I could argue that since OSS can only make money from support it means they will never build apps to be 100% user friendly and may intentionally keep things confusing from a user's perspective.
I as a consultant; I use Windows XP and 2003 on the MS side of the house and CentOS, RHEL, Fedora or SuSE on the Linux side. I know both systems for 10+ years,, more so I know both types of sys admins.
Windows admins after having had their balls busted in the past are using better methods to track patch management with things like SMS, WSUS or 3rd party tools. MS is also taking security far more seriously than others like say... Apple who gets a pass. Spyware and AV software is getting better, firewalls are being deployed for added security at the edge of networks and scan more than IPs, protocols and ports these days, with many that now actively scan the contents of packets coming in.
While to be honest Unix admins have always been lazy, they tend not to have scheduled patch periods (most fly by the seat of their pants despite claiming otherwise), they tend not to track what is installed or running on systems as closely, and they tend to have this attitude that their OS and apps are superior and in the case of universities in many cases they are still using public IPs.
Windows Security being humbled in the past, has something to prove and that is why it is getting to be so good now.
Apple having never been seriously called out, continues to meander with slow responses and updates.
Linux while progressing on the security front with kernel and application updates as well as new methodologies like SELinux, may face challenges not because of the OS failings, but because of lazy admins who do not keep their systems or skills up to date or noobs who in the process of learning expose themselves (not that way).
In addition if you are charging somebody for software you write, the person paying has a right to complain if it has security problems, but if you are giving software away, nobody has a right to complain and if they do, you can say "fix it yourself freetard".
Linux is getting a taste of what MS had several years back, that being "with a bigger market share comes increased motivation to crack/hack". Finally, if a OSS project is abandoned that you are dependent on, and yes, they get abandoned and die more often then they success, you can get stuck relying on the related libraries, kernel or whatever. Application abandonment means 1). You could get stuck with an app that opens you to a security risk or 2). Requires you to run another app that opens you to a security risk.
If you ask me, I bet this organization lives off of government grants, my question is so what. Also nice to know that/. now published information shown 2 weeks ago on the Cobert Report.
The President has the power over the military if there is a war or not, so the "there is no war, therefore the President has no power" arguement doesn't work.
To quote you "These aren't POWs.", so by your own statement the Geneva Convention does not apply.
To quote you when you say the Constitution doesn't apply just "to USA citizens"; I can prove you wrong without having to go past the first paragraph of the Constitution for the Preamble says We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
So you are wrong, it says it was established by the people of the United States for themselves their children in the United States of America. It doesn't say for the people of Europe or Asia, or the world, it says by the people of the United States, for the United States.
Before I school you again, do yourself and this country a favor and read the Constitution, recognize you are ignorant of the Constitution, that your mind was muddled by bad teachers who gave you a misguided representation of what the Constitution was, start giving the Constition the respect it deserves (i.e. follow what is says, not what you wish it said) and do not change it through self imposed ignorance or twisted interpretation, but only through the Amendment process.
Umm, I was debating that people like you are wrong when they say courts should be able to hear cases on enemy combatants.
You jump in and say "show me the part where the Constitution says courts cannot get involved".
I do that, hense I won the debate.
Then you come back with "Well there are parts of the Constitution that say other things". I am well aware of that, but the arguement/debate that was ongoing was "The President has the power to decide how to handle people captured in Afghanistan or if the courts have the ability to step it.
So let me say it again, I won the debate, unless you can site where in the Constitution it says the Judical branch has powers relating to hwo this country conducts war.
I already sighted that the Constitution gives the President the role to run the war. I also sighted Amendment 11 that shows how courts cannot hear Gitmo cases and why.
Others on/. have sighted how the Geneva Convention does not apply to Taliban and Al Queda fighters and why.
So let me repeat I won the debate. I ask of you what you asked of me, sight the Constitution and stay on target, I have proven "courts have no power when it comes to Gitmo or foreign fighters." Saying Congress makes treaties is off topic as we are not talking about the Legislative branch. Also the Constition itself puts federal law and the Constitution above treaties.
Article II, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States... [unrelated, but recommend you read for yourself]
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
My point is this, regardless, the courts have no Constitution ground to get involved, the President has tremendous Constitutional power for war and the Congress has a tiny piece.
So lets assume your claims are correct and you run to the courts; well my response has nothing to do with your claim, my response is "You are clearly in the wrong for the Constitution tells us that you are.", courts have no power to rule in this area.
So shut up already, I have been hearing it for 5-6 years and you ftards are to ignorant to understand what the debate is about. It is not about should those people be there, it is about, who has the power to conduct wars in out nation. Since you don't have time to debate what to do when the enemy is storming the hill, they founders thought it insane to have Congress run wars. Since you do not want unelected people running the war, you do not want judges doing it, so what part of government is setup to have a single decision point with an elected official that is geared towards such a task? If you say "anybody but Bush, you are an idiot" if you say "Bush" you are an idiot, if you say "The President, even if I do not like the current President", you are a winner and smarter then the average/.er.
The only way you could win this debate is if you found some text in the Constitution that says courts can do this (and no such text exists, if you get some college professor's interpretation of what the founders thought or sight some case law, you are an idiot.
Has to be in the Constitution or one of its Amendments, if not there, then you have to look at Federal Law, but since it is there, the debate ends, Presidency has power, courts don't.
Courts are intentionally weak, they cannot make law (yet they often try and do), they can tax (yet in one case a Judge reset a towns taxes), they cannot sight foreign laws (yet several of the S.C. Justices have done so), they cannot get involved here.
I think if fascism does rise up in the US, it is unlikely to come from a public official who must get elected and is either a member of a larger body voting body or at best can serve 8 years. No, I believe fascism is more likely to come from unelected judges with lifelong appointments, who rule on their goals/beliefs, rather than on the law.
Thanks for the information, after reading about the Geneva Convention, it is clear that the detainees do not satisfy the requirements in the Geneva Convention.
Umm, those people were not picked up by the police in our country. They were picked up by our military overseas, many times in combat circumstances.
You do recognize that under your logic (or lack there of), every German officer, soldier and spy picked up during WWII, could not be held, without first being read their rights, shipped to the US, and then having before a Judge and been convicted of fighting in the German army.
When you consider to hold the trial, we would obviously had to ship back US, British or French fighters to testify (and thus hurt our war effort) and you also consider that the capture happened in a war zone where defense lawyers could argue that destruction of evidence prevents a fair trial; well, then you would recognize how illogical your comment and the views that produced it are.
You should be aware that your argument lacks any Constitutional foundation. The Constitution states very clearly the Judicial branch doesn't deal in foreign matters or things that happen outside the US. The Constitution puts that power largely in the Executive and to some extent the Legislative branches, but clearly says the Judical has no power in this area.
But with Linux you can define what programs need elevated permission to run and if they ask for PW or not. Also you have option to elevate and stay elevated if you have serveral higher level tasks to do. I have not doubt that Vista will get it right, but the fact that in the current release I cannot tell it "always trust this app" sucks. Also the fact that even if I have full admin rights I still have to deal with prompts or turn UAC off completely sucks. What Vista should do is allow you to run UAC, but exclude select programs or users, sorta like umm Linux. Also Novell and Red Hat support Open Source, Ubuntu just takes, you should consider switching to a different distro is simply Debian (whose users pretty much do all the work so ubuntu can rip them off).
Actually this is a clear case of where courts have ruled that speech can be limited. Let me explain. It is illegal to pass a law that says NAZIs cannot hold a rally in your small town, because that singles out a specific group. But it is perfectly exceptable for the same town to pass a law that says you must keep your events below a certain db after 10PM to 6AM. Why? Because such a law applies to all parties and groups equally. So before you say his freedom of speech was violated, ask yourself did he get less time or was he unfairly treated in comparison to others waiting to ask questions? That answer is "no", they had to stop at a minute, he had to stop at a minute.
OK, so now the observations:
1). The police failed to give a reasonable warning of what would happen if he did not leave and they seemed to be a bit excessive, nothing to sue over, they should drop charges, kid should not press his luck and let it go.
2). Kerry is not a leader, a leader would not have mumbled (and he did mumble), a leader would have been assertive and said "Hey, police knock it off, I am going to answer his question provided he is quite and willing to let the next person ask their question when I am done, if at any point he resumes being loud and disorderly, then you have permission to take him out side and prevent him from reentering, no need to beat him, no need to charge him, his punishment is just that he will have to leave."
3). It shows how weak people are and why America is becoming a land of pussies. Listen, I think it is insane to suggest that Kerry won on 2004, hell I think it is insane that people think Gore won in 2000. I think that kid was a bit off balance shall we say, but unlike all those liberals in the crowd or the old women who talked rather then acted, I would have gotten up and acted, I would have gotten between the cops and the kid and asked both the be cool. I have been beaten a few times by either the police or the civilian in such situations, but I act when I think things are out of line, I believe the cops did not have to go so hard after him, I believe they are pressing a harsh charge of resisting arrest, when they could have let him go. Again, they guy is an idiot, Kerry lost in '04, Bush one fair, and it is a libertarian who hates liberals that would have stood up in that room, while all the liberals sat idle, which is what liberals do, sit and do nothing, sit and bitch and sometimes smoke stuff and play in a band.
Can somebody explain to me what all the hype around Ubuntu is about?
SuSE is much closer to being a desktop OS then Ubuntu and it has a centralized easy to follow point and click control panel with yast2 that is nice for people like my mom (who is exactly the type of user Linux needs to focus on to gain desktop share).
Personally I think Fedora as well as RHEL/CentOS have much more intuitive commands than Debian based distros and while apt-get is nice, yum is also nice.
Finally we need to think about who makes a distro before getting behind it. SuSE/Redhat write and contribute code back to the Open Source Community while Ubuntu just takes packages from Debian and slaps them together. Where will Linux be if Ubuntu gains such a big market share it puts Redhat, SuSE and/or Debian out of business? Nowhere, because without the big guns, Linux would start to die. But if Ubuntu just disappeared tomorrow these three core contributing groups would continue advancing Linux.
I leave IBM out as IBM does not have it's own distribution, but do you think that IBM is more effective working along side partners like Novell and Red Hat or do you think IBM is better off going it alone as Ubuntu's code monkey?
I am beginning to think ubuntu means "We take, others give and recent Linux converts love us for it." Or maybe it means "College kids us us because our name sounds like it we are anti-man and = anti-Western culture; plus we put naked chicks on our first release." or maybe it is "Use us to kill the distros that got Linux here, we're only in it for the quick buck anyways."
I am posting this laptop on a $175 Thinkpad T22 I purchased on ebay for $175 with a Cisco 350 wireless card I found dumpster diving.
Specs:
512 MB Ram
900 MHz PIII
20 GB HD
10/100 NIC
Wireless B Cisco card
Fedora Core 5
CDRW/DVD ROM
4x Batteries
3x power supplies
2x port replicators
So I guess my though process is something like this:
1). Couldn't we give poor kids decent sub $100 laptops by just donating some of the stuff we otherwise would toss out?
2). Wouldn't poor kids be better off with say antibotics and basic medicine rather than a laptop? I mean seems like if I were a teenager in africa, condoms and AIDS education could do a lot more to improve my quality of life going forward to than say a laptop.
3). Why are we working to design a cheap laptop? Why not think outside the box? Build a server farm in Africa and create some local jobs to keep it up and running, then provide really really cheap mobile thin clients? Basically boots up loads X and calls back to terminal server farm for X-Apps made out of all the laptops Europeans and Americans have gotten bored with? Provide networking hubs where Internet and wireless are given free at schools or key town meeting places so that they grow both techinical skills, but comminuty friendships.
4). We have elivated standards that others many be fine without. Example I had an old P100 64MB Latitude that I gave to a mexican cook I met and who had no computer. Thing was slow as poop, I could not stand it and that was years ago, he loves it to this day and uses it to browse the net over dialup.
5). These articles on/. have got to stop, as OLPC is nothing special and when really thought about is pretty stupid.
All I want is for my Linux servers to work right away on the latest Windows 2008 AD from day 1. I want to be able to give users one account that works for their workstation authentication, resourse permissions like printer and file server access on both Windows and Linux computers, DBs be it SQL 2005 or MySQL 5, and Linux be it SSH, VNC, or the console itself. How about being able to create OUs and apply group policies to linux machines that hand things like SELinux settings, Samaba shares, printers, file permisions, services and whatnot. Now that is where they should be working. That is where all of the energy should be put, when that is working call me, until then I will be piecing shit together for sudo AD integration, using samba, winbind and hacking PAM on my RHEL box. Well while they piss their time away on crappy virtualization BS,/.ers know VMWare has over a 2 year lead, and has never failed to innovate time and time again, it has things like VMotion years ahead of MS and it supports the widest range of guest OSes.
- Eric
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Global Warming is natural; it is caused by man"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either -- a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Global Warming is not natural; it not is caused by man"
Interesting, so to combat the "Global Warming is all our fault crowd, I should say "The Earth has no average or ideal temperature, the climate is in flux, the world has been warming and freezing and freezing and warming long before man, if you look at charts of CO2 levels and charts the average temp. around the global there is no correlation."
If the world is getting hotter, it is a natural change from a natural result and we all know "Nature is oh so grand!" or was that "Nature is not so grand!".
Why? I love Linux, but when it comes to documentation it isn't even close, MS has technet, MSDN, Q articles, MS Press, 3rd party documentation, books and on and on.
This obviously requires some major supporting backend work, but an object oriented shell would be awesome. Microsoft's Powershell is possible because of the years they put into the.NET framework and even still their is some room to grow, but a true object oriented shell for Linux would be awesome.
Yeh, crazy HP, focusing resources on make sure Windows, RHEL, SuSE and VMWare ESX are supported.
What do you think they were thinking by not supporting dying OSes like AIX or Solaris?
Do you think it could be there is no compelling reason to use Solaris if you are not already using it today? Apart from ideology, there is no compelling reason.
Also my impression is that IBM's support of Solaris is to provide a transition path to IBM hardware from Sun Hardware, then after getting on the IBM hardware you can have developers work to move to Linux or Windows. Ideally move from Sun HW to virtual Solaris server on VMWare on IBM running next to virtual Linux server and transition services over.
I love Linux and I love Windows because they are evolving solutions that have useful attributes, but things like AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. are largely stagnant solutions that exist to support legacy services.
This is unpopular to say on/., but the truth is Linux will not kill Windows, but it has already worked to kill all the fragmented UNIX solutions out there. Over time Linux will have to settle on one or two enterprise solutions to stay current with many of the side distros dying off or being relegated to hobby hacking.
You know what we should do? Buy $50,000 worth in say early October when it is at.14 and when it gets delisted shortly there after, we keep the $50,000 without owing anything man. Like think that would work?
Money is like physics to me, it just doesn't make sense.
For example last year I was trying to build this machine that would spin at the same speed forever without requiring any more energy, but I keep having problems where it would spin fast and fast.
You are an idiot. The reason this guy's idea was lost is that under communism there is no market place of ideas.
So a Russian invents an LED and the communist government officials who control all light bulb production cannot get their head around it. The guys who make electronic devices that could use it, continue to make devices as the people have always made them, because there is no reason to try something new. Under collectivist ideologies (like socialism and communism) there is nothing to be personally gained or lost in an exploration of something new.
This is yet another example of why socialism and communism work against the greater good they claim to support.
So the idea dies under the Soviets.
In the US, the LED is discovered and people try to make use of LEDs and other inventions in the pursuit of money. Power saving devices stem from this decades old idea, and every year its usefulness is expanded upon.
To invent something is not enough, if you want to prove your value to society, you must make an invention that is wanted by others; wanted so much that people will pay for it.
This is yet another example of how capitalism advances the greater good.
Why would we want to distribute OSS on a mass scale?
Why not distribute great software on a mass scale?
I mean Adobe Reader is not OSS, but it is better then the OSS PDF viewers out there.
MP3s are not open source, but how many teenagers prefer to trade OGG files over MP3s?
I cannot even think of an OSS alternative to Flash.
VMWare is not OSS, but I like it better then Xen.
Firefox is probably the best OSS example after Linux, so lets include that on our "Great Software Distribution" USB stick along with the Adobe and VMWare packages already mentioned.
See my point? Why limit your software options based on whether or not the source (which we will probably never read) is available?
Going only open source and excluding user driven proprietary software limits choice for no logical reason.
I think the overly excited response to a USB drive with some free crap on it, shows how baddly some/.ers misunderstand what "freedom" of choice means.
Freedom to choose means you can pick the best software for your task at hand. This program does not teach the students to think about freedom of software choice, rather it pushes a conclusion on students.
If the French schools were interested in honestly teaching students, they would have a Pro-Software-Choice program built around teaching kids how to make smart choices.
If you only use OSS then you are no freer then the person who only uses Microsoft. (Part of the reason that as a Red Hat guy from 5.2 to Fedora Core 6, I am currently considering switching to another Linux distribution that is built with both OSS and proprietary software packages like mp3 support, JAVA, Adobe, etc. with the base install. So tired of having to go install that after the core Fedora installation is finished.)
To be free you need to use what works best for you.
To be free you need to evaluate pros and cons of your choice, not make a choice because somebody put it on a USB drive for you.
If the French implemented a program to teach students how to make intelligent software decisions for their needs that would be innovative.
Instead the French are giving away software (they didn't even write). It is not innovative, it is tired and sad.
Open Source provides alternatives to everyone, but OSS is tailored to the way the software programmers want things to be. Proprietary software is written to meet the end user demands in the open market. Choice lets users decided when to use the best software for you.
Frances sucks, God Bless Texas!
DISCLOSURE: This was written using an open source web browser on a proprietary source OS.
Slashdot Mirror
I could argue that since OSS can only make money from support it means they will never build apps to be 100% user friendly and may intentionally keep things confusing from a user's perspective.
I am going to have to call BS on you.
... Apple who gets a pass. Spyware and AV software is getting better, firewalls are being deployed for added security at the edge of networks and scan more than IPs, protocols and ports these days, with many that now actively scan the contents of packets coming in.
I as a consultant; I use Windows XP and 2003 on the MS side of the house and CentOS, RHEL, Fedora or SuSE on the Linux side. I know both systems for 10+ years,, more so I know both types of sys admins.
Windows admins after having had their balls busted in the past are using better methods to track patch management with things like SMS, WSUS or 3rd party tools. MS is also taking security far more seriously than others like say
While to be honest Unix admins have always been lazy, they tend not to have scheduled patch periods (most fly by the seat of their pants despite claiming otherwise), they tend not to track what is installed or running on systems as closely, and they tend to have this attitude that their OS and apps are superior and in the case of universities in many cases they are still using public IPs.
Windows Security being humbled in the past, has something to prove and that is why it is getting to be so good now.
Apple having never been seriously called out, continues to meander with slow responses and updates.
Linux while progressing on the security front with kernel and application updates as well as new methodologies like SELinux, may face challenges not because of the OS failings, but because of lazy admins who do not keep their systems or skills up to date or noobs who in the process of learning expose themselves (not that way).
In addition if you are charging somebody for software you write, the person paying has a right to complain if it has security problems, but if you are giving software away, nobody has a right to complain and if they do, you can say "fix it yourself freetard".
Linux is getting a taste of what MS had several years back, that being "with a bigger market share comes increased motivation to crack/hack". Finally, if a OSS project is abandoned that you are dependent on, and yes, they get abandoned and die more often then they success, you can get stuck relying on the related libraries, kernel or whatever. Application abandonment means 1). You could get stuck with an app that opens you to a security risk or 2). Requires you to run another app that opens you to a security risk.
If you ask me, I bet this organization lives off of government grants, my question is so what. Also nice to know that /. now published information shown 2 weeks ago on the Cobert Report.
So you are wrong, it says it was established by the people of the United States for themselves their children in the United States of America. It doesn't say for the people of Europe or Asia, or the world, it says by the people of the United States, for the United States.
Before I school you again, do yourself and this country a favor and read the Constitution, recognize you are ignorant of the Constitution, that your mind was muddled by bad teachers who gave you a misguided representation of what the Constitution was, start giving the Constition the respect it deserves (i.e. follow what is says, not what you wish it said) and do not change it through self imposed ignorance or twisted interpretation, but only through the Amendment process.
Umm, I was debating that people like you are wrong when they say courts should be able to hear cases on enemy combatants.
/. have sighted how the Geneva Convention does not apply to Taliban and Al Queda fighters and why.
You jump in and say "show me the part where the Constitution says courts cannot get involved".
I do that, hense I won the debate.
Then you come back with "Well there are parts of the Constitution that say other things". I am well aware of that, but the arguement/debate that was ongoing was "The President has the power to decide how to handle people captured in Afghanistan or if the courts have the ability to step it.
So let me say it again, I won the debate, unless you can site where in the Constitution it says the Judical branch has powers relating to hwo this country conducts war.
I already sighted that the Constitution gives the President the role to run the war. I also sighted Amendment 11 that shows how courts cannot hear Gitmo cases and why.
Others on
So let me repeat I won the debate. I ask of you what you asked of me, sight the Constitution and stay on target, I have proven "courts have no power when it comes to Gitmo or foreign fighters." Saying Congress makes treaties is off topic as we are not talking about the Legislative branch. Also the Constition itself puts federal law and the Constitution above treaties.
Constitutional foundation:
... [unrelated, but recommend you read for yourself]
Article II, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Dude, I so totally won this debate.
My point is this, regardless, the courts have no Constitution ground to get involved, the President has tremendous Constitutional power for war and the Congress has a tiny piece. So lets assume your claims are correct and you run to the courts; well my response has nothing to do with your claim, my response is "You are clearly in the wrong for the Constitution tells us that you are.", courts have no power to rule in this area. So shut up already, I have been hearing it for 5-6 years and you ftards are to ignorant to understand what the debate is about. It is not about should those people be there, it is about, who has the power to conduct wars in out nation. Since you don't have time to debate what to do when the enemy is storming the hill, they founders thought it insane to have Congress run wars. Since you do not want unelected people running the war, you do not want judges doing it, so what part of government is setup to have a single decision point with an elected official that is geared towards such a task? If you say "anybody but Bush, you are an idiot" if you say "Bush" you are an idiot, if you say "The President, even if I do not like the current President", you are a winner and smarter then the average /.er.
The only way you could win this debate is if you found some text in the Constitution that says courts can do this (and no such text exists, if you get some college professor's interpretation of what the founders thought or sight some case law, you are an idiot.
Has to be in the Constitution or one of its Amendments, if not there, then you have to look at Federal Law, but since it is there, the debate ends, Presidency has power, courts don't.
Courts are intentionally weak, they cannot make law (yet they often try and do), they can tax (yet in one case a Judge reset a towns taxes), they cannot sight foreign laws (yet several of the S.C. Justices have done so), they cannot get involved here.
I think if fascism does rise up in the US, it is unlikely to come from a public official who must get elected and is either a member of a larger body voting body or at best can serve 8 years. No, I believe fascism is more likely to come from unelected judges with lifelong appointments, who rule on their goals/beliefs, rather than on the law.
Thanks for the information, after reading about the Geneva Convention, it is clear that the detainees do not satisfy the requirements in the Geneva Convention.
Umm, those people were not picked up by the police in our country. They were picked up by our military overseas, many times in combat circumstances.
You do recognize that under your logic (or lack there of), every German officer, soldier and spy picked up during WWII, could not be held, without first being read their rights, shipped to the US, and then having before a Judge and been convicted of fighting in the German army.
When you consider to hold the trial, we would obviously had to ship back US, British or French fighters to testify (and thus hurt our war effort) and you also consider that the capture happened in a war zone where defense lawyers could argue that destruction of evidence prevents a fair trial; well, then you would recognize how illogical your comment and the views that produced it are.
You should be aware that your argument lacks any Constitutional foundation. The Constitution states very clearly the Judicial branch doesn't deal in foreign matters or things that happen outside the US. The Constitution puts that power largely in the Executive and to some extent the Legislative branches, but clearly says the Judical has no power in this area.
But with Linux you can define what programs need elevated permission to run and if they ask for PW or not. Also you have option to elevate and stay elevated if you have serveral higher level tasks to do. I have not doubt that Vista will get it right, but the fact that in the current release I cannot tell it "always trust this app" sucks. Also the fact that even if I have full admin rights I still have to deal with prompts or turn UAC off completely sucks. What Vista should do is allow you to run UAC, but exclude select programs or users, sorta like umm Linux. Also Novell and Red Hat support Open Source, Ubuntu just takes, you should consider switching to a different distro is simply Debian (whose users pretty much do all the work so ubuntu can rip them off).
Actually this is a clear case of where courts have ruled that speech can be limited. Let me explain. It is illegal to pass a law that says NAZIs cannot hold a rally in your small town, because that singles out a specific group. But it is perfectly exceptable for the same town to pass a law that says you must keep your events below a certain db after 10PM to 6AM. Why? Because such a law applies to all parties and groups equally. So before you say his freedom of speech was violated, ask yourself did he get less time or was he unfairly treated in comparison to others waiting to ask questions? That answer is "no", they had to stop at a minute, he had to stop at a minute.
OK, so now the observations:
1). The police failed to give a reasonable warning of what would happen if he did not leave and they seemed to be a bit excessive, nothing to sue over, they should drop charges, kid should not press his luck and let it go.
2). Kerry is not a leader, a leader would not have mumbled (and he did mumble), a leader would have been assertive and said "Hey, police knock it off, I am going to answer his question provided he is quite and willing to let the next person ask their question when I am done, if at any point he resumes being loud and disorderly, then you have permission to take him out side and prevent him from reentering, no need to beat him, no need to charge him, his punishment is just that he will have to leave."
3). It shows how weak people are and why America is becoming a land of pussies. Listen, I think it is insane to suggest that Kerry won on 2004, hell I think it is insane that people think Gore won in 2000. I think that kid was a bit off balance shall we say, but unlike all those liberals in the crowd or the old women who talked rather then acted, I would have gotten up and acted, I would have gotten between the cops and the kid and asked both the be cool. I have been beaten a few times by either the police or the civilian in such situations, but I act when I think things are out of line, I believe the cops did not have to go so hard after him, I believe they are pressing a harsh charge of resisting arrest, when they could have let him go. Again, they guy is an idiot, Kerry lost in '04, Bush one fair, and it is a libertarian who hates liberals that would have stood up in that room, while all the liberals sat idle, which is what liberals do, sit and do nothing, sit and bitch and sometimes smoke stuff and play in a band.
- Eric
Can somebody explain to me what all the hype around Ubuntu is about?
SuSE is much closer to being a desktop OS then Ubuntu and it has a centralized easy to follow point and click control panel with yast2 that is nice for people like my mom (who is exactly the type of user Linux needs to focus on to gain desktop share).
Personally I think Fedora as well as RHEL/CentOS have much more intuitive commands than Debian based distros and while apt-get is nice, yum is also nice.
Finally we need to think about who makes a distro before getting behind it. SuSE/Redhat write and contribute code back to the Open Source Community while Ubuntu just takes packages from Debian and slaps them together. Where will Linux be if Ubuntu gains such a big market share it puts Redhat, SuSE and/or Debian out of business? Nowhere, because without the big guns, Linux would start to die. But if Ubuntu just disappeared tomorrow these three core contributing groups would continue advancing Linux.
I leave IBM out as IBM does not have it's own distribution, but do you think that IBM is more effective working along side partners like Novell and Red Hat or do you think IBM is better off going it alone as Ubuntu's code monkey?
I am beginning to think ubuntu means "We take, others give and recent Linux converts love us for it." Or maybe it means "College kids us us because our name sounds like it we are anti-man and = anti-Western culture; plus we put naked chicks on our first release." or maybe it is "Use us to kill the distros that got Linux here, we're only in it for the quick buck anyways."
- Eric
I am posting this laptop on a $175 Thinkpad T22 I purchased on ebay for $175 with a Cisco 350 wireless card I found dumpster diving. Specs: 512 MB Ram 900 MHz PIII 20 GB HD 10/100 NIC Wireless B Cisco card Fedora Core 5 CDRW/DVD ROM 4x Batteries 3x power supplies 2x port replicators So I guess my though process is something like this: 1). Couldn't we give poor kids decent sub $100 laptops by just donating some of the stuff we otherwise would toss out? 2). Wouldn't poor kids be better off with say antibotics and basic medicine rather than a laptop? I mean seems like if I were a teenager in africa, condoms and AIDS education could do a lot more to improve my quality of life going forward to than say a laptop. 3). Why are we working to design a cheap laptop? Why not think outside the box? Build a server farm in Africa and create some local jobs to keep it up and running, then provide really really cheap mobile thin clients? Basically boots up loads X and calls back to terminal server farm for X-Apps made out of all the laptops Europeans and Americans have gotten bored with? Provide networking hubs where Internet and wireless are given free at schools or key town meeting places so that they grow both techinical skills, but comminuty friendships. 4). We have elivated standards that others many be fine without. Example I had an old P100 64MB Latitude that I gave to a mexican cook I met and who had no computer. Thing was slow as poop, I could not stand it and that was years ago, he loves it to this day and uses it to browse the net over dialup. 5). These articles on /. have got to stop, as OLPC is nothing special and when really thought about is pretty stupid.
All I want is for my Linux servers to work right away on the latest Windows 2008 AD from day 1. I want to be able to give users one account that works for their workstation authentication, resourse permissions like printer and file server access on both Windows and Linux computers, DBs be it SQL 2005 or MySQL 5, and Linux be it SSH, VNC, or the console itself. How about being able to create OUs and apply group policies to linux machines that hand things like SELinux settings, Samaba shares, printers, file permisions, services and whatnot. Now that is where they should be working. That is where all of the energy should be put, when that is working call me, until then I will be piecing shit together for sudo AD integration, using samba, winbind and hacking PAM on my RHEL box. Well while they piss their time away on crappy virtualization BS, /.ers know VMWare has over a 2 year lead, and has never failed to innovate time and time again, it has things like VMotion years ahead of MS and it supports the widest range of guest OSes.
- Eric
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Global Warming is natural; it is caused by man"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either -- a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Global Warming is not natural; it not is caused by man"
..|..
Interesting, so to combat the "Global Warming is all our fault crowd, I should say "The Earth has no average or ideal temperature, the climate is in flux, the world has been warming and freezing and freezing and warming long before man, if you look at charts of CO2 levels and charts the average temp. around the global there is no correlation."
If the world is getting hotter, it is a natural change from a natural result and we all know "Nature is oh so grand!" or was that "Nature is not so grand!".
In short it is a power grab that rewards long term posters in the name of truth.
Why? I love Linux, but when it comes to documentation it isn't even close, MS has technet, MSDN, Q articles, MS Press, 3rd party documentation, books and on and on.
This obviously requires some major supporting backend work, but an object oriented shell would be awesome. Microsoft's Powershell is possible because of the years they put into the .NET framework and even still their is some room to grow, but a true object oriented shell for Linux would be awesome.
- Eric
Yeh, crazy HP, focusing resources on make sure Windows, RHEL, SuSE and VMWare ESX are supported.
/., but the truth is Linux will not kill Windows, but it has already worked to kill all the fragmented UNIX solutions out there. Over time Linux will have to settle on one or two enterprise solutions to stay current with many of the side distros dying off or being relegated to hobby hacking.
What do you think they were thinking by not supporting dying OSes like AIX or Solaris?
Do you think it could be there is no compelling reason to use Solaris if you are not already using it today? Apart from ideology, there is no compelling reason.
Also my impression is that IBM's support of Solaris is to provide a transition path to IBM hardware from Sun Hardware, then after getting on the IBM hardware you can have developers work to move to Linux or Windows. Ideally move from Sun HW to virtual Solaris server on VMWare on IBM running next to virtual Linux server and transition services over.
I love Linux and I love Windows because they are evolving solutions that have useful attributes, but things like AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc. are largely stagnant solutions that exist to support legacy services.
This is unpopular to say on
- Eric
You know what we should do? Buy $50,000 worth in say early October when it is at .14 and when it gets delisted shortly there after, we keep the $50,000 without owing anything man. Like think that would work?
Money is like physics to me, it just doesn't make sense.
For example last year I was trying to build this machine that would spin at the same speed forever without requiring any more energy, but I keep having problems where it would spin fast and fast.
You are an idiot. The reason this guy's idea was lost is that under communism there is no market place of ideas.
So a Russian invents an LED and the communist government officials who control all light bulb production cannot get their head around it. The guys who make electronic devices that could use it, continue to make devices as the people have always made them, because there is no reason to try something new. Under collectivist ideologies (like socialism and communism) there is nothing to be personally gained or lost in an exploration of something new.
This is yet another example of why socialism and communism work against the greater good they claim to support.
So the idea dies under the Soviets.
In the US, the LED is discovered and people try to make use of LEDs and other inventions in the pursuit of money. Power saving devices stem from this decades old idea, and every year its usefulness is expanded upon.
To invent something is not enough, if you want to prove your value to society, you must make an invention that is wanted by others; wanted so much that people will pay for it.
This is yet another example of how capitalism advances the greater good.
"better safe than sorry."
If you honestly believe in global warming, I have ocean front property and carbon credits to sell you in Arizona.
Why would we want to distribute OSS on a mass scale?
Why not distribute great software on a mass scale?
I mean Adobe Reader is not OSS, but it is better then the OSS PDF viewers out there.
MP3s are not open source, but how many teenagers prefer to trade OGG files over MP3s?
I cannot even think of an OSS alternative to Flash.
VMWare is not OSS, but I like it better then Xen.
Firefox is probably the best OSS example after Linux, so lets include that on our "Great Software Distribution" USB stick along with the Adobe and VMWare packages already mentioned.
See my point? Why limit your software options based on whether or not the source (which we will probably never read) is available?
Going only open source and excluding user driven proprietary software limits choice for no logical reason.
I think the overly excited response to a USB drive with some free crap on it, shows how baddly some /.ers misunderstand what "freedom" of choice means.
Freedom to choose means you can pick the best software for your task at hand. This program does not teach the students to think about freedom of software choice, rather it pushes a conclusion on students.
If the French schools were interested in honestly teaching students, they would have a Pro-Software-Choice program built around teaching kids how to make smart choices.
If you only use OSS then you are no freer then the person who only uses Microsoft. (Part of the reason that as a Red Hat guy from 5.2 to Fedora Core 6, I am currently considering switching to another Linux distribution that is built with both OSS and proprietary software packages like mp3 support, JAVA, Adobe, etc. with the base install. So tired of having to go install that after the core Fedora installation is finished.)
To be free you need to use what works best for you.
To be free you need to evaluate pros and cons of your choice, not make a choice because somebody put it on a USB drive for you.
If the French implemented a program to teach students how to make intelligent software decisions for their needs that would be innovative.
Instead the French are giving away software (they didn't even write). It is not innovative, it is tired and sad.
Open Source provides alternatives to everyone, but OSS is tailored to the way the software programmers want things to be. Proprietary software is written to meet the end user demands in the open market. Choice lets users decided when to use the best software for you.
Frances sucks, God Bless Texas!
DISCLOSURE: This was written using an open source web browser on a proprietary source OS.
Somebody mod this post up, I was rolling on the floor after reading it. Fantastic.