3.0 is a MAJOR version upgrade. The upgrade after 2.8 would logically be 2.10 and then 2.12 (assuming we continue skipping the old odd numbered development kernels). In other words, there's no carry function from 2.8 to 3.0. We could've possibly gone to 2.144.632 before going to 3.0.0 but Linus seems to think its time to break a few things and really make a big jump.
Major versions aren't about features in Linux, or at least they weren't. They were about compatibility. Going from 2.4 to 2.6 meant you were going to break things. Going from 2.6.1 to 2.6.2 shouldn't break things.
Going from 2.6 to 3.0 means possible major ABI changes, and if that allows for a major improvement in internals that has been building up, I'm all for it.
Me too. The last copy of Windows I bought and paid for was WFW 3.11. It was a pretty stable OS, although I was using Desqview/X as well on another machine and if the software had existed, I would've used it even more.
By the time Windows 95 came out, I was mostly running Linux.
GP had a very valid point and your comments don't seem to understand them.
Porting a fully open source base you didn't pay a cent for is not worth much unless someone's paying you to do it. Expecting income from it is just silly. If you do get paid, good for you, but the expectation shouldn't be there.
Publishing data that could allow the cars to be taken over by others and cause harm to Ford? Certainly. I'd remotely disable them in a second. Its called good security.
You don't leave vulnerabilities open when you don't fully understand your exposure; you close them, with prejudice, and reopen when you've got it under control.
PS that's the same way Sony handled the recent PSN hack, and like most computer security aware folks, I'm glad.
This is all stupid. I've had over a dozen people in a day ask me if I'm carrying an iPad when I have a Dell Streak. The five inch Dell Streak no less. User idiocy is not evidence.
I was trying to be mildly sarcastic, but I was tired and could've done better.
The image type in question doesn't even benefit that much. A line art drawing sure does, or a traditional cartoon, but a fully rendered high colour scene is best done in JPEG.
As a secondary response, the rootkit was Sony Music. Not in any way affiliated except by trademark with Sony Computer Entertainment of America. I know, its confusing to small minded people, but they're not the same people.
PS go read Geohot's blog. I did. I followed his every step. I'm a computer programmer and hacker myself. The moment he said something like "with OtherOS I can tweak A and B and maybe access the memory to let me get into the system" I knew they were going to remove the feature. Its an attack on the very part of the system that makes it valuable. Without a strong security system, the PS3 isn't as valuable a gaming platform, and his attack exposed it.
If someone found an attack vector in Windows because the help system was being rendered by Internet Explorer, you'd expect them to remove that feature right? And they did. For that reason. Did we all get up and whine about how removing that attack vector was evil of Microsoft? Of course not. This whole Geohot defense thing is stupid. You hack someone's internal security system design and expect them not to fix it? You're messed.
If you pick a console for anything but the exclusives, you're not picking a console at all.
If I can play the game on any console, then its not a reason to buy one over the other now is it?
If I love Call of Duty, there's no real reason for me to buy a 360 or a PS3 over each other. But if I want to play a game that only exists on one console (sometimes for good reason), then that console gains purchase justification.
Most of the games I cited aren't even technically possible on the 360 from what we've seen. They're all true 720p or 1080p output, which the 360 hasn't done yet in a triple-A title to my knowledge. They often have huge uncompressed audio tracks that wouldn't fit on a DVD either.
Hating exclusives is justified if its a licensing thing (such as Halo, which was originally multi-platform) but when its a capability thing, like Crysis1 on the PC, there's nothing to be upset about.
Which bizarre stuff do you mean exactly? Because I dare say there isn't any in the PS3 beyond the cell processor, which is eerily similar in its core to the PPC based proc in Wii and 360 as well. Otherwise it uses fairly regular RAM, a regular hard drive, a nearly stock video card, standard USB, Bluetooth, HDMI, etc. etc. etc.
This isn't minidisc people, the PS3 is more 'normal' in hardware design than the other two.
I have to lump you in with the other few dozen people I've discussed loss leaders and gaming markets with.
If you don't understand how the console game industry makes money, you will feel the way you do. Once you realize how the system works, you completely understand where Sony et al are coming from.
Sony isn't just selling YOU the console, they're selling developers on using the console as a secure way of distributing their games to paying customers. If Sony in any way looks like they're producing just another PC with rampant piracy, they lose that platform for development and game makers no longer write titles for their platform.
Sony cares what you do with your PS3 because its part of a three way arrangement between them, you and the game publishers. Without controlling how you use it, they need to sell it for a lot more money and then nobody would buy it, and the ship sinks. When you buy a console, you accept that its a console, or you don't buy one. If you buy one anyway, don't whine about it being a controlled environment; that's what you bought. Feel free to hack away at it, but expecting Sony not to care is like expecting a farmer to be happy when you let the chickens out of the coop.
All three R&C games for the PS3 were very fun, and I've played every previous game in the series as well to compare. I have to ask, did you actually bother playing through them completely with all the sidelines and fun that can be had without a guide? Because they're not exactly short games compared to the previous entries in the series, and they added much more involved puzzles than previously seen too.
MAG, Resistance series, R&C series, Uncharted series, GT5, and several others all very much impressed me and kept my attention a long time. None of them would've happened on the other consoles, and they're fun games. If you're not into those, then so be it. Its not Sony's fault you have different preferences, but I'm more than pleased with my PS3's capacities.
PS the PS4 won't need to re-invent blu-ray, because its already here, so there's a major R&D cut right there.
I'm GLAD he used PNG. With modern highspeed being what it is, you shouldn't complain about the size difference, and the quality difference is substantial.
I know several non-technical users who've rooted their phones to get better versions of Android that what was offered. Normal every day people have been rooting their iPhones forever now, its hardly news that people want more power out of their devices.
They do the very first time they get referred to something like CyanogenMod (which happens) and can't get it onto their phones following the directions.
Random Windows users download and install all sorts of crap onto their computers without any sort of training whatsoever. What makes you think they don't complain when they're suddenly stopped from doing so (Windows Vista's UAC)?
People have a basic concept in their minds that they should be able to do things with their devices, and when they can't, they can be amazingly resourceful. I know plenty of non-computer people who've rooted their Nintendo DS or Wii to do things they aren't allowed to do by Nintendo as well.
Both patents and Copyright are excellent, in the form described by Congress originally.
Copyright and patents as (very) limited times for authors to have power over those who would steal their inventions is worthwhile and good for any economy. However, 100+ year Copyrights and absurd "barely any different" patents that act as infinite extensions are not.
Use the online market link and you can see all applications, and whether they're compatible with your phone or not (if you log in with your Google ID).
I filter ports below 1024 because I don't necessarily want them listening to connections from just anyone.
I have several machines with rules like "iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22 -s 10.14.3.0/24 -m state --state NEW --syn -j ACCEPT" so that SSH isn't even listening to everyone, just the subnet I want it to listen to.
PS for the people who may reply, that usually looks like:
iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -j INPUT-LAN iptables -A INPUT-LAN -s 10.14.0.0/16 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -A INPUT-LAN -s 10.14.3.0/24 -j MARK --set-mark 3 iptables -A INPUT-LAN -p tcp -m state --state NEW --syn -j INPUT-LAN-NEW iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 22 -m mark --mark 3 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 80 -m mark --mark 2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 3128 -m mark --mark 2 -j ACCEPT... since doing the state check in each line gets unwieldy quickly. Also, MARK is a great way to not have to repeat subnets and other matches, assuming you're not using them differently in mangle for ipsec or something.
Slashdot Mirror
2.8 isn't the increment before 3.0.
3.0 is a MAJOR version upgrade. The upgrade after 2.8 would logically be 2.10 and then 2.12 (assuming we continue skipping the old odd numbered development kernels). In other words, there's no carry function from 2.8 to 3.0. We could've possibly gone to 2.144.632 before going to 3.0.0 but Linus seems to think its time to break a few things and really make a big jump.
Major versions aren't about features in Linux, or at least they weren't. They were about compatibility. Going from 2.4 to 2.6 meant you were going to break things. Going from 2.6.1 to 2.6.2 shouldn't break things.
Going from 2.6 to 3.0 means possible major ABI changes, and if that allows for a major improvement in internals that has been building up, I'm all for it.
Me too. The last copy of Windows I bought and paid for was WFW 3.11. It was a pretty stable OS, although I was using Desqview/X as well on another machine and if the software had existed, I would've used it even more.
By the time Windows 95 came out, I was mostly running Linux.
GP had a very valid point and your comments don't seem to understand them.
Porting a fully open source base you didn't pay a cent for is not worth much unless someone's paying you to do it. Expecting income from it is just silly. If you do get paid, good for you, but the expectation shouldn't be there.
Publishing data that could allow the cars to be taken over by others and cause harm to Ford? Certainly. I'd remotely disable them in a second. Its called good security.
You don't leave vulnerabilities open when you don't fully understand your exposure; you close them, with prejudice, and reopen when you've got it under control.
PS that's the same way Sony handled the recent PSN hack, and like most computer security aware folks, I'm glad.
This is all stupid. I've had over a dozen people in a day ask me if I'm carrying an iPad when I have a Dell Streak. The five inch Dell Streak no less. User idiocy is not evidence.
Any communication (however illegal) of the counsel to Apple is privileged, and so I wouldn't trust them anymore than Samsung does.
I was trying to be mildly sarcastic, but I was tired and could've done better.
The image type in question doesn't even benefit that much. A line art drawing sure does, or a traditional cartoon, but a fully rendered high colour scene is best done in JPEG.
As a secondary response, the rootkit was Sony Music. Not in any way affiliated except by trademark with Sony Computer Entertainment of America. I know, its confusing to small minded people, but they're not the same people.
PS go read Geohot's blog. I did. I followed his every step. I'm a computer programmer and hacker myself. The moment he said something like "with OtherOS I can tweak A and B and maybe access the memory to let me get into the system" I knew they were going to remove the feature. Its an attack on the very part of the system that makes it valuable. Without a strong security system, the PS3 isn't as valuable a gaming platform, and his attack exposed it.
If someone found an attack vector in Windows because the help system was being rendered by Internet Explorer, you'd expect them to remove that feature right? And they did. For that reason. Did we all get up and whine about how removing that attack vector was evil of Microsoft? Of course not. This whole Geohot defense thing is stupid. You hack someone's internal security system design and expect them not to fix it? You're messed.
Sony America attacked Geohot. Get over it. They're Americans.
If you pick a console for anything but the exclusives, you're not picking a console at all.
If I can play the game on any console, then its not a reason to buy one over the other now is it?
If I love Call of Duty, there's no real reason for me to buy a 360 or a PS3 over each other. But if I want to play a game that only exists on one console (sometimes for good reason), then that console gains purchase justification.
Most of the games I cited aren't even technically possible on the 360 from what we've seen. They're all true 720p or 1080p output, which the 360 hasn't done yet in a triple-A title to my knowledge. They often have huge uncompressed audio tracks that wouldn't fit on a DVD either.
Hating exclusives is justified if its a licensing thing (such as Halo, which was originally multi-platform) but when its a capability thing, like Crysis1 on the PC, there's nothing to be upset about.
Which bizarre stuff do you mean exactly? Because I dare say there isn't any in the PS3 beyond the cell processor, which is eerily similar in its core to the PPC based proc in Wii and 360 as well. Otherwise it uses fairly regular RAM, a regular hard drive, a nearly stock video card, standard USB, Bluetooth, HDMI, etc. etc. etc.
This isn't minidisc people, the PS3 is more 'normal' in hardware design than the other two.
I have to lump you in with the other few dozen people I've discussed loss leaders and gaming markets with.
If you don't understand how the console game industry makes money, you will feel the way you do. Once you realize how the system works, you completely understand where Sony et al are coming from.
Sony isn't just selling YOU the console, they're selling developers on using the console as a secure way of distributing their games to paying customers. If Sony in any way looks like they're producing just another PC with rampant piracy, they lose that platform for development and game makers no longer write titles for their platform.
Sony cares what you do with your PS3 because its part of a three way arrangement between them, you and the game publishers. Without controlling how you use it, they need to sell it for a lot more money and then nobody would buy it, and the ship sinks. When you buy a console, you accept that its a console, or you don't buy one. If you buy one anyway, don't whine about it being a controlled environment; that's what you bought. Feel free to hack away at it, but expecting Sony not to care is like expecting a farmer to be happy when you let the chickens out of the coop.
All three R&C games for the PS3 were very fun, and I've played every previous game in the series as well to compare. I have to ask, did you actually bother playing through them completely with all the sidelines and fun that can be had without a guide? Because they're not exactly short games compared to the previous entries in the series, and they added much more involved puzzles than previously seen too.
If you don't like it, don't play it.
MAG, Resistance series, R&C series, Uncharted series, GT5, and several others all very much impressed me and kept my attention a long time. None of them would've happened on the other consoles, and they're fun games. If you're not into those, then so be it. Its not Sony's fault you have different preferences, but I'm more than pleased with my PS3's capacities.
PS the PS4 won't need to re-invent blu-ray, because its already here, so there's a major R&D cut right there.
I'm GLAD he used PNG. With modern highspeed being what it is, you shouldn't complain about the size difference, and the quality difference is substantial.
My Dell Streak 5 had full tethering enabled out of the box. I have since rooted it as well, but that's not relevant to the question.
I know several non-technical users who've rooted their phones to get better versions of Android that what was offered. Normal every day people have been rooting their iPhones forever now, its hardly news that people want more power out of their devices.
They do the very first time they get referred to something like CyanogenMod (which happens) and can't get it onto their phones following the directions.
Random Windows users download and install all sorts of crap onto their computers without any sort of training whatsoever. What makes you think they don't complain when they're suddenly stopped from doing so (Windows Vista's UAC)?
People have a basic concept in their minds that they should be able to do things with their devices, and when they can't, they can be amazingly resourceful. I know plenty of non-computer people who've rooted their Nintendo DS or Wii to do things they aren't allowed to do by Nintendo as well.
Rumour was new Motorola devices would be unlocked too.
I'm thinking Samsung, the people who can't be bothered updating their phones at all.
Software can be programmed to care :)
Both patents and Copyright are excellent, in the form described by Congress originally.
Copyright and patents as (very) limited times for authors to have power over those who would steal their inventions is worthwhile and good for any economy. However, 100+ year Copyrights and absurd "barely any different" patents that act as infinite extensions are not.
The system needs reform, not demolition.
I'm sure an OpenBSD person could speak for pf on this issue, but all the Cisco PIX people I know insist on reboots when changes are made.
Use the online market link and you can see all applications, and whether they're compatible with your phone or not (if you log in with your Google ID).
I filter ports below 1024 because I don't necessarily want them listening to connections from just anyone.
I have several machines with rules like "iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 22 -s 10.14.3.0/24 -m state --state NEW --syn -j ACCEPT" so that SSH isn't even listening to everyone, just the subnet I want it to listen to.
PS for the people who may reply, that usually looks like:
iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -j INPUT-LAN ... since doing the state check in each line gets unwieldy quickly. Also, MARK is a great way to not have to repeat subnets and other matches, assuming you're not using them differently in mangle for ipsec or something.
iptables -A INPUT-LAN -s 10.14.0.0/16 -j MARK --set-mark 2
iptables -A INPUT-LAN -s 10.14.3.0/24 -j MARK --set-mark 3
iptables -A INPUT-LAN -p tcp -m state --state NEW --syn -j INPUT-LAN-NEW
iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 22 -m mark --mark 3 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 80 -m mark --mark 2 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT-LAN-NEW -p tcp --dport 3128 -m mark --mark 2 -j ACCEPT