The simple truth is that the net, as always will route around the problem.
There are years left, and this is about the top level systems being negatively effected. Seriously, I would guess that over 50% of the routers in use on the net dont have BGP routes!
Not to mention that ipv6 will actually help quite a bit.
Companies WILL find a way, and that is what the article SHOULD have been about, instead of naysaying, and bitching about how no one has done it yet.
When qwest cant get another bgp route added to a core router, progress *WILL* occur.:)
You ASSUME that since BMG is getting on board that nothing will be different in the way they pay out artists. Hell, some artists (Courtney Love, Offspring?) would be quite smart to renegotiate their contracts (i know CL isnt under one) to get a higher percentage of their internet profits, and less front end, or whatever.
Remember, it *CAN* be a good thing.
Everyone keeps looking for napster to be the answer to the 'artists vs. management' problem, and the simple truth is, it just HELPS, not solves it.
So stop whining that "this is not a good thing".
You dont KNOW that it screws over the fans and artists!
I mean, lets see here, now artists will make money, fans wont get charged with copyright violations (well, maybe eventually), and they STILL have access to those great mp3 swapping groups.
You look to be flamebaiting, and yet again, here I go feeding a troll, BUT...
Not everyone that uses napster demands the "free" part. I was just thinking the other day of how sad I will be when I cant go home, and download in a minute or two that latest addictive song that I heard in the car.
Notice there is nothing about the free part in there?
There is a reason. Money had NOTHING to do with it. Now granted, I wouldnt pay $1 a song, but a flat $5-10 a month or something is totally worth it to me, and means that at least SOME of that money is making it to the artists, no matter how small.
You made a huge assumption. Being a Napster user != being a theif.
It *CAN* mean being a music enthusiast who loves conveience.
BTW, in the year that I have been using napster, I have bought twice as many cd's as I did before.
Songs get stuck in your head when you play them 30 times at home..:)
I think OpenNap WILL become more popular, but I think you will see ALOT of people willing to pay, so the artists do get some money.
Most people *I* know arent really out to rape the artists, and get a free lunch, they just LOVE being able to download THAT mp3 they are looking for in 3 seconds flat.
BUT, i also can see alot of people "getting their money worth" by getting a HUGE harddrive, and SUCKING down PILES of mp3's for a month or two, and then leaving the service, only to return every 6 months or so.:)
Notice in the articles, they make a bigger point that there is *still* file trading.
So, what that would mean is, you pay napster your paltry sum ($5 a month?), and get all the same choices you have now, maybe half as many, PLUS a whole collection of REAAAALLY high quality songs from BMG's collection (one of the largest on the planet).
This is *EXACTLY* what needs to happen.
Now, we will get to prove once and for all if it was the price, or the convenience that everyone loved.
I bet 50% loved the convenience and are willing to pay for it, and the other 50% "Just wants information to be free".
They hit the nail on the head. QNX is interesting and good and cool because it will expand, yet again, the market for linux binaries!
Remember, the main reason SO many people code for windows is the simple fact that in doing so, they reach some 75% of the market (or whatever it is today).
Between Gnome becoming default on Sun stations, and QNX, and all the other places (dont forget BSD!), linux binaries are reaching a seriously larger audience.
Whether individually those things are in and of themselves cool (be nice if kde AND gnome were BOTH defaults.. ie, a choice), as a whole, they are increasing the market for programs for linux.
That is how to win the war to grab programmers.:)
(I know what you are thinking -- who wants windows programmers. We dont. We want programmers that HAPPEN to program for windows because of its HUGE installed base).
Thankfully, THAT isnt their intent. It is obvious that you are just looking to flamebait, and unfortunately, its a slow halloween, so I am feeding it.
The simple truth is OpenBSD is *NOT* the perfect solution to all problem. You dont use a hammer to drill and vice versa.
This is about helping LINUX, not BSD. They are very different systems, despite being mostly-compatible.
Different goals, different licenses, and different focii.
However, and in the best spirit of slashdot, I hope that you honestly want to see a secure linux (I doubt it though).
If that is the case, then yes, it would be nice to see a line by line audit of code, but the sad fact is, there are still plenty of things to add BEFORE we start down that path.
Audits slow development WAY down. Thats one reason OpenBSD isnt nearly as portable as NetBSD. It wasnt intended to be, and its not a bad thing, its just a product of the process.
The first process in getting a truly secure linux would be convincing the major distributions that there IS a security issue, and a way to fix it.:)
Alot of people are going to ask why this matters. Let me explain.
Apple has a LONG history of dominating every single media-portrayed computer. Look in any wide-release movie in the last 10 years that has computers as a central or interesting part of the movie, and I guarantee its a mac.
From IndependenceDay (ID4) to The Net, it was an endless barrage of Apple making it seem like "everyone is using them."
Bullshit.
Enough is enough. Its time that when I turn on a show about a group of elite (and I *DONT* mean 1337) old-school-definition-hackers, by god, they should be using something realistic.
I dont see many security analysts busting out mac's to probe networks, and I dont see many mac root-kits.
In short, linux just made a prime-time appearance. Its mad cool. It SCREAMS, yeah, it rocks, yeah, it matters, and YEAH, intelligent uber-hacker type people use it.
If you think about it, this would be the best possible thing to happen to the net! Right now, we have the bandwidth of the world centralized in major, huge fat pipes. Those then trickle down, through 5-10 steps til it is at your desktop.
If everyone had 100mbps, (and this is assuming that something beyond 2gbps doesnt IMMEDIATELY come to market -- which it would..), then the pipes would indeed be saturated.
The big pipes that is.
And thats horrible, right? Wrong! It would lean us more towards a round-robin approach. The InterNet wasn't originally MEANT to be server-client! It was meant to be Peer-to-Peer.
Even now we see the awesome power of p2p, in things like napster and gnutella. Not because you can get illegal software, but because it allows the net to route around errors like LAW.
If everyone had 100mbs to their house, the net would DEFINITELY change. I just happen to think it would TOTALLY be for the best.
>>Lets throw some support behind 3dfx.
>Why?
By supporting 3dfx, we show other vendors (like Nvidia) that closed source is not what we want, and that open source drivers is.
>What are they going to do for me?
How about more great cards at decent prices, with good performance, and OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS.
>Some how force the "evil" NVidia company to open their source and make the world a better place?
Yes. Precisely. If customers vote with their dollars, the companies WILL hear them.
>C'mon, 3dfx did the same thing to NVidia back in 1998 with multitexuring
I agree about the past, no one is blameless. However, 3dfx NOW is opensource, and Nvidia ISNT.
>Having Open Source drivers don't make them saints.
Whether or not that makes them saints or not is an opinion. I think that makes them pretty damned cool.:)
I have owned and enjoyed the HELL out of a 3dfx Banshee card for years. It was the cheapest card that played Tribes comfortably, and it STILL keeps up even with unreal tournament. Any company that makes cards that affordable, and that well made, AND opensource's their drivers (is opensource a verb now?) is totally a saint by me.
The thing that sucks about this is that 3dfx has at least been providing the source to their drivers. While Nvidia does make some sexy cards, and even puts out some decent drivers, they are binary.
That sort of thing in theory isnt a big deal, but when you end up with a closed source driver that cant do dual head, cant do other things that we SHOULD be able to do universally, it becomes a problem.
Now, with this lawsuit, we have a closed-driver company versus a very open company. Granted, it took 3dfx a little while to come to the table, but they are here now.
Just goes to show you that anything that big is gonna be buggy the first time around. The fact that it is microsoft is just something else to notice.:)
I wonder if someone else (AOL, Mindspring) had handeled it, if it would have come out differently?
People need to realize that although it is a huge thing, and totally incredible that Kasparov would do it, it IS the first time something like that had been tried.
The soiled few will always try to ruin it for the rest of us..
No, not FUD. I live and LOVE AMD's. I run all myhome computers on them. However, the ISP I work for doesnt have a single one as a server anymore, most of the ISP's nearby dont in fact. Around here, it is just widely known.
I thought it was a universal, maybe I was mistaken (about how many knew). But I have seen it myself. Servers that have been running off of AMD K6-2's seem to die after a much shorter (2-5 years) period of time than the corresponding P2/P3's.
PLEASE note, I am NOT knocking AMD's. They rock. I want to see how the Athlon's do. I just know from word of mouth among admin's here, and from experience, that AMD's for some reason (and no, i cant think of a single reason other than the heat-- k6-2's are *VERY* hot) seem to die quicker.
Can I rebutt it? Heck yeah I can! I have been via email for the last couple of days. Here in town, FDT sponsors THREE IRC servers using nothing but linux. irc.gymnet.com, irc.aohell.org, and irc.seminole.net.
I truly resent his implications. IRC runs best on linux. PERIOD.:)
Plus, his assertion about linux on low-end AMD's is insane. AMD K6's are notorious for being poor choices for linux, as for SOME reason they die after two years or so under the strain.
Linux is a real man's OS, and needs to be treated as such.
I use to have TONS of respect for Dvorak. I waited monthly for the "Word of John". Never again.
>>"He should have told us," Simon Hakim, a Temple University economist, said when told yesterday of the financing. "I would not have >>participated if I had known. It's not right to use people as a vehicle for special interests."
>Which indicates that the study was no way biased >by Microsoft's funding of the published results Ah, but it doesnt indicate that. Would the gentleman in charge have been quite as willing without the airfare, the 150k fat payment? I dont think so.
>I also agree with the last comment in the article about the DOJ trial being used by Netscape as a last ditch effort because they couldn't >compete in a real market. Oh absolutely. How could they? They were the leader, and Microsoft came in and gave away for free a competing product and bundled it with 90% of the consumer market PC's. There isnt any inherent advantage there, no...
Slashdot Mirror
But I was under the impression that by going to ipv6, the subnetting would be more clean, and thus, not nearly as long.
Perhaps I was mistaken?
My apologies. It was a quick post, and I didnt notice the not-quite-you name he had. An honest mistake.
:)
I have changed my sig to reflect it, and made sure to make the user info a link in it.
The simple truth is that the net, as always will route around the problem.
:)
There are years left, and this is about the top level systems being negatively effected. Seriously, I would guess that over 50% of the routers in use on the net dont have BGP routes!
Not to mention that ipv6 will actually help quite a bit.
Companies WILL find a way, and that is what the article SHOULD have been about, instead of naysaying, and bitching about how no one has done it yet.
When qwest cant get another bgp route added to a core router, progress *WILL* occur.
I will lose a karma point for this one, but it is worth it..
/., *you* telling ANYONE else that they are the exception, and not the rule has GOT to be..
Of all the users on
Score: 2, funny.
:)
You ASSUME that since BMG is getting on board that nothing will be different in the way they pay out artists. Hell, some artists (Courtney Love, Offspring?) would be quite smart to renegotiate their contracts (i know CL isnt under one) to get a higher percentage of their internet profits, and less front end, or whatever.
Remember, it *CAN* be a good thing.
Everyone keeps looking for napster to be the answer to the 'artists vs. management' problem, and the simple truth is, it just HELPS, not solves it.
So stop whining that "this is not a good thing".
You dont KNOW that it screws over the fans and artists!
I mean, lets see here, now artists will make money, fans wont get charged with copyright violations (well, maybe eventually), and they STILL have access to those great mp3 swapping groups.
How is that a BAD thing?
I dont agree.
.mp3 format, is the second they lose their audience.
A 256kbps mp3 recorded from a master, in a clean-room implementation would probably sound pretty damn good to the naked ear.
I really find it unlikely that people will 'demand' more.
As to the secure format.. the second they leave the
From players, to file swapping, there are a million reasons why NOT to use anything but.
No offense, but your opinion is plain crap.
:)
You look to be flamebaiting, and yet again, here I go feeding a troll, BUT...
Not everyone that uses napster demands the "free" part. I was just thinking the other day of how sad I will be when I cant go home, and download in a minute or two that latest addictive song that I heard in the car.
Notice there is nothing about the free part in there?
There is a reason. Money had NOTHING to do with it. Now granted, I wouldnt pay $1 a song, but a flat $5-10 a month or something is totally worth it to me, and means that at least SOME of that money is making it to the artists, no matter how small.
You made a huge assumption. Being a Napster user != being a theif.
It *CAN* mean being a music enthusiast who loves conveience.
BTW, in the year that I have been using napster, I have bought twice as many cd's as I did before.
Songs get stuck in your head when you play them 30 times at home..
I agree and disagree.
:)
I think OpenNap WILL become more popular, but I think you will see ALOT of people willing to pay, so the artists do get some money.
Most people *I* know arent really out to rape the artists, and get a free lunch, they just LOVE being able to download THAT mp3 they are looking for in 3 seconds flat.
BUT, i also can see alot of people "getting their money worth" by getting a HUGE harddrive, and SUCKING down PILES of mp3's for a month or two, and then leaving the service, only to return every 6 months or so.
We shall see..
Notice in the articles, they make a bigger point that there is *still* file trading.
So, what that would mean is, you pay napster your paltry sum ($5 a month?), and get all the same choices you have now, maybe half as many, PLUS a whole collection of REAAAALLY high quality songs from BMG's collection (one of the largest on the planet).
This is *EXACTLY* what needs to happen.
Now, we will get to prove once and for all if it was the price, or the convenience that everyone loved.
I bet 50% loved the convenience and are willing to pay for it, and the other 50% "Just wants information to be free".
:)
We shall see!
They hit the nail on the head. QNX is interesting and good and cool because it will expand, yet again, the market for linux binaries!
:)
Remember, the main reason SO many people code for windows is the simple fact that in doing so, they reach some 75% of the market (or whatever it is today).
Between Gnome becoming default on Sun stations, and QNX, and all the other places (dont forget BSD!), linux binaries are reaching a seriously larger audience.
Whether individually those things are in and of themselves cool (be nice if kde AND gnome were BOTH defaults.. ie, a choice), as a whole, they are increasing the market for programs for linux.
That is how to win the war to grab programmers.
(I know what you are thinking -- who wants windows programmers. We dont. We want programmers that HAPPEN to program for windows because of its HUGE installed base).
Eventually, linux will be the OBVIOUS choice.
Although the thought of "yet another distro" strikes pain into me more than most, I have decided to go that path, and create on based on security.
There are other distros that do so, and that i trust and use in various forms.
However, none seem geared towards the audience I am aiming for, namely web servers, and shell servers.
If YOU were to design a distro to serve shell and web servers, and wanted it to be as secure as possible (obviously), what would YOU have it do?
Thanks for a great product, btw.
Thankfully, THAT isnt their intent. It is obvious that you are just looking to flamebait, and unfortunately, its a slow halloween, so I am feeding it.
:)
The simple truth is OpenBSD is *NOT* the perfect solution to all problem. You dont use a hammer to drill and vice versa.
This is about helping LINUX, not BSD. They are very different systems, despite being mostly-compatible.
Different goals, different licenses, and different focii.
However, and in the best spirit of slashdot, I hope that you honestly want to see a secure linux (I doubt it though).
If that is the case, then yes, it would be nice to see a line by line audit of code, but the sad fact is, there are still plenty of things to add BEFORE we start down that path.
Audits slow development WAY down. Thats one reason OpenBSD isnt nearly as portable as NetBSD. It wasnt intended to be, and its not a bad thing, its just a product of the process.
The first process in getting a truly secure linux would be convincing the major distributions that there IS a security issue, and a way to fix it.
Thats what Bastille does (IMHO).
Alot of people are going to ask why this matters. Let me explain.
Apple has a LONG history of dominating every single media-portrayed computer. Look in any wide-release movie in the last 10 years that has computers as a central or interesting part of the movie, and I guarantee its a mac.
From IndependenceDay (ID4) to The Net, it was an endless barrage of Apple making it seem like "everyone is using them."
Bullshit.
Enough is enough. Its time that when I turn on a show about a group of elite (and I *DONT* mean 1337) old-school-definition-hackers, by god, they should be using something realistic.
I dont see many security analysts busting out mac's to probe networks, and I dont see many mac root-kits.
In short, linux just made a prime-time appearance. Its mad cool. It SCREAMS, yeah, it rocks, yeah, it matters, and YEAH, intelligent uber-hacker type people use it.
Rock on..
If you think about it, this would be the best possible thing to happen to the net! Right now, we have the bandwidth of the world centralized in major, huge fat pipes. Those then trickle down, through 5-10 steps til it is at your desktop.
If everyone had 100mbps, (and this is assuming that something beyond 2gbps doesnt IMMEDIATELY come to market -- which it would..), then the pipes would indeed be saturated.
The big pipes that is.
And thats horrible, right? Wrong! It would lean us more towards a round-robin approach. The InterNet wasn't originally MEANT to be server-client! It was meant to be Peer-to-Peer.
Even now we see the awesome power of p2p, in things like napster and gnutella. Not because you can get illegal software, but because it allows the net to route around errors like LAW.
If everyone had 100mbs to their house, the net would DEFINITELY change. I just happen to think it would TOTALLY be for the best.
>>Lets throw some support behind 3dfx.
:)
>Why?
By supporting 3dfx, we show other vendors (like Nvidia) that closed source is not what we want, and that open source drivers is.
>What are they going to do for me?
How about more great cards at decent prices, with good performance, and OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS.
>Some how force the "evil" NVidia company to open their source and make the world a better place?
Yes. Precisely. If customers vote with their dollars, the companies WILL hear them.
>C'mon, 3dfx did the same thing to NVidia back in 1998 with multitexuring
I agree about the past, no one is blameless. However, 3dfx NOW is opensource, and Nvidia ISNT.
>Having Open Source drivers don't make them saints.
Whether or not that makes them saints or not is an opinion. I think that makes them pretty damned cool.
I have owned and enjoyed the HELL out of a 3dfx Banshee card for years. It was the cheapest card that played Tribes comfortably, and it STILL keeps up even with unreal tournament. Any company that makes cards that affordable, and that well made, AND opensource's their drivers (is opensource a verb now?) is totally a saint by me.
Praise be to 3dfx.. hehe..
The thing that sucks about this is that 3dfx has at least been providing the source to their drivers. While Nvidia does make some sexy cards, and even puts out some decent drivers, they are binary.
That sort of thing in theory isnt a big deal, but when you end up with a closed source driver that cant do dual head, cant do other things that we SHOULD be able to do universally, it becomes a problem.
Now, with this lawsuit, we have a closed-driver company versus a very open company. Granted, it took 3dfx a little while to come to the table, but they are here now.
Lets throw some support behind 3dfx.
Gnome ported to Windows.
Office ported to Gnome (hey, they have to keep up the installed base SOMEHOW)
Gnome running on OSX on mac's.
Or the most frightening thought of all..
A Unix/Linux Common office suite would by all rights and measure naturally, eventually lead to..
AN ANIMATED PAPERCLIP ON *IX!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It is fairly certain that they wont be taking the standards of this language and perverting them.
The only question is, will they want (ala-AIM) open standards?
Just goes to show you that anything that big is gonna be buggy the first time around. The fact that it is microsoft is just something else to notice. :)
I wonder if someone else (AOL, Mindspring) had handeled it, if it would have come out differently?
People need to realize that although it is a huge thing, and totally incredible that Kasparov would do it, it IS the first time something like that had been tried.
The soiled few will always try to ruin it for the rest of us..
No, not FUD. I live and LOVE AMD's. I run all myhome computers on them. However, the ISP I work for doesnt have a single one as a server anymore, most of the ISP's nearby dont in fact. Around here, it is just widely known.
I thought it was a universal, maybe I was mistaken (about how many knew). But I have seen it myself. Servers that have been running off of AMD K6-2's seem to die after a much shorter (2-5 years) period of time than the corresponding P2/P3's.
PLEASE note, I am NOT knocking AMD's. They rock. I want to see how the Athlon's do. I just know from word of mouth among admin's here, and from experience, that AMD's for some reason (and no, i cant think of a single reason other than the heat-- k6-2's are *VERY* hot) seem to die quicker.
From the admin for foonet.net, he has run quite a few servers on them, and they *ALL* died. Now, his systems get attacked alot, but still...
Can I rebutt it? Heck yeah I can! I have been via email for the last couple of days. Here in town, FDT sponsors THREE IRC servers using nothing but linux. irc.gymnet.com, irc.aohell.org, and irc.seminole.net.
:)
I truly resent his implications. IRC runs best on linux. PERIOD.
Plus, his assertion about linux on low-end AMD's is insane. AMD K6's are notorious for being poor choices for linux, as for SOME reason they die after two years or so under the strain.
Linux is a real man's OS, and needs to be treated as such.
I use to have TONS of respect for Dvorak. I waited monthly for the "Word of John". Never again.
>>"He should have told us," Simon Hakim, a Temple University economist, said when told yesterday of the financing. "I would not have >>participated if I had known. It's not right to use people as a vehicle for special interests."
>Which indicates that the study was no way biased >by Microsoft's funding of the published results
Ah, but it doesnt indicate that. Would the gentleman in charge have been quite as willing without the airfare, the 150k fat payment? I dont think so.
>I also agree with the last comment in the article about the DOJ trial being used by Netscape as a last ditch effort because they couldn't >compete in a real market.
Oh absolutely. How could they? They were the leader, and Microsoft came in and gave away for free a competing product and bundled it with 90% of the consumer market PC's. There isnt any inherent advantage there, no...
"REAL" markets dont exist.