Quite frankly, I don't care how many millions of hits per second it requires to prove that IIS on NT is supposedly faster than Apache on Linux, *nix or *BSD.
I care about stability. The fact that my Apache on Linux system doesn't crash, doesn't give in, doesn't care... that's why I use it. So IIS can hit millions more hits per second...then fall down.;-)
At least I don't have pieces to put back together.
That argument would lead to having it in Vancouver, BC instead, which is closer to Redmond and allows us to invite all the MS people on their lunch break.
:-P
I'm sorry I missed it, seeing as I'm only 2 hours west of Ottawa...
Normally, I'm against lawsuits w.r.t. similarity in look & feel. There should be limits to these types of actions. However, in the case of Apple, who has successfully sued so many companies in this area, it serves them right.
If they think nobody should be allowed to make transparent desktop computers that look like iMacs, then they can bite the bullet and pay out for using the Qube design.
Q: What is CSS? A: CSS is equivalent to a lock on your house that allows the use of one of 100 different keys, none of which you own.
Q: How do I get into my house? A: You can ask any of those 100 people to let you in.
Q: What if I copied one of their keys or made my own? Its my house, right? A: We'll sue you for going into your house without one of our reps present to unlock it for you.
Re:A Better Written article on Why X-Windows is Ba
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 2
An interesting article, yes. Considering its a part of the Unix Haters Handbook, I had a slight smile before even starting to read it. The writer's inability to understand why clients and servers are called clients and servers on X was what made me laugh first.
For some perverse reason that's better left to the imagination, X insists on calling the program running on the remote machine "the client."
To help the author out, the server is the machine or more appropriately, software, providing a service. The client is the software needing the services. Labelling machines as clients and servers is not necessarily the 'right thing' unless you're running a large VAX machine with dumb terminals. At any rate, it seems obvious, when you understand how X was designed to work, that the software package needs a number of things to be able to work. It needs a screen to display on, and a keyboard to get input from or maybe a light pen or plastic rodent thing. It needs a font management utility and basically anything else that would help it talk to the user.
Putting most or all of those 'services' into a package would make it the 'server' software. Thus, X is the server and the software package is the client.
If you still think this is strange, you're not allowing for the possibility of multiple layers of abstraction... because it is in a different way that you should think of yourself, the user, as the client of the machine that holds all your software for you (the server). Being the client of a client of a server isn't that strange when you work in a manufacturing field, but for some reason, Comp. Sci. people have brain deficits in these ways and see normal human beings as stupid or silly.
To give credit where credit is due, the author does manage to pull out a lot of features of X that were added, naturally, as after-thoughts because the hardware didn't exist yet. That said, the 'other answers' (ahem, Windows or BeOS) don't really excite me much, and I'd be much more impressed with a ground-up redesign of X.
Re:A Better Written article on Why X-Windows is Ba
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 2
So I was right. You meant all software using GCC. Which has lots to do with whether its open source software or not (by inter-relationship), but doesn't have any necessary corelation.
The original question (without Cliff's comments) is actually why ISPs don't ensure that outgoing packets from their internal networks are indeed sourced from their IP range.
For example, if I'm an ISP who has (to use a popular range...) 24.226.0.0/255.255.0.0 , I would add a firewall entry that outgoing packets are denied if they are not from 24.226.0.0/16(same netmask as above, incidentally).
For multiple source IP ranges (including private network addresses), this can be extended by making an ipchains output filter to allow packets going into the network (they've already passed the input and forward filters) and packets sourced from your IP ranges, then deny'ing the rest. Don't forget to add IP spoofing filters to your input chain.
Final note: I actually do administer a network and am doing this. I've turned on logging on those spoofed packets of course, to see if I'm denying anything that shouldn't be, but it works quite well.
In Canada, until just recently (its undergoing a change in management),.ca domains (and their provincial counterparts such as.on.ca) were given out for free to corporations, registered charities, et. al. who requested them and gave proof of existence basically.
Because (arguably) the content is being modified... that's a violation of Copyright. With the Ebay situation, the presentation may have changed (just like viewing a message in different news readers) but the content was not.
If they wanted to make a sidebar with hyperlinks to objects you reference in your message, that's fine by me.
A 'native' firewire drive is most likely going to be an IDE drive with the IDE->Firewire conversion hardware onboard.
Re:reports of SCO's demise...
on
Endgame For SCO
·
· Score: 2
The only article I can find in their press releases that's close is their announcement to split into three companies dealing with "e-Business servers, Tarantella and Internet professional services."
Xenix is Unix -- or at least one flavor of it. In the late 70's, Microsoft licensed the Unix sources from AT&T and ported them to a number of platforms. In those days, AT&T would license the Unix software but not the Unix name, thus each company had to invent their own name. Microsoft picked Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end users. Instead, they licensed the software to OEMs (Intel, Tandy, Altos, SCO, etc.) who provided a finished end-user package. Microsoft no longer supports Xenix, and in fact never even offered a 286 or 386 version.
You do realise that several old-school database companies use proprietary data and even partition formats to store their data more efficiently? That's part of what ReiserFS is about -- bring these efficiencies to a general purpose filesystem.
That aside, if you want an example, go visit Pick Systems. Incidentally, they support Linux -- but require(1) the use of their own partitions for data storage.
--- (1) You can also use dd/datafile type files as data storage partitions if you wish.
It would have to be done using digital signature technology since this information would be distributed, not kept on a central server (like the Slashdot database).
A system that allowed for Ebay style comments rather than moderation points would be much better.
Tom's Hardware Guide alludes to an E-mail he received from Rambus stating that the performance problems he observed in his benchmarks were the result of Intel bungling the technology. I doubt Intel would be too happy if such comments are flying around. That would be enough reason for Intel to start being truthful...
Your argument is interesting, but not sound. There is no necessary corelation between a product using open source as a marketing tool and its quality. In fact, there isn't any statistical evidence to hint toward it either. Your comment about companies genuinely wanting to help consumers is a big one -- and one I wish were true of more software companies, but which I don't think is true.
PS, the GPL does not allow another company to take your R&D and resell your product out from under you; you're mistaking licensing for Copyright.
The license may allow them to use modify your code, but not to copy it without credit -- which gives your company what it needs to say "our product being sold by 4 competitors -- get your support from the people who created it"...
... I can name a lot of companies who buy MS support directly from Microsoft instead of independant MSCE-based companies for that reason.
Note: I hope your product doesn't require as much support as MS's do...
I think its important to note that although some people refer to "giving away the software and the source" they don't always mean giving it without a price tag. In fact, the GPL (et. al.) does not keep you from selling your product. If you wish to make a license that has the same viral effect as the GPL (all future persons must receive the same rights as the original license), you could do so by including a clause preventing redistribution except by returning modifications to the Copyright holder. Its very important (as one person pointed out) to consider how much software piracy there is these days and how offering the source code to a project does not change the licensing (free or cost-for-commercial-use) at all. It doesn't change whether anyone will copy it or not, or reverse-engineer it. Those are all dealt with in court, not with the open or closed-ness of your source code.
Sure, 4G looks like a lot of ram now... but look at what SGI machines could do in the early '90's... theoretically, they could handle an aweful lot more than that (and I'm sure several people could give examples)... MIPS, Alpha, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite frankly, I don't care how many millions of hits per second it requires to prove that IIS on NT is supposedly faster than Apache on Linux, *nix or *BSD.
... that's why I use it. So IIS can hit millions more hits per second ...then fall down. ;-)
I care about stability. The fact that my Apache on Linux system doesn't crash, doesn't give in, doesn't care
At least I don't have pieces to put back together.
That argument would lead to having it in Vancouver, BC instead, which is closer to Redmond and allows us to invite all the MS people on their lunch break.
...
:-P
I'm sorry I missed it, seeing as I'm only 2 hours west of Ottawa
They're claiming on their homepage to have an MPG version (penguin-friendly, as they say) available now.
Normally, I'm against lawsuits w.r.t. similarity in look & feel. There should be limits to these types of actions. However, in the case of Apple, who has successfully sued so many companies in this area, it serves them right.
If they think nobody should be allowed to make transparent desktop computers that look like iMacs, then they can bite the bullet and pay out for using the Qube design.
Q: What is CSS?
A: CSS is equivalent to a lock on your house that allows the use of one of 100 different keys, none of which you own.
Q: How do I get into my house?
A: You can ask any of those 100 people to let you in.
Q: What if I copied one of their keys or made my own? Its my house, right?
A: We'll sue you for going into your house without one of our reps present to unlock it for you.
An interesting article, yes. Considering its a part of the Unix Haters Handbook, I had a slight smile before even starting to read it. The writer's inability to understand why clients and servers are called clients and servers on X was what made me laugh first.
To help the author out, the server is the machine or more appropriately, software, providing a service. The client is the software needing the services. Labelling machines as clients and servers is not necessarily the 'right thing' unless you're running a large VAX machine with dumb terminals. At any rate, it seems obvious, when you understand how X was designed to work, that the software package needs a number of things to be able to work. It needs a screen to display on, and a keyboard to get input from or maybe a light pen or plastic rodent thing. It needs a font management utility and basically anything else that would help it talk to the user.
Putting most or all of those 'services' into a package would make it the 'server' software. Thus, X is the server and the software package is the client.
If you still think this is strange, you're not allowing for the possibility of multiple layers of abstraction ... because it is in a different way that you should think of yourself, the user, as the client of the machine that holds all your software for you (the server). Being the client of a client of a server isn't that strange when you work in a manufacturing field, but for some reason, Comp. Sci. people have brain deficits in these ways and see normal human beings as stupid or silly.
To give credit where credit is due, the author does manage to pull out a lot of features of X that were added, naturally, as after-thoughts because the hardware didn't exist yet. That said, the 'other answers' (ahem, Windows or BeOS) don't really excite me much, and I'd be much more impressed with a ground-up redesign of X.
An interesting article, yes. Considering its a part of the
... because it is in a <em>different way</em> that you should think of yourself, the user, as the client of the machine that holds all your software for you (the server). Being the client of a client of a server isn't that strange when you work in a manufacturing field, but for some reason, Comp. Sci. people have brain deficits in these ways and see normal human beings as stupid or silly.</P>
<blockquote>For some perverse reason that's better left to the imagination, X insists on calling the program running on the remote machine "the client."</blockquote>
<P>To help the author out, the server is the machine or more appropriately, software, providing a service. The client is the software needing the services. Labelling machines as clients and servers is not necessarily the 'right thing' unless you're running a large VAX machine with dumb terminals. At any rate, it seems obvious, when you understand how X was designed to work, that the software package needs a number of things to be able to work. It needs a screen to display on, and a keyboard to get input from or maybe a light pen or plastic rodent thing. It needs a font management utility and basically anything else that would help it talk to the user.</P>
<P>Putting most or all of those 'services' into a package would make it the 'server' software. Thus, X is the server and the software package is the client.</P>
<P>If you still think this is strange, you're not allowing for the possibility of multiple layers of abstraction
<P>To give credit where credit is due, the author does manage to pull out a lot of features of X that were added, naturally, as after-thoughts because the hardware didn't exist yet. That said, the 'other answers' (ahem, Windows or BeOS) don't really excite me much, and I'd be much more impressed with a ground-up redesign of X.</P>
So I was right. You meant all software using GCC. Which has lots to do with whether its open source software or not (by inter-relationship), but doesn't have any necessary corelation.
The original question (without Cliff's comments) is actually why ISPs don't ensure that outgoing packets from their internal networks are indeed sourced from their IP range.
For example, if I'm an ISP who has (to use a popular range ...) 24.226.0.0/255.255.0.0 , I would add a firewall entry that outgoing packets are denied if they are not from 24.226.0.0/16 (same netmask as above, incidentally).
For multiple source IP ranges (including private network addresses), this can be extended by making an ipchains output filter to allow packets going into the network (they've already passed the input and forward filters) and packets sourced from your IP ranges, then deny'ing the rest. Don't forget to add IP spoofing filters to your input chain.
Final note: I actually do administer a network and am doing this. I've turned on logging on those spoofed packets of course, to see if I'm denying anything that shouldn't be, but it works quite well.
You meant 'all software based on gcc' not 'all OSS will suck ... on IA64", didn't you?
... do you think corporations writing closed source software for Linux may or may not be using gcc?
After all
In Canada, until just recently (its undergoing a change in management), .ca domains (and their provincial counterparts such as .on.ca) were given out for free to corporations, registered charities, et. al. who requested them and gave proof of existence basically.
I agree that its a useful feature, and that it may not be advertising per se. I just think there are better ways to do this. (See my previous post).
Because (arguably) the content is being modified ... that's a violation of Copyright. With the Ebay situation, the presentation may have changed (just like viewing a message in different news readers) but the content was not.
If they wanted to make a sidebar with hyperlinks to objects you reference in your message, that's fine by me.
A 'native' firewire drive is most likely going to be an IDE drive with the IDE->Firewire conversion hardware onboard.
The only article I can find in their press releases that's close is their announcement to split into three companies dealing with "e-Business servers, Tarantella and Internet professional services."
Some thoughts from the history camp ...
From the comp.unix.xenix.sco FAQ:
Ahem, Microsoft.
You do realise that several old-school database companies use proprietary data and even partition formats to store their data more efficiently? That's part of what ReiserFS is about -- bring these efficiencies to a general purpose filesystem.
That aside, if you want an example, go visit Pick Systems. Incidentally, they support Linux -- but require(1) the use of their own partitions for data storage.
--- (1) You can also use ddIt would have to be done using digital signature technology since this information would be distributed, not kept on a central server (like the Slashdot database).
A system that allowed for Ebay style comments rather than moderation points would be much better.
Ummm ...
http://www.t50.com
... ahem.
I didn't say anything.
(and I hate "extrans" not doing a href's properly!)
I'm not terribly fond of the "don't resubmit that message" deal either right now ;-)
PS, you should be able to moderate your own messages down ;-P
PPS, yes, I know about the PREVIEW button.
Ummm ...
;-)</P>
;-P</P>
<BR><a href="http://www.t50.com/">http://www.t50.com</a>
<BR>... ahem.</P>
<P>I didn't say anything.</P>
<P>(and I hate "extrans" not doing a href's properly!)</P>
<P>I'm not terribly fond of the "don't resubmit that message" deal either right now
<P>PS, you should be able to moderate your own messages down
<P>PPS, yes, I know about the PREVIEW button.</P>
Ummm ...
<a href="http://www.t50.com/">http://www.t50.com</a>
... ahem.
I didn't say anything.
Tom's Hardware Guide alludes to an E-mail he received from Rambus stating that the performance problems he observed in his benchmarks were the result of Intel bungling the technology. I doubt Intel would be too happy if such comments are flying around. That would be enough reason for Intel to start being truthful ...
Your argument is interesting, but not sound. There is no necessary corelation between a product using open source as a marketing tool and its quality. In fact, there isn't any statistical evidence to hint toward it either. Your comment about companies genuinely wanting to help consumers is a big one -- and one I wish were true of more software companies, but which I don't think is true.
...
...
PS, the GPL does not allow another company to take your R&D and resell your product out from under you; you're mistaking licensing for Copyright.
The license may allow them to use modify your code, but not to copy it without credit -- which gives your company what it needs to say "our product being sold by 4 competitors -- get your support from the people who created it"
... I can name a lot of companies who buy MS support directly from Microsoft instead of independant MSCE-based companies for that reason.
Note: I hope your product doesn't require as much support as MS's do
I think its important to note that although some people refer to "giving away the software and the source" they don't always mean giving it without a price tag. In fact, the GPL (et. al.) does not keep you from selling your product. If you wish to make a license that has the same viral effect as the GPL (all future persons must receive the same rights as the original license), you could do so by including a clause preventing redistribution except by returning modifications to the Copyright holder. Its very important (as one person pointed out) to consider how much software piracy there is these days and how offering the source code to a project does not change the licensing (free or cost-for-commercial-use) at all. It doesn't change whether anyone will copy it or not, or reverse-engineer it. Those are all dealt with in court, not with the open or closed-ness of your source code.
Sure, 4G looks like a lot of ram now ... but look at what SGI machines could do in the early '90's ... theoretically, they could handle an aweful lot more than that (and I'm sure several people could give examples) ... MIPS, Alpha, etc.
... better tech.
ALl bad marketing