I have attended DefCon, and this doesnt sound anywhere near better.
DefCon is a great chance to meet and greet, but it is also a very cool place to learn anything and everything.
As to using it for the SPECIFIC purpose of testing a piece of software, I must say that the Capture The Flag network is the place to do that, and that NO network will EVER come close to presenting the level of attack that network does.
This was actually answered on the list, and summarized in a Kernel Traffic. As Alan Cox put it "It would be horribly difficult".
While it sounds simple enough, as they said in the KT, the "replacement" of the VM was no small feat. It took 170 patches, which touched a very large percentage of the kernel.
Imagine doing so TWICE (or more) and trying to code 'around' the issues for each.
No.
This way madness lies. While it is a nice idea, the simple truth is that it doesnt belong in 2.4.
2.5 should have branched the second that the patches were considered. Linus didnt want to deal with bitching about 2.4 not being "good enough" and was impatient.
So be it. The differences between Linus' and Alan's kernel trees (other than the VM) is growing VERY small this week, and will probably be 'close-enough' for a handoff within the next two weeks.
The only question is which VM will end up in the 2.4 series. (NOT when Linus hands it over, but when Alan begins his releases of it).
I would not be shocked to see Alan disagree with Linus, and stay with the 2.4.x (x10) VM, and I also wouldnt be shocked to see him agree with Linus and use the new VM.
As to the patch on install idea, it is actually also discussed for kbuild in the 2.5 series.
2.5 will be very excited, if we can only get Linus to get working on it, instead of muddying the stable-series water!!
Well, actually there is... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. [GPL 2.0, section 3, paragraph 2, here [gnu.org]]
The preferred form of the Linux kernel includes an up to date changelog.
No, thats your interpretation. Linus releases NUMEROUS patches without a changelog attached for each change. In addition, there is no EXPLICIT requirement for a changelog, which is what would be needed to override other issues.
Because that is what the standard requires. Imap doesnt lock the mailbox, so you can have two IMAP clients accessing the mailbox simultaneously. As such, you could easily use say, Outlook, and its wonderful rules for filtering, while viewing in something simple like pine.
Since it is doing so, it needs to verify the mails against one another.
Sadly, the IMAP standard does not outline a use of things like md5sums and order lists.
In other words, its easy, and it fits the standard.
As one of the ultra-rare individuals who actually really enjoyed your character, I have had some questions over the years.
Questions like:
Did you ever get to see Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troy) nude?
Was there any behind the scenes booty-calls between cast members that you are comfortable releasing?
How difficult is it for a new actor to get a recurring role on a Star Trek series 'generally'?
More importantly to me..
Would you ever do a movie with Bruce Campbell? If so, have you let him and his people know?
And finally,
I know you were happy to leave the show, and I am glad you retained your integrity and ability to do what you wanted. However, I have often wondered, did you like the WAY you were written off the show?
Read the article all the way before submitting, sheesh. While its in vogue to knock Verizon Wireless, notice that it is not by any means limited to them.
Numerous times they mention the AT&T connection, and the URDigital.com connection. In fact, URDigital is the name of a folder specifically listed in the IRC transcript.
This looks to be a multiple vendor issue, not limited to one company.
Someone coming out tommorow with the solution for *all* of these. For everyone. And having it verified.
While cool, and prestigious, and definitely worth money, the government would SURELY seek to either supress his findings, or acquire them.
If someone came up with an entirely new number theory solution that allowed easy factoring of huge numbers (ala Sneakers), the government would indeed be something to fear.
In programming there is the principle of "avoided failure".
You implicitly learn (get) all of the research the previous programmer did to get to that point. All the different failures he went through you can avoid, because you know what he ended up using.
By doing so, you "take" all of his work as yours. All his testing, all his troubleshooting, JUST by lookign at the code and knowing what he used.
Pine's FAQ SPECIFICALLY mentions that you cannot take a previous release and use it under a different license. Their original license (all the way back BEFORE 3.91) had the intent of making it non-compatible with the GPL.
Sadly, pine is a program that needs to be cloned from the ground up!
1. Any plans to release (note I didnt say open) lotus notes for linux? This is a very strong product, very popular in corporate circles (even now!), and would help in the fight for legitimacy in the eyes of corporate managers.
2. Any plans to open ANY of the technologies in OS/2 to the linux/open source world? Since it is not a currently supported product (although that seems to change from year to year), it shouldnt hurt the bottom line too much. Any technology you can offer from previous OS efforts are going to be helpful.
Thanks for answering these questions, as I have been wondering about them for months.
In the ORIGINAL license he gave permission..
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors"
Then he CHANGED/ADDED/CLARIFIED with..
"Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent."
So, he didnt want the original changed, or forked.
But now he is saying..
"The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for whatever purpose they desire"
SO, in order, you can do what you want, as long as you credit. But no modifications. The license is intended to include modifications.
WHAT?!?!
WHICH IS IT??
Are modifications allowed or not? Yes or no? Its really that simple.
He is in that very hard place where he can either include ALL of bsd, or NONE. Yes, he and Theo are having a spat. Fine, I respect both of their feelings.
And if he wants to have a closed source license, so be it. But just be *CLEAR*. Choose a license. Just one, and STICK to it.
This last statement didnt clarify any more than the last statement did. It has completely confused things.
However, he has now SPECIFICALLY given permission to modify the version in freebsd's cvs.
I would grab that code, fork it, and turn it into OpenIPF.
This all comes down to wanting to help FreeBSD and NetBSD but not Open, because of how they do things. Well guess what? Thats not how BSD works. You either give FREELY, or you can use the GPL and go to the linux side of the fence.
Quit "clarifying" and CHOOSE an existing license so we know EXACTLY what to do with your code.
After reading one of the longest responses to a review that I have EVER read -- and I am no slouch when it comes to such things -- I feel compelled to respond to the author.
First, any author should be comfortable with criticism of their work, fair or not. By publishing the work, you accept that as not a possibility, but a true expectation.
The author clearly does not feel comfortable with the criticism. That to me pretty much ends the conversation. It is seriously immature, and highly improfessional.
However, to do some justice to this book of a response, let me quickly hit a few points:
1. The author stretches SO far with "no meat" and tma-one, as to be silly. Yes, I said silly. I am intimately familiar with Kubrick's humor, with Clarke's style, and this just doesn't fit it. It is almost without a doubt taking something from the movie to fit an agenda.
In what context has the Trojan horse EVER been mentioned as having no meat? Or any emphasis of such? Is there any need to emphasize that? no? Kubrick was no slouch at choosing anagrams and subtle humor, the author admits, but the author seems to give him almost god-like credit for subtlety.
He didnt mean for anyone to 'find' TMA-1.. it didn't mean ANYTHING.
2. The bathroom tiles. Oh please. What silly rubbish. The author makes NO strong linking except nice guessing like "do you know about bathroom tiles of the 20's".. With such strong evidence, why did Cliff ever doubt him?
In short, I wont go on, but the author isnt using strong logic. Looking after the fact, with no input from the authors, or directors clearly doesnt lead to alot of insight. Instead, it leads to alot of inductive reasoning, and logic jumps.
Jumps right off the short side of silly.
Dont even get me started with the "18 months instead of 9 cause god is twice man". WHAAAA?? Where else did that come from but your mind?
Some of the author's analysis is DEAD-ON. Approximately the first half of this response, in my mind. However as it goes on, it gets less and less beleivable, and more and more a stretch of any logical mind to accept.
1) I agree. I didnt say it was realistic. However, it does entertain, and sell. I enjoy watching Seven, I enjoyed watching
2) I agree. Wholeheartedly. I didnt say get over-balanced. I said keep escalating, and keep getting new technology, which should be a key point of a early-time-frame show.
3) I disagree. I *loved* the all-out battle with some 30 different races near the end of the series. What a way to go out. That was a VERY sexy battle.
4) I didnt *ever* say less conflict. I mention sex ONCE and the rest of the post is technology and conflict, you just focus on it.
Yes, sex is a trek tradition, but it has been watered down, and under-emphasized. I wanna see stuff like farscape and other sci-fi chan shows where sex isnt just a thought, its a yummy plotline.
Just my opinion, which differs slightly from yours.
1. Great battle scenes. LOTS of them. Explosions and death are *requirements*. Thats reality when you colide things.
2. Politics. Lying. Intrigue.
3. Sex, or at least the *distinct* impression and hint of it. Includes outfits (see Seven of Nine)
4. Flawed characters with growth. Who didnt love watching Han Solo grow to accept Princess Leia?
5. Villians we can fear instinctively. Klingons (TOS) were *plain mean*. Ferrengi (TNG) were greedy bastards that would sell you into slavery for a buck. The borg take over your BODY, and keep your mind hostage. Romulans were ALWAYS weak because there wasnt an instinctive fear attached to them.
--
Now, the question becomes what are they going to do that will work? Things they cant use:
1. Holodeck - occurs somewhere between TOS and TNG, definitely after the time period this is set in.
2. "Ablative Armor", "Quantum Torpedos", and other war tech - All came during or after TNG
3. Borg - If the show has *any* hope of keeping fans happy they WONT appear. Picard and his crew encountered them first, WELL after TOS, and the show canon says Borg *did not* get to our space before that.
4. Q - No. Just, no.
What can they do instead?
How about doing the things that geeks *love* and they havent done yet. That would be a change. Like oh, grabbing new technology, and making it a prominant part of the show in subsequent shows!
In Stargate SG-1, the asp handgun is *really* cool, and happened after the first episode, what a concept!
In ST:DSN, they added the cloak to the "nice little ship" worf loved so. In ST:VOY, they add ablative armor in the second (?) episode, but *never* mention it again.
The addition of new stuff to kick aliens butts with keeps the battles FRESH from week to week. Last time the klingons almost killed us! But THIS time we have technology-X!
I really have no idea what they could use instead of the borg. I really dont know if they can even have replicators, due to the time it is set at.
I just hope we get to see very HUMAN dialogue and reactions. I wanna see the ship get bigger, and badder. I wanna see the captain get plain PISSED OFF. I wanna see them actually stick to the canon timeline mostly.
But most of all, I want -- finally -- an explanation of the klingon head ridges. That was *such* a funny cop-out, and NOW is the time to address it and make fans VERY happy.
First, lets tackle your claim. Your argument is that "he should, because it is right".
That is 100% your *opinion*. Some find the casual nature of this site to be a strength, a drawing point.
Some would argue that it shows that you can be inarticulate, inaccurate, and "unprofessional", and yet own/run the most powerful and popular nerd portal on the net today.
"And its not like/. stories are time sensitive". Right, things like Viruses, Worms, Microsoft vulnerabilities, new kernel releases, all have no time sensitivity. None.
"It literally takes a few seconds".
That part, sure. How many stories have to go by legal before posting? How many stories do they reject (in previous interviews supposedly anywhere from 50->150 to *one*). How long does he spend coding the next release of slashcode, a story that you COULD be commenting on, as a momentous occasion..?
You insult him, you attack him, and the simple truth is *YOU* just dont get it.
A group of geeks brought a single weblog to the top 100 websites *IN THE WORLD*, and you complain about how they do things?
He answered your comment DIRECTLY in the story. If you want that level of professionalism, GO TO CNN. There is a reason it isnt here. He has *BETTER THINGS TO DO*.
Whether YOU rank those higher or not doesnt matter one itsy, teeny, little bit.
If you want that level of professionalism, go build your own weblog, work on it for years, release new versions open source, get millions of readers, AND spell check, AND make a living doing it.
Until then, get your sorry, offtopic, whiny self out of this bastion of bad spelling and great news.
Real men code, Real men run websites, all others just CRITICIZE.
Where is your 2.0 release of code running one of the most popular sites on the net?
Oh right, you were too busy spending time criticizing. To some, its a matter of pride to code, to run a website. You give off a strong impression of sloppy opinionated rants.
But thats just my opinion, and I state it as such.
If IBM would spend the massive money needed, and release OS/2 opensource they could TRULY speed linux adoption. Better, to save money, they could just make a window manager (with *REAL* fonts dear god..) that works like OS/2 does for X windows.
With the release of a prominent, visible, powerful desktop operating system that WAS proven to be powerful, they could change the game in a big way.
I can hear all the arguments saying "Well, they lost the first time on their NATIVE system". And its a valid point.
However, it is an entirely different fight. IBM would be ADDING what they have (a working desktop paradigm/technology), and using what linux has (GREAT device drivers and solid support in 2.4 for the latest technology).
In short, since IBM is investing so much money in linux, mostly as a server solution, why not go for the long shot and invest in the biggest battle of them all. The desktop.
Imagine a computer room setup AS a farraday cage. That wouldnt be impossible to implement, just setup a mantrap outside the room, ie, one door closes before the other opens, and you have entry/exit AND farraday.
We moved into a house of rather poor wiring and capacities. Our intention was to have DSL in every room, and also to have a dining room that could handle up to 13 players with a full computer system. That room didnt have sufficient power (in amps), so we ran a new power circuit. We also rewired every room in the house with Keystone Jacks, and cat5. Every room had a networking jack, a cable jack (standard coax, but the best we could find), and a cat5 cable for telephone.
In each of the bedrooms, we also had a second networking jack, for a private network we never did set up.
To do so, a *wondefully awesome* friend came out and did the majority of the work. We cut through plaster and slat walls, we dropped lines thru the ceiling.
We set a de-marcation point in the attic, with a punchdown block, for the telephone lines.
When all was said and done, the DSL installer came, and upon checking it out, was rather shocked. He said he had never seen such a setup.
We went from crackling phone lines, and 30k dialups to 50k (EVERY SINGLE TIME) dialups, and when DSL got there, we maxed out the connection.
The installer said he had also never seen a connection get full bandwidth usage.
Needless to say, we loved that house, and had many gaming sessions from that room.
Sadly, I had to move to pursue my career, but my friends are still there, although only for a bit longer.
The point is, cat5 and patience can make for an excellent house. The only thing I can imagine doing differently is to maybe add speaker wire, and use conduits for the wires.
And I would definitely reward my friend better next time. (Thanks Simba!)
If openpackages becomes a defacto standard for *BSD, would your company consider switching from RPM to it, in order to allow the holy grail of "one package for all free/open (definition may vary) systems" ?
This of course presuming that upon reaching that status, it has features that are comparable or better than rpm. (Which the current FreeBSD ports/pkg system CERTAINLY has acheived -- wouldnt you agree?)
Further, have you considered switching to the apt-get/deb system? It is the number one reason most people seem to switch to debian, and in every way I know of seems to be superior technically to rpm.
As a packager of some products, I have encountered the difficulty that is present packaging for RPM.
First, a small rant. The primary "ideal" source of information for how to package rpm's is of course the book "Maximum RPM".
However, this book is not available online in html format. It is however available in postscript which is easily read in X windows on a redhat machine.
However, *some* of us dont use X windows, and for us select few, we cant view it. I have however, converted it from that format to text, losing much of the styling and formatting.
In the spirit of open source, dont you feel that it is completely BACKWARDS to have a open source tool, where the documentation that allows developers to package using it is proprietary, non-open, and subject to licensing restrictions?!!?
The man page doesnt even *mention* half the creation commandline options, and I think that was on purpose.
Compunding the issue is the fact that the book has not been updated in years, let alone since the coming of rpm4!
As a developer, I would love to hear why you dont want me to package using your system. The reasons outlined above lead me to that conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
I have attended DefCon, and this doesnt sound anywhere near better.
DefCon is a great chance to meet and greet, but it is also a very cool place to learn anything and everything.
As to using it for the SPECIFIC purpose of testing a piece of software, I must say that the Capture The Flag network is the place to do that, and that NO network will EVER come close to presenting the level of attack that network does.
Ever.
This was actually answered on the list, and summarized in a Kernel Traffic. As Alan Cox put it "It would be horribly difficult".
While it sounds simple enough, as they said in the KT, the "replacement" of the VM was no small feat. It took 170 patches, which touched a very large percentage of the kernel.
Imagine doing so TWICE (or more) and trying to code 'around' the issues for each.
No.
This way madness lies. While it is a nice idea, the simple truth is that it doesnt belong in 2.4.
2.5 should have branched the second that the patches were considered. Linus didnt want to deal with bitching about 2.4 not being "good enough" and was impatient.
So be it. The differences between Linus' and Alan's kernel trees (other than the VM) is growing VERY small this week, and will probably be 'close-enough' for a handoff within the next two weeks.
The only question is which VM will end up in the 2.4 series. (NOT when Linus hands it over, but when Alan begins his releases of it).
I would not be shocked to see Alan disagree with Linus, and stay with the 2.4.x (x10) VM, and I also wouldnt be shocked to see him agree with Linus and use the new VM.
As to the patch on install idea, it is actually also discussed for kbuild in the 2.5 series.
2.5 will be very excited, if we can only get Linus to get working on it, instead of muddying the stable-series water!!
Its a troll.. no real links here.. move along.
The preferred form of the Linux kernel includes an up to date changelog.
No, thats your interpretation. Linus releases NUMEROUS patches without a changelog attached for each change. In addition, there is no EXPLICIT requirement for a changelog, which is what would be needed to override other issues.
Because that is what the standard requires. Imap doesnt lock the mailbox, so you can have two IMAP clients accessing the mailbox simultaneously. As such, you could easily use say, Outlook, and its wonderful rules for filtering, while viewing in something simple like pine.
Since it is doing so, it needs to verify the mails against one another.
Sadly, the IMAP standard does not outline a use of things like md5sums and order lists.
In other words, its easy, and it fits the standard.
As one of the ultra-rare individuals who actually really enjoyed your character, I have had some questions over the years.
Questions like:
Did you ever get to see Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troy) nude?
Was there any behind the scenes booty-calls between cast members that you are comfortable releasing?
How difficult is it for a new actor to get a recurring role on a Star Trek series 'generally'?
More importantly to me..
Would you ever do a movie with Bruce Campbell? If so, have you let him and his people know?
And finally,
I know you were happy to leave the show, and I am glad you retained your integrity and ability to do what you wanted. However, I have often wondered, did you like the WAY you were written off the show?
In your FAQ, there is a question about Ashley Judd:
"Is it true that you were really Ashley Judd's first onscreen kiss, and you ruined her for the rest of her life?"
To which you reply:
"Yep. It is 100% true. Ashley Judd played Robin Lefler, in the episode "The Game", and Uncle Willie went to bootytown"
Now, let's be clear here. You "knew" her in a biblical sense?
Seeing as how she is one of the most attractive and emotional actresses in Hollywood, what was the experience like back then?
Just wanted some clarification..
Feel free to contact me. There are motions to make it happen already.
Read the article all the way before submitting, sheesh. While its in vogue to knock Verizon Wireless, notice that it is not by any means limited to them.
Numerous times they mention the AT&T connection, and the URDigital.com connection. In fact, URDigital is the name of a folder specifically listed in the IRC transcript.
This looks to be a multiple vendor issue, not limited to one company.
These views are mine, not my employers.
Someone coming out tommorow with the solution for *all* of these. For everyone. And having it verified.
While cool, and prestigious, and definitely worth money, the government would SURELY seek to either supress his findings, or acquire them.
If someone came up with an entirely new number theory solution that allowed easy factoring of huge numbers (ala Sneakers), the government would indeed be something to fear.
Not to mention, very few secrets would be safe.
Just an interesting thought for a boring day..
No, its very real.
In programming there is the principle of "avoided failure".
You implicitly learn (get) all of the research the previous programmer did to get to that point. All the different failures he went through you can avoid, because you know what he ended up using.
By doing so, you "take" all of his work as yours. All his testing, all his troubleshooting, JUST by lookign at the code and knowing what he used.
Makes a little sense.
SSH began with a bsd-ish license, NOT a gpl license. It was then forked when they decided to get draconian with their licensing, and prices.
Thus was born OpenSSH, a truly bsd-licensed piece of code that rocks.
Pine's FAQ SPECIFICALLY mentions that you cannot take a previous release and use it under a different license. Their original license (all the way back BEFORE 3.91) had the intent of making it non-compatible with the GPL.
Sadly, pine is a program that needs to be cloned from the ground up!
1. Any plans to release (note I didnt say open) lotus notes for linux? This is a very strong product, very popular in corporate circles (even now!), and would help in the fight for legitimacy in the eyes of corporate managers.
2. Any plans to open ANY of the technologies in OS/2 to the linux/open source world? Since it is not a currently supported product (although that seems to change from year to year), it shouldnt hurt the bottom line too much. Any technology you can offer from previous OS efforts are going to be helpful.
Thanks for answering these questions, as I have been wondering about them for months.
Okay,
In the ORIGINAL license he gave permission..
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors"
Then he CHANGED/ADDED/CLARIFIED with..
"Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent."
So, he didnt want the original changed, or forked.
But now he is saying..
"The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for whatever purpose they desire"
SO, in order, you can do what you want, as long as you credit. But no modifications. The license is intended to include modifications.
WHAT?!?!
WHICH IS IT??
Are modifications allowed or not? Yes or no? Its really that simple.
He is in that very hard place where he can either include ALL of bsd, or NONE. Yes, he and Theo are having a spat. Fine, I respect both of their feelings.
And if he wants to have a closed source license, so be it. But just be *CLEAR*. Choose a license. Just one, and STICK to it.
This last statement didnt clarify any more than the last statement did. It has completely confused things.
However, he has now SPECIFICALLY given permission to modify the version in freebsd's cvs.
I would grab that code, fork it, and turn it into OpenIPF.
This all comes down to wanting to help FreeBSD and NetBSD but not Open, because of how they do things. Well guess what? Thats not how BSD works. You either give FREELY, or you can use the GPL and go to the linux side of the fence.
Quit "clarifying" and CHOOSE an existing license so we know EXACTLY what to do with your code.
After reading one of the longest responses to a review that I have EVER read -- and I am no slouch when it comes to such things -- I feel compelled to respond to the author.
t he-roaring-twenties-that-kills-man-and-has-an-18-m onth-gestation?
First, any author should be comfortable with criticism of their work, fair or not. By publishing the work, you accept that as not a possibility, but a true expectation.
The author clearly does not feel comfortable with the criticism. That to me pretty much ends the conversation. It is seriously immature, and highly improfessional.
However, to do some justice to this book of a response, let me quickly hit a few points:
1. The author stretches SO far with "no meat" and tma-one, as to be silly. Yes, I said silly. I am intimately familiar with Kubrick's humor, with Clarke's style, and this just doesn't fit it. It is almost without a doubt taking something from the movie to fit an agenda.
In what context has the Trojan horse EVER been mentioned as having no meat? Or any emphasis of such? Is there any need to emphasize that? no? Kubrick was no slouch at choosing anagrams and subtle humor, the author admits, but the author seems to give him almost god-like credit for subtlety.
He didnt mean for anyone to 'find' TMA-1.. it didn't mean ANYTHING.
2. The bathroom tiles. Oh please. What silly rubbish. The author makes NO strong linking except nice guessing like "do you know about bathroom tiles of the 20's".. With such strong evidence, why did Cliff ever doubt him?
In short, I wont go on, but the author isnt using strong logic. Looking after the fact, with no input from the authors, or directors clearly doesnt lead to alot of insight. Instead, it leads to alot of inductive reasoning, and logic jumps.
Jumps right off the short side of silly.
Dont even get me started with the "18 months instead of 9 cause god is twice man". WHAAAA?? Where else did that come from but your mind?
Some of the author's analysis is DEAD-ON. Approximately the first half of this response, in my mind. However as it goes on, it gets less and less beleivable, and more and more a stretch of any logical mind to accept.
Subtle? Yes. Humor? Sure. overman-twice-god-three-anus-bathroom-tiles-from-
I dont think so.
I find alot to agree with from Cliff's original posting, and very little here to agree to.
1) I agree. I didnt say it was realistic. However, it does entertain, and sell. I enjoy watching Seven, I enjoyed watching
2) I agree. Wholeheartedly. I didnt say get over-balanced. I said keep escalating, and keep getting new technology, which should be a key point of a early-time-frame show.
3) I disagree. I *loved* the all-out battle with some 30 different races near the end of the series. What a way to go out. That was a VERY sexy battle.
4) I didnt *ever* say less conflict. I mention sex ONCE and the rest of the post is technology and conflict, you just focus on it.
Yes, sex is a trek tradition, but it has been watered down, and under-emphasized. I wanna see stuff like farscape and other sci-fi chan shows where sex isnt just a thought, its a yummy plotline.
Just my opinion, which differs slightly from yours.
The keys to good sci-fi, as I see them (opinion):
1. Great battle scenes. LOTS of them. Explosions and death are *requirements*. Thats reality when you colide things.
2. Politics. Lying. Intrigue.
3. Sex, or at least the *distinct* impression and hint of it. Includes outfits (see Seven of Nine)
4. Flawed characters with growth. Who didnt love watching Han Solo grow to accept Princess Leia?
5. Villians we can fear instinctively. Klingons (TOS) were *plain mean*. Ferrengi (TNG) were greedy bastards that would sell you into slavery for a buck. The borg take over your BODY, and keep your mind hostage. Romulans were ALWAYS weak because there wasnt an instinctive fear attached to them.
--
Now, the question becomes what are they going to do that will work? Things they cant use:
1. Holodeck - occurs somewhere between TOS and TNG, definitely after the time period this is set in.
2. "Ablative Armor", "Quantum Torpedos", and other war tech - All came during or after TNG
3. Borg - If the show has *any* hope of keeping fans happy they WONT appear. Picard and his crew encountered them first, WELL after TOS, and the show canon says Borg *did not* get to our space before that.
4. Q - No. Just, no.
What can they do instead?
How about doing the things that geeks *love* and they havent done yet. That would be a change. Like oh, grabbing new technology, and making it a prominant part of the show in subsequent shows!
In Stargate SG-1, the asp handgun is *really* cool, and happened after the first episode, what a concept!
In ST:DSN, they added the cloak to the "nice little ship" worf loved so. In ST:VOY, they add ablative armor in the second (?) episode, but *never* mention it again.
The addition of new stuff to kick aliens butts with keeps the battles FRESH from week to week. Last time the klingons almost killed us! But THIS time we have technology-X!
I really have no idea what they could use instead of the borg. I really dont know if they can even have replicators, due to the time it is set at.
I just hope we get to see very HUMAN dialogue and reactions. I wanna see the ship get bigger, and badder. I wanna see the captain get plain PISSED OFF. I wanna see them actually stick to the canon timeline mostly.
But most of all, I want -- finally -- an explanation of the klingon head ridges. That was *such* a funny cop-out, and NOW is the time to address it and make fans VERY happy.
Explain the damned ridges!
First, lets tackle your claim. Your argument is that "he should, because it is right".
/. stories are time sensitive". Right, things like Viruses, Worms, Microsoft vulnerabilities, new kernel releases, all have no time sensitivity. None.
That is 100% your *opinion*. Some find the casual nature of this site to be a strength, a drawing point.
Some would argue that it shows that you can be inarticulate, inaccurate, and "unprofessional", and yet own/run the most powerful and popular nerd portal on the net today.
"And its not like
"It literally takes a few seconds".
That part, sure. How many stories have to go by legal before posting? How many stories do they reject (in previous interviews supposedly anywhere from 50->150 to *one*). How long does he spend coding the next release of slashcode, a story that you COULD be commenting on, as a momentous occasion..?
You insult him, you attack him, and the simple truth is *YOU* just dont get it.
A group of geeks brought a single weblog to the top 100 websites *IN THE WORLD*, and you complain about how they do things?
He answered your comment DIRECTLY in the story. If you want that level of professionalism, GO TO CNN. There is a reason it isnt here. He has *BETTER THINGS TO DO*.
Whether YOU rank those higher or not doesnt matter one itsy, teeny, little bit.
If you want that level of professionalism, go build your own weblog, work on it for years, release new versions open source, get millions of readers, AND spell check, AND make a living doing it.
Until then, get your sorry, offtopic, whiny self out of this bastion of bad spelling and great news.
Real men code, Real men run websites, all others just CRITICIZE.
Where is your 2.0 release of code running one of the most popular sites on the net?
Oh right, you were too busy spending time criticizing. To some, its a matter of pride to code, to run a website. You give off a strong impression of sloppy opinionated rants.
But thats just my opinion, and I state it as such.
If IBM would spend the massive money needed, and release OS/2 opensource they could TRULY speed linux adoption. Better, to save money, they could just make a window manager (with *REAL* fonts dear god..) that works like OS/2 does for X windows.
With the release of a prominent, visible, powerful desktop operating system that WAS proven to be powerful, they could change the game in a big way.
I can hear all the arguments saying "Well, they lost the first time on their NATIVE system". And its a valid point.
However, it is an entirely different fight. IBM would be ADDING what they have (a working desktop paradigm/technology), and using what linux has (GREAT device drivers and solid support in 2.4 for the latest technology).
In short, since IBM is investing so much money in linux, mostly as a server solution, why not go for the long shot and invest in the biggest battle of them all. The desktop.
Imagine a computer room setup AS a farraday cage. That wouldnt be impossible to implement, just setup a mantrap outside the room, ie, one door closes before the other opens, and you have entry/exit AND farraday.
It *would* be rather nice.
We moved into a house of rather poor wiring and capacities. Our intention was to have DSL in every room, and also to have a dining room that could handle up to 13 players with a full computer system. That room didnt have sufficient power (in amps), so we ran a new power circuit. We also rewired every room in the house with Keystone Jacks, and cat5. Every room had a networking jack, a cable jack (standard coax, but the best we could find), and a cat5 cable for telephone.
In each of the bedrooms, we also had a second networking jack, for a private network we never did set up.
To do so, a *wondefully awesome* friend came out and did the majority of the work. We cut through plaster and slat walls, we dropped lines thru the ceiling.
We set a de-marcation point in the attic, with a punchdown block, for the telephone lines.
When all was said and done, the DSL installer came, and upon checking it out, was rather shocked. He said he had never seen such a setup.
We went from crackling phone lines, and 30k dialups to 50k (EVERY SINGLE TIME) dialups, and when DSL got there, we maxed out the connection.
The installer said he had also never seen a connection get full bandwidth usage.
Needless to say, we loved that house, and had many gaming sessions from that room.
Sadly, I had to move to pursue my career, but my friends are still there, although only for a bit longer.
The point is, cat5 and patience can make for an excellent house. The only thing I can imagine doing differently is to maybe add speaker wire, and use conduits for the wires.
And I would definitely reward my friend better next time. (Thanks Simba!)
His resume contains an AWESOME inside joke about Network Associates .. or did they say Software Associates...
1995-1996
Software Associates
Trenton, NJ
Chief Technology Officer
Assisted in removing disks from damaged disk drives.
If openpackages becomes a defacto standard for *BSD, would your company consider switching from RPM to it, in order to allow the holy grail of "one package for all free/open (definition may vary) systems" ?
This of course presuming that upon reaching that status, it has features that are comparable or better than rpm. (Which the current FreeBSD ports/pkg system CERTAINLY has acheived -- wouldnt you agree?)
Further, have you considered switching to the apt-get/deb system? It is the number one reason most people seem to switch to debian, and in every way I know of seems to be superior technically to rpm.
As a packager of some products, I have encountered the difficulty that is present packaging for RPM.
First, a small rant. The primary "ideal" source of information for how to package rpm's is of course the book "Maximum RPM".
However, this book is not available online in html format. It is however available in postscript which is easily read in X windows on a redhat machine.
However, *some* of us dont use X windows, and for us select few, we cant view it. I have however, converted it from that format to text, losing much of the styling and formatting.
In the spirit of open source, dont you feel that it is completely BACKWARDS to have a open source tool, where the documentation that allows developers to package using it is proprietary, non-open, and subject to licensing restrictions?!!?
The man page doesnt even *mention* half the creation commandline options, and I think that was on purpose.
Compunding the issue is the fact that the book has not been updated in years, let alone since the coming of rpm4!
As a developer, I would love to hear why you dont want me to package using your system. The reasons outlined above lead me to that conclusion.