols mess we've today?
Firefox 2 is translated to 34 languages. IE 7, on the other hand..."The short version is that we will be releasing IE7 in all languages available for each version of Windows - twenty-four fully localized languages in total. In two to three weeks, we'll ship the Arabic, Finnish, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish language versions. The remaining languages will be released in phases between November and January.
And then the IE7 install checks if your computer is a legal XP copy. But most of desktop users just don't own a legal copy. So, in the long run, even if you can crack the license checking, most of desktop people won't be able to install IE7. But they will want a IE7-like browser. And people will tell them to install firefox 2, which doesn't require a legal XP copy.
Apparently, most of people has feared for a long time that the opensource bussiness model can't work and that you can take down red hat & cia by copying their patches from their FTPs and releasing your own product.
Oracle is doing exactly that. "Open source intellectual property is available to all of us. What that means is that any company can take the Red Hat version of Linux and use it at no cost so long as they're willing to support themselves. Well, that actually includes us. We could take the Red Hat Linux as long as we're willing to support it. In fact, we can redistribute it to others and provide support. So why would we buy Red Hat Linux, when we can just take it for nothing?"
"Each time Red Hat comes out with new code we'll synchronize with that version. We will add our bug fixes to current, future and back releases. Your application will run unchanged. We are going to stay synchronized with the Red Hat version. We are not trying to fragment the Linux market."
That's what Ellison, the Oracle CEO, said in the announcement. They think that they're clever than anyone, that they can just copy the source code and make money at the expense of others. Red Hat bought Jboss and oracle thinks they can knock down any open source bussiness (they've warned that they may release support for suse aswell) just to avoid Red Hat & cia selling competitors for their Oracle closed product. I hope they fail.
Slashdot Mirror
notice that this is *physical* hotplug, you already were able to enable/disable CPUs at runtime with /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online (if you enable CPU hotplugging)
Windows Vista will not be that succesfull just because it's Microsoft. It's biggest enemy is not linux or Mac, it's Windows XP. The number of available computers that can switch to vista is bigger than the number of new computers sold in the first years since Vista is released. Vista is not a big improvement over XP and many people will not switch. If they don't switch, Microsoft doesn't gets money and investors will pain.
So wait, Microsoft is suing people who tries to steal your credit card number and they're wrong? Actually, they're only suing pages that try to resemble to MSN/hotmail and that try to steal passport passwords. So suing people that makes your company look like burglars is wrong?
I'm surprised you didn't accuse Microsoft of paying all those physers to set up their site just to sue them later and look like they're fighting crime. It'd have been a good end for your sci-fi relate.
Notice that Microsoft is suing only to the people that has set up phising sites that try to look like MSN/hotmail. Is not that so strange that they're doing it.
I like interoperability, but I don't like to see it being forced like this.So you're waiting that a company that does own 95% of a market helps other companies to make products that allow them to steal marketshare?
LOL
I support comercial liberalism, but why I should support comercial libertinism? Capitalism is all about consumer choosing the best alternative. With Microsoft, there're only a single choice. I can't choose a better product (Microsoft won't allow me running a different OS in my AD-powered office), so I can't make the world better by giving my money to the best company. What Microsoft is doing is pure communism. It's funny that liberals hate to see a monopolistic company be forced to help competitors to allow users have more choices, much in the same way communists didn't wanted to allow people to vote to choose a better government.
So, when a private person or company gets to a certain arbitrary size in terms of assets, then the government is allowed to use force to take property from them? You don't understand Europe if you think that we're hidden communists that try to stop big companies from getting big. Microsoft is stoping other companies (and please, don't bother asking for "proofs", makes me laugh) from getting big
It's Microsoft who behaves like communists. Liberals support Microsoft because they think that "big enterprise = always good". But a big enterprise can use its power to stop other enterprises from competing with you, and it's not good. How different is communism from a company that owns virtually all the market and decices himself what the market must do instead of users?
This goes against the roots of liberallism. Capitalism is great but DOES NOT WORK WITHOUT CHOICES. If users can't decide what's better or worse there's not "freedom". Bush & cia don't support liberalism, they support libertinism. Governments must enforce the availability of several choices in order to make capitalism work. It's not "socialism", it's "liberalism". Just because it's a government act doesn't neccesarily means it's "socialism"
In other words, they need to be punished for being successful? Sounds like socialism if not communism to me.
They're not punished for being succesful. They're punished for not allowing anyone else but them to be succesful. EU would not be doing this is if Microsoft didn't have the vast majority of market share and they wouldn't be using that market share to try to stop everyone else from competing with them.
So the fact that your passwords can be stolen not just in IE, but also in Firefox, makes you happier?
Stopgaps solutions are not a solution, I guess they're planning a 2.0.1 soon? The bug has been reported 10 days ago...
You don't read Scott Adam's blog a lot, do you? Scott Adams is all about parodies and is always laughing about something, specially about the people who takes seriously what he says. His proposal of Bill Gates as president is just yet another funny post of crazy ways to be president of the united states. Just a small example:
"As a political candidate, I would advocate some sort of tax rebate to subsidize Internet porn and Kleenex for single men between the ages of 18 and 35. That way all the potential rapists can more easily afford to exhaust themselves at home. I'd have graphs and charts to make my argument that no other policy would be as effective. My slogan would be "Deal with the root cause." I would call it my Yankee Doodle plan.
All patches from Novell must be rejected, as of now. As well as a statement of our standpoint wrt/ their actions, it can only be assumed that they will include a poison pill that makes Microsoft's case
If MS/Novell releases open source code is because they want to make it opensource. That means that Microsoft/Novell would *agree* on releasing it as opensource code.
If Microsoft wanted to sue Linux companies for patent usage, he could do it without injecting any "poison pill". The patent system is so broken (even MS admits it) that Linux is very probably infringing thousand of Microsoft patents.
the open source community has no way of validating code, and blindly accepts any code offered, assuming that there's no patent infringing code in it.
Of course it hasn't. Are you willing to pay the lawyers? Patents are stupid and most of OSS developers just ignore it, because if we cared about respecting patents we would need to shut down most of the OSS software.
Now I can run pretty much any visual basic program (one of the most used languages in the Real World) under linux and hence switch many people to linux, but people prefers to title it as "novell may be doing some dirty things"
It's amazing how one of the most wonderful news I've heard in months can become FUD. Wake up: Patents already existed before the novell-MS pact. Microsoft has been able to sue companies for years. Getting VBA compatibility is a Good Thing. I only can thank Novell for this code.
Try http://200.0x77.0x87.0x63/ebay/login5878/ , which is the same site. It passes...
Fixed? Yes. Has been the fix sent to 2.0 users? No.
As I already wrote in other comment, it looks like google has added to the blacklist all the possible IP encoding combinations of a single URL.
But google has not added *mixes* of different encodings (the black list would grow too much). Try http://200.0x77.0x87.0x63/ebay/login5878/ - changing 0xc8 by 200. The phising filter doesn't kicks in, and it's still the same site, the same IP - the bug is still there.
Well, duh, Google probably tried adding all possible combinations of a single URL to the blacklist while they fix the issue.
5 5
But they certainly didn't include *all* of them. Fe: I just tried to change a single number in the encoded address
http://200.0x77.0x87.0x63/ebay/login5878/
The phising filter doesn't kicks in *surprise*
The bug is certainly there: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3563
...at least until they fix bug #356355 , which "jumps" the antiphising filter
fe, if you go to http://200.119.135.99/ebay/login5878/ the pishing filter will warn you
but if you encode the IP with a unusual encoding
http://0xc8.0x77.0x87.0x63/ebay/login5878/
the phising filter will not kick in
Yes, because
In the same way, I can argue that Linux would have succeded because Linus would have written a crappy compiler and a shell interpreter himself...
and remember, in 1992 if there had been no GNU, there would have been no Linux; period)
And if there had not been Linux (GNU was already developing Hurd at that time...) there would have been GNU? Yet another chicken/egg stupid question.
I'm sick of this "linus sucks, RMS rocks" attitude, and the contrary. The reason why FOSS is success is because of the COMMUNITY. Both RMS and Linus made possible FOSS. No one was better than other. FOSS is about COOPERATING, about community progress. It's shocking to find people forgetting such important thing FOSS forum trying to put all the success under the back of a single individual. Linus has also made a lot of efforts to make FOSS possible - like not accepting jobs from redhat/suse/etc just to be "fair" to the linux environment, which forced him to keep maintaining the linux kernel despite of the lack of time (which annoyed lot of kernel hackers because of the undermanagement of the project), and so on. He worked hard to make FOSS succesful, so did RMS, so did I, so did you, so did everyone involved.
Yes, time thinks linus did all the job. Everyone thinks the same. Linus didn't search it, history is such a bitch. Just deal with it.
It looks pretty much like google.com but with a different brand and logo. Even the colours in the result page are the same....
The one "new" thing are implicit image search in each search...and google was already doing that with some searchs
So how is this a "testbed search engine"? And why the article writes "the experimental search engine looks very different from Google's Web sites", when from a first look it clearly isn't?
I'm still on dialup, you insensitive clod! (really)
Many people will never update to IE7. The installer passes the WGA, so everyone with a pirated XP copy who do not want to crack the WGA or download firefox will just keep using IE6
This is also why IE7 is not being "forced", like the misleading news comment says. Microsoft can't enforce it, I've heard that in fact they add a "no, and don't ask again" option
So, from a geek to a geek, parakey looks more like a sort of IM-like, "social" program, that tries to unify IM, email, archive sharing, photo sharing/sending, calendar, blog (everything that can be considered "social", that these days means almost everything, even sharing experiences between sysadmins).... and unifying it with a server/client model like God Intended to replace the protocols mess we've today?
:)
If so, it looks nice
Firefox 2 is translated to 34 languages. IE 7, on the other hand..."The short version is that we will be releasing IE7 in all languages available for each version of Windows - twenty-four fully localized languages in total. In two to three weeks, we'll ship the Arabic, Finnish, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish language versions. The remaining languages will be released in phases between November and January.
And then the IE7 install checks if your computer is a legal XP copy. But most of desktop users just don't own a legal copy. So, in the long run, even if you can crack the license checking, most of desktop people won't be able to install IE7. But they will want a IE7-like browser. And people will tell them to install firefox 2, which doesn't require a legal XP copy.
Apparently, most of people has feared for a long time that the opensource bussiness model can't work and that you can take down red hat & cia by copying their patches from their FTPs and releasing your own product.
Oracle is doing exactly that. "Open source intellectual property is available to all of us. What that means is that any company can take the Red Hat version of Linux and use it at no cost so long as they're willing to support themselves. Well, that actually includes us. We could take the Red Hat Linux as long as we're willing to support it. In fact, we can redistribute it to others and provide support. So why would we buy Red Hat Linux, when we can just take it for nothing?"
"Each time Red Hat comes out with new code we'll synchronize with that version. We will add our bug fixes to current, future and back releases. Your application will run unchanged. We are going to stay synchronized with the Red Hat version. We are not trying to fragment the Linux market."
That's what Ellison, the Oracle CEO, said in the announcement. They think that they're clever than anyone, that they can just copy the source code and make money at the expense of others. Red Hat bought Jboss and oracle thinks they can knock down any open source bussiness (they've warned that they may release support for suse aswell) just to avoid Red Hat & cia selling competitors for their Oracle closed product. I hope they fail.