Brute force is killing thought. We do not learn from randomly testing cases.
It is an interesting point you bring up, but I think there is a lot we can learn from brute force approaches to problem solving. Your mind, in a sense, employs brute force approaches to many of its tasks. It just so happens that the billions of cycles happen in parallel rather than in serial, and the algorithms are a bit different than the ones we're used to.
When you read this post, aside from thinking how brilliant it is, various small parts of your mind are frantically pattern matching millions of visual features simultaneously, and your "attention" is focusing a higher level consciousness onto part of that field, at which point millions of more patterns are being matched against the results of that first run, where you see letters and words, and those get matched against millions of words you've seen before, etc. etc. Brute force is everywhere around you. It is thought.
Just because we are turning Earth into a garbage dump, that doesn't mean manned space travel is any more viable.
Nobody has made the claim that the state of Earth implies any viability of space travel. You just made up a straw man argument to knock down. Congratulations.
I am not saying it "shouldn't" be done, I am saying it cannot be done.
We (international scientific community) are currently exploring whether or not it can be done. We will know it cannot be done when we stop trying and pull resources from this quest, not when you say so. But we're all curious, so let's see just why you think it cannot be done.
Point 1 - where to go? Mars? You would need massive external support to live there. Can't happen if by your arg Earth is gone. Anywhere worth going (Earth like planet) is so far away it is not worth considering given our understanding of physics....
Once again you're making up bogus claims to knock down. Good job.
How about living in space itself? Isn't that kind of what the space station is? Space is big. People are small. If we can pull it off, then we have a lot of room to grow into, regardless of what semi-spherical masses of rock we might come accross in our travels.
Point 2 - don't believe in "warp speed" or some other fantasy that instantly lands you on a paradise in another galaxy instantly. The reality is that even at very high speeds we can conceive of producing, it would take so long to get anywhere useful that you would run out of food, go insane, or get irradiated.
How about Santa Claus, can I believe in him? No? Off topic? Agreed. And tell me, why is warp speed or your vague "some other fantasy" any more relevant to living in space than Santa Claus?
Robotic life will be the only view of Earth aliens ever see. That wil have to be good enough for our legacy - our organic systems are completely unsuited physically and mentally for long term space exposure.
Who said anything about Aliens? Again, good job introducing irrelevant topics and shooting them down. And as far as our organic systems being unsuited for space exposure, that's one of the things we're trying to work on in the Space Station, but instead of supporting the effort, people (e.g. You) keep talking about Mars, warp speed, and aliens. Don't you get it, how cluelessly off topic and subversive your comments are?
If we want to destroy Earth then we are going to have to deal with having NOWHERE to live.
Ahhh, so I think I see where all your misdirection is coming from. You're subconsciously formulating an argument for us to preserve our planet better by pointing out that Mars, warp speed, and aliens will prevent us from escaping. Nice.
I have some better suggestions: Try recycling, buy a fuel efficient / hybrid car (or none at all), eat organic food, don't litter, don't smoke, and stay environmentally and politically aware. These tend to work a bit better than the weak sci-fi scare tactics you so happily brandish about.
Oh, and back to the topic of the space station... This is one of man's most noble quests and greatest and largest collaborations in known history, pushing the limits of science and taking us away from this rocky egg and into the stars, the first step of our cosmic journey. Your post is just sad.
Moon? Bah! At least you HAD a moon! When we were growing up, there WAS no moon. We had to wait until the bits fell into the proper alignment themselves!
Heh, struck a nerve in the/. crowd here... I think if you'd left the "Grow the fuck up" and "worth less than the dirt on my shoe" parts out of your post, you may have gotten a better reception.
The underlying point is well taken, and I hope not overlooked. There is an definite naive streak among techies when it comes to products and mass adoption, when they think that everybody thinks as rationally as they do. And there is a problem with Open Source methodology that compounds this.
On the first point, most people are irrational and sheepish. Even when they think they are making a decision, they are generally just reacting predictably based on previous exposure to stimuli. In fact the process itself of thinking they are making a decision is just a subtly evolved soothing mechanism to prevent them from feeling controlled by external social structure (such as, as you put it "rock- and sports stars, and loud commercials").
And on the second point, Open Source works because people generally work on a volunteer basis. They work because it's interesting. So Joe Blow OSS contributor is going to write a module to filter the "7"s out of a web page because he doesn't like the number "7", not because there's some great demand for that feature. THIS is why OSS will fail in many cases without strong leadership. Linus does an EXCELLENT job of maintaining control over Linux, in terms of what goes in and what the focus is on, and that project is very successful (though he generates a LOT of hate when people don't understand why he rejects their work). When there's 100+ people working random hours, no customer accountability, and no strong leadership and vision, it's rare that things just magically work out.
And the way these problems compound, as I mentioned above, is that there's usually no "marketing" department in OSS projects, because those types of people usually like making money and drinking hot new drinks in hot new bars with hot girls and boys wearing hot clothes rather than sitting in front of their computers until sunrise with stale pizza and half empty Mountain Dew cans around them (I like doing both of these things, sometimes one after the other). So the people who are left are building what they want, and are somewhat oblivious to the rest of the world. In fact I would say they are even disdainful that other people are not as rational as they are, and will maybe "get back" at those "idiots" by making a GREAT piece of software that's better than anything else ever made. Great for some, but not the road to mass adoption.
And when you throw this in their face (with a smattering of "fucks" and condescension), they HATE it. Not surprising, but I hope it raises awareness just a little bit...
I'm increasingly bemused by those who try to see these orthogonal motives [profit and pursuit of excellence] as somehow overlapping.
Well then you'll probably be spending a lot of time being bemused. Calling them orthogonal means they don't overlap, so your clever phrasing probably convinced some people of your argument, but you're clearly wrong.
People buy products for a number of reasons, and excellence is probably pretty far down on the list (beaten easily by social image, price, and availability, to name a few). But to claim that it has nothing to do with a consumer's purchasing decision is, well... clueless?
So accepting the fact that quality affects purchasing, and that purchasing affects profit, you must accept that quality affects profit. Period. Even though I enjoyed your "**", you are wrong.
If you come back and say "I meant the pursuit of excellence, not excellence itself", then your point is even more banal than your original contrived closed truth about orthogonal things not overlapping, so please don't even try to say that, thank you very much.
I don't think you quite understand the scale of what we're dealing with here. IIRC, IPv6 has a large enough address space to give every atom in the known universe its own IP address, and then some.
I don't think YOU quite understand the lessons to be learned from the past. Just as two-digit years and 640K turned out to be insufficient, this newly expanded address space will fail as well. There is already research underway to WiFi-enable individual subatomic particles. Try taking off your blinders and consider the future. We should move to a 4096-bit address space NOW to avoid having to re-engineer the Internet again in 15 years.
And don't forget all the "." dots you'll probably have to type in with this new scheme too. What a nightmare! Maybe Microsoft Passport will help automate some of this.
"Does it do something else?" It PAINS me to hear this ignorant question, but recognizing the lack of spiritual context in our society now, allow me to educate our loyal readership a bit, and perhaps open some eyes up to THE TRUTH.
Many thousands of years ago, a new technology brought forth rampant unapproved duplication of holy scrolls. Fearing their power was slipping out of their grip, the religious leadership began a campaign of identifying and stoning to death the worst offenders.
When this campaign backfired, causing people to buy even less scrolls than before, they changed their approach by embedding actual physical protection on scrolls they sold, in an attempt to reduce the illegal duplication and maintain control over distribution.
These "scroll locks" were placed on all scrolls manufactured, and indeed served to protect their power for several decades. But, eventually they were cracked, for it was only a matter of time, and scrolls and their content became free.
The world changed for the better, and people vowed never to let anything like that happen again. As we say now "when pigs fly", they too saw the improbability of ever allowing such a thing to happen again. "Yeah, maybe 2000 years after the Son of God walks the earth, then we'll let this happen again, but not before that!" laughed Haramud Ha'abbahakbar.
And so it was inscribed in many religious texts (rough translation) "And bind upon your keyboards always a key named 'Scroll Lock' so that you may be reminded daily of the plight caused by this wretched behavior of control, and that you may take your child upon your lap and tell him of the horrors forced upon his ancestors in the time when individual men were treated as slaves."
It saddens me that this history is forgotten, and all we can think about is scrolling a spreadsheet or switching monitors. To think that people actually would remove this key frightens me and foretells of a coming apocalypse, as people have foresaken their history and are doomed to repeat it.
1. EJB's were designed to be written using tools. Read the spec, the developer is supposed to only write the implmenetation class, use XDoclet or JBuilder, Together or many of the other tools. They are beans and the basic idea behind beans if for VISUAL ASSEMBLY.
I think that one of the biggest turnoffs to many otherwise happy non-E Java developers about EJBs is the amount of code you have to write and odd syntax and rules to memorize. "Why should I write home interface, remote interface, and 5 other classes when I used to be able to just write one?"
But introducing a new paradigm that requires new tools is more than a new idea -- it's a fundamental shift that requires retraining and abandonment of large amounts of previous experience. Worst of all, it often leads to vendor-lockin, wherein you are forced to use the tools provided by your app-server vendor.
I do large scale Java development, and I still use a copy of MS Visual C++ I pirated 5 years ago as my text editor, and command line open source build tools. Show me some slow, crappy, expensive, proprietary interface with vague assertions of its value and I'll print out a copy of the manual and shove it up your ass, then get back to my lovely MSVC editor where I can write code that works, is maintainable, and is fully portable.
Re:The very worst fashion... Nukes!
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 1
Your whole post reads like a weak argument for the value of nuclear weapons. Sure, you might say, they can be misused, but they're important for threat deterence and defense against extra-terrestrials! More importantly, though, is the fact that there's 10000 maniacal power mongers out there who would set off a nuke at the drop of a hat.
And in software, there's 10000 shitty programmers who will misuse the tools they're given for each 1 architect who will lay out a great EJB framework for a long-duration project. And there's 10000 short term projects with changing specifications for each 1 long fixed project that would actually benefit from the upfront cost of EJBification. You do the math.
Thank you (russh347) for your response. It saved me the time of writing almost exactly the same post. And I'm not even a fan of XP...
Re:Come on SOAP...Come on SOAP!!
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 1
The aspect of SOAP that could have made this list is its RPC-encoding style of messaging. This went from being the holy grail of computing (wow computers will all talk to each other effortlessly!) to being a big embarassment and development nightmare when people realized that you had to do so much custom work just to GET it to work. Microsoft (big pusher of SOAP) has steered completely away from it, and for once, I really agree with them.
So I'd throw that on the list, but SOAP itself was and still is very useful as far being as a solid base upon which to build a client/server protocol, especially of the HTTP request/response type.
That IS funny, but it also reflects one of the approaches our US government is currently taking in its quest for full information dominance. By making people feel included by various approaches to monitoring and left out by not participating, the government encourages people to submit themselves to informational dominance, lest they be ignored and left behind. This is described in more detail in NSA Psy-Op training doclet PSO-3884002 (offline, go to your local library if interested) "Social Engineering for Informational Acquiescence".
Lots of things are "popular" that most of the people here wouldn't consider good.
Think about MS Windows. Boy bands. Country music. McDonalds (ok, so they have wireless salads now...).
You didn't even make a single claim as to why you think Google is good. You didn't respond to the poster at all, other than by pointing out how Google IS popular and SHOULD BE even more popular. Wow that makes me want to go out and google so I can be part of the in crowd.
How does this possibly get +4 Insightful? What is the insight???
I do agree that Windows is sadly insecure.
But...
Most of the argument in this article are based on a fallacious view of computers as the same home-built hobby kits they were 30 years ago.
Analagous claim:
You are less likely to get food poisoning from home-cooking than eating in a restaurant.
Analagous argument:
It is more difficult to prepare a meal at home than to order one in a restaurant, therefore you are less likely to do it, and therefore less likely to get food-poisoning.
My response (to both article's and analagous argument):
I agree with the claim, but the fact that something is more difficult is not always a positive feature that is fundamental to that thing. By learning to cook or hiring a chef, home-cooked meals become easier. And by Linux software maturing beyond nerd-oriented "mail readers" into productivity suites that normal people will actually use (wherein you CAN actually click on something to run it without jumping through hoops with temp folders, chmods, and sus), so will Linux begin to fall victim to the same ease-of-use that the author holds in his crosshairs.
How can people keep making this silly argument? Do we all admit that our will-power is so minimal that when presented with a Font dropdown box, we cannot help but click-click-click to try out each font?
I certainly feel that MSWord is a huge bloated piece of crap with an closed and sloppy file format and convoluted options "system". But it also lets you do some amazing thing, especially with respect to document structure (indices, footnotes, table of contents, formatting, etc.).
You (everyone) need to separate your specific complaints (eg auto-correct being on by default) from the fact that the program is feature-rich. Nobody forces you to waste your time changing margins and fonts. Nobody makes you put page breaks in just the right places. If you can't get your work done because of this stuff, then that's your own fault. Don't blame televisions for being small and fitting inside your office for the fact that you keep watching television instead of working. Just do your work.
Bloated software typically is poorly designed (piled upon). MSWord is made for the lowest common denominator (people who would rather have their spelling mistakes fixed for them than actually know how to spell the words). But software doesn't "promote fiddling with appearance". It is a tool that can be used or misused.
Do not forgot -- you now must check all pizza delivery people for neck-mounted bomb collars as well. The risk for data loss is more severe, for it generally cannot be recovered.
Just as the "hub" evolved to the "switch", it's time for the "switch" to evolve into a "routed switch".
Open environments like this with such uncontrollable equipment must not be left to rot in their own cess pool of virus, worms, and file-sharing bandwidth hogging.
Routed switches must bring the smarts of a router to the level of a switch, so that each machine connected to it is at least minimally monitored for bad behavior and bandwidth abuse. They must be flash-upgradeable so that new worm signatures can be uploaded easily. And they must be cheap enough that universities will use them.
Want to get serious work done? Walk across the room and disconnect the network cable from the wall. Really need access (like to submit your homework, as you suggested) walk over and plug it in, submit your work, and then unplug it again.
This is exactly what I do. A small improvement on this is to get an X-10 computer interface, and connect the network cable to a 12V X-10 controlled motor (Lutron, Makita, etc.), so that instead of having to get up to plug/unplug it, you just press a key on your keyboard and it remotely and physically does it for you. Taking it further, you can set it up so that when your cursor hovers over Mozilla, it automatically plugs in the cable for you. It works really well, and as soon as I finish writing this, I'll get right back to that paper I'm supposed to turn in tomorrow morning!
Yeah the author was pushing SuSE pretty hard. For a home server (firewall, samba, web server,...), can anybody recommend support or shoot down his thoughts that SuSE is better and more secure than RedHat?
Slashdot Mirror
When you read this post, aside from thinking how brilliant it is, various small parts of your mind are frantically pattern matching millions of visual features simultaneously, and your "attention" is focusing a higher level consciousness onto part of that field, at which point millions of more patterns are being matched against the results of that first run, where you see letters and words, and those get matched against millions of words you've seen before, etc. etc. Brute force is everywhere around you. It is thought.
Well they claimed to compress it down to 66Kb, which would seem to be 500000 -> 66000. That's 500:66 ration = 7.6:1, which isn't so bad.
I have some better suggestions: Try recycling, buy a fuel efficient / hybrid car (or none at all), eat organic food, don't litter, don't smoke, and stay environmentally and politically aware. These tend to work a bit better than the weak sci-fi scare tactics you so happily brandish about.
Oh, and back to the topic of the space station... This is one of man's most noble quests and greatest and largest collaborations in known history, pushing the limits of science and taking us away from this rocky egg and into the stars, the first step of our cosmic journey. Your post is just sad.
Moon? Bah! At least you HAD a moon! When we were growing up, there WAS no moon. We had to wait until the bits fell into the proper alignment themselves!
Heh, struck a nerve in the /. crowd here... I think if you'd left the "Grow the fuck up" and "worth less than the dirt on my shoe" parts out of your post, you may have gotten a better reception.
The underlying point is well taken, and I hope not overlooked. There is an definite naive streak among techies when it comes to products and mass adoption, when they think that everybody thinks as rationally as they do. And there is a problem with Open Source methodology that compounds this.
On the first point, most people are irrational and sheepish. Even when they think they are making a decision, they are generally just reacting predictably based on previous exposure to stimuli. In fact the process itself of thinking they are making a decision is just a subtly evolved soothing mechanism to prevent them from feeling controlled by external social structure (such as, as you put it "rock- and sports stars, and loud commercials").
And on the second point, Open Source works because people generally work on a volunteer basis. They work because it's interesting. So Joe Blow OSS contributor is going to write a module to filter the "7"s out of a web page because he doesn't like the number "7", not because there's some great demand for that feature. THIS is why OSS will fail in many cases without strong leadership. Linus does an EXCELLENT job of maintaining control over Linux, in terms of what goes in and what the focus is on, and that project is very successful (though he generates a LOT of hate when people don't understand why he rejects their work). When there's 100+ people working random hours, no customer accountability, and no strong leadership and vision, it's rare that things just magically work out.
And the way these problems compound, as I mentioned above, is that there's usually no "marketing" department in OSS projects, because those types of people usually like making money and drinking hot new drinks in hot new bars with hot girls and boys wearing hot clothes rather than sitting in front of their computers until sunrise with stale pizza and half empty Mountain Dew cans around them (I like doing both of these things, sometimes one after the other). So the people who are left are building what they want, and are somewhat oblivious to the rest of the world. In fact I would say they are even disdainful that other people are not as rational as they are, and will maybe "get back" at those "idiots" by making a GREAT piece of software that's better than anything else ever made. Great for some, but not the road to mass adoption.
And when you throw this in their face (with a smattering of "fucks" and condescension), they HATE it. Not surprising, but I hope it raises awareness just a little bit...
People buy products for a number of reasons, and excellence is probably pretty far down on the list (beaten easily by social image, price, and availability, to name a few). But to claim that it has nothing to do with a consumer's purchasing decision is, well... clueless?
So accepting the fact that quality affects purchasing, and that purchasing affects profit, you must accept that quality affects profit. Period. Even though I enjoyed your "**", you are wrong.
If you come back and say "I meant the pursuit of excellence, not excellence itself", then your point is even more banal than your original contrived closed truth about orthogonal things not overlapping, so please don't even try to say that, thank you very much.
And don't forget all the "." dots you'll probably have to type in with this new scheme too. What a nightmare! Maybe Microsoft Passport will help automate some of this.
Nice post. Great quotes! Though not a single origin is indicated, I do assume that they are legitimate. Can you give any kind of reference for these?
"Does it do something else?" It PAINS me to hear this ignorant question, but recognizing the lack of spiritual context in our society now, allow me to educate our loyal readership a bit, and perhaps open some eyes up to THE TRUTH.
Many thousands of years ago, a new technology brought forth rampant unapproved duplication of holy scrolls. Fearing their power was slipping out of their grip, the religious leadership began a campaign of identifying and stoning to death the worst offenders.
When this campaign backfired, causing people to buy even less scrolls than before, they changed their approach by embedding actual physical protection on scrolls they sold, in an attempt to reduce the illegal duplication and maintain control over distribution.
These "scroll locks" were placed on all scrolls manufactured, and indeed served to protect their power for several decades. But, eventually they were cracked, for it was only a matter of time, and scrolls and their content became free.
The world changed for the better, and people vowed never to let anything like that happen again. As we say now "when pigs fly", they too saw the improbability of ever allowing such a thing to happen again. "Yeah, maybe 2000 years after the Son of God walks the earth, then we'll let this happen again, but not before that!" laughed Haramud Ha'abbahakbar.
And so it was inscribed in many religious texts (rough translation) "And bind upon your keyboards always a key named 'Scroll Lock' so that you may be reminded daily of the plight caused by this wretched behavior of control, and that you may take your child upon your lap and tell him of the horrors forced upon his ancestors in the time when individual men were treated as slaves."
It saddens me that this history is forgotten, and all we can think about is scrolling a spreadsheet or switching monitors. To think that people actually would remove this key frightens me and foretells of a coming apocalypse, as people have foresaken their history and are doomed to repeat it.
But introducing a new paradigm that requires new tools is more than a new idea -- it's a fundamental shift that requires retraining and abandonment of large amounts of previous experience. Worst of all, it often leads to vendor-lockin, wherein you are forced to use the tools provided by your app-server vendor.
I do large scale Java development, and I still use a copy of MS Visual C++ I pirated 5 years ago as my text editor, and command line open source build tools. Show me some slow, crappy, expensive, proprietary interface with vague assertions of its value and I'll print out a copy of the manual and shove it up your ass, then get back to my lovely MSVC editor where I can write code that works, is maintainable, and is fully portable.
Your whole post reads like a weak argument for the value of nuclear weapons. Sure, you might say, they can be misused, but they're important for threat deterence and defense against extra-terrestrials! More importantly, though, is the fact that there's 10000 maniacal power mongers out there who would set off a nuke at the drop of a hat.
And in software, there's 10000 shitty programmers who will misuse the tools they're given for each 1 architect who will lay out a great EJB framework for a long-duration project. And there's 10000 short term projects with changing specifications for each 1 long fixed project that would actually benefit from the upfront cost of EJBification. You do the math.
Thank you (russh347) for your response. It saved me the time of writing almost exactly the same post. And I'm not even a fan of XP...
The aspect of SOAP that could have made this list is its RPC-encoding style of messaging. This went from being the holy grail of computing (wow computers will all talk to each other effortlessly!) to being a big embarassment and development nightmare when people realized that you had to do so much custom work just to GET it to work. Microsoft (big pusher of SOAP) has steered completely away from it, and for once, I really agree with them.
So I'd throw that on the list, but SOAP itself was and still is very useful as far being as a solid base upon which to build a client/server protocol, especially of the HTTP request/response type.
That IS funny, but it also reflects one of the approaches our US government is currently taking in its quest for full information dominance. By making people feel included by various approaches to monitoring and left out by not participating, the government encourages people to submit themselves to informational dominance, lest they be ignored and left behind. This is described in more detail in NSA Psy-Op training doclet PSO-3884002 (offline, go to your local library if interested) "Social Engineering for Informational Acquiescence".
Lots of things are "popular" that most of the people here wouldn't consider good. Think about MS Windows. Boy bands. Country music. McDonalds (ok, so they have wireless salads now...).
You didn't even make a single claim as to why you think Google is good. You didn't respond to the poster at all, other than by pointing out how Google IS popular and SHOULD BE even more popular. Wow that makes me want to go out and google so I can be part of the in crowd.
How does this possibly get +4 Insightful? What is the insight???
I do agree that Windows is sadly insecure. But... Most of the argument in this article are based on a fallacious view of computers as the same home-built hobby kits they were 30 years ago.
Analagous claim:
You are less likely to get food poisoning from home-cooking than eating in a restaurant.
Analagous argument:
It is more difficult to prepare a meal at home than to order one in a restaurant, therefore you are less likely to do it, and therefore less likely to get food-poisoning.
My response (to both article's and analagous argument):
I agree with the claim, but the fact that something is more difficult is not always a positive feature that is fundamental to that thing. By learning to cook or hiring a chef, home-cooked meals become easier. And by Linux software maturing beyond nerd-oriented "mail readers" into productivity suites that normal people will actually use (wherein you CAN actually click on something to run it without jumping through hoops with temp folders, chmods, and sus), so will Linux begin to fall victim to the same ease-of-use that the author holds in his crosshairs.
Hopefully this will put to rest the controversy over Pascal. Now the world can see that you CAN write a production quality game in Pascal.
How can people keep making this silly argument? Do we all admit that our will-power is so minimal that when presented with a Font dropdown box, we cannot help but click-click-click to try out each font?
I certainly feel that MSWord is a huge bloated piece of crap with an closed and sloppy file format and convoluted options "system". But it also lets you do some amazing thing, especially with respect to document structure (indices, footnotes, table of contents, formatting, etc.).
You (everyone) need to separate your specific complaints (eg auto-correct being on by default) from the fact that the program is feature-rich. Nobody forces you to waste your time changing margins and fonts. Nobody makes you put page breaks in just the right places. If you can't get your work done because of this stuff, then that's your own fault. Don't blame televisions for being small and fitting inside your office for the fact that you keep watching television instead of working. Just do your work.
Bloated software typically is poorly designed (piled upon). MSWord is made for the lowest common denominator (people who would rather have their spelling mistakes fixed for them than actually know how to spell the words). But software doesn't "promote fiddling with appearance". It is a tool that can be used or misused.
Just as the "hub" evolved to the "switch", it's time for the "switch" to evolve into a "routed switch".
Open environments like this with such uncontrollable equipment must not be left to rot in their own cess pool of virus, worms, and file-sharing bandwidth hogging.
Routed switches must bring the smarts of a router to the level of a switch, so that each machine connected to it is at least minimally monitored for bad behavior and bandwidth abuse. They must be flash-upgradeable so that new worm signatures can be uploaded easily. And they must be cheap enough that universities will use them.
I soak my eyes in Effer-Dent over night. (They are both glass).
Yeah the author was pushing SuSE pretty hard. For a home server (firewall, samba, web server, ...), can anybody recommend support or shoot down his thoughts that SuSE is better and more secure than RedHat?