That is exactly the point I was trying to make -- thank you for being a little more clear and concise than I was. I also think the GP was way out of line with this statement: "If configuring httpd is so radically different that a user cannot be walked through the use of the mouse and a gui something is clearly wrong." My conclusion based on that statement was that his attitude towards what he was trying to do is entirely wrong. First of all, most servers will not have a GUI. Secondly, it is extremely arrogant on his part to determine how software should behave; especially based on his (evidently) limited experience with it. Based on my response to that GP concluded that I am part of the problem. Maybe I am.
"I happen to agree that the multitude of distros and their differing ways of managing the system makes it exceedingly unlikely that any company will ever offer effective end-user tech support for Linux, but that has nothing to do with Apache.
I agree with this as well, but I think this is why companies tend to align themselves with a single distro. I can see "Joe's Linux" being supported by a company fairly easily whereas a company trying to support *every* Linux is going to have an exceedingly difficult time of it.
"With Google OneBox for Enterprise, corporate information -- such as contact and calendar info, HR benefits, sales leads, or purchase order status -- is now instantly searchable through a Google search box as part of the Google Search Appliance."
I assume that in order to access this sort of information, Google is searching through the stores on an Exchange server. I have not heard of any deals w/MS regarding the connector used to connect to Exchange thus I assume it is something Google has either written or had written for them. My question is, how long is it until MS "updates" Exchange under the guise of security or what have you in order to "F'n kill Google" (and their appliance)?
If you are implying that those statements negate each other I don't see it. No where in the second statement is a particular license mandated nor is OSS mandated. Interoperability, on the other hand is mandated. In other words, if Microsoft wants to supply software that is interoperable with other software that a citzen can use, all is well. Now getting Microsoft to interoperate with *anything* is where you might run into trouble:) It seems as though this is exactly the same thing as what Massachusettes is running into with regard to OpenDocument.
"I think you just demonstrated the point of the article:)"
I disagree. In both of the comments I made I did not snub the person asking a question or making a suggestion. I did not insult the person to which I was replying. I offered an explanation of my view of why things are the way the are. Your retort was (basically) "well, why isnt it more like windows" to which I replied that you missed the point of what I was saying. Had you read what I said, you would see the reasons, IMHO, why Linux is not like windows and I even offered up that if you need specific information regarding a particular distribution and its tools that you would be better served asking the question on the resources provided by that distribution (aka mailing lists/forums etc...). Now if your question pertained to Apache specifically and not someone elses tool to configure Apache, I could see your point. I suggest it is the attitude that you are presenting that causes, right or wrong, many developers to take the attitudes that they do. I personally have never experienced this sort of attitude on a forum or mailing list, but then again, I did not say that the problem with someones software was that it was not the same as windows.
Woooshh -- that was the point going right over your head. If you need distro-specific support, go to your distros message boards/mailing lists/documentation. Most Apache servers don't even run a Desktop -- expecting the entire Linux world to start installing a Desktop and then collaborating on a single unified tool to configure Apache, when Apache has been running fine for over 10 years *with no such tool* comes across as extreme arrogance on your part. Why does the Linux world have to revolve around you? There is an abundance of documentation and many people who are willing to help you -- but no one is going to help you with that elitest attitude.
"Which means not automatically giving the command line answer to obvious newbies when a perfectly good GUI tool solution exists for their disto."
I have heard this argument before (and even used it when I was very new to Linux) however there are often many reasons to *not* use the GUI tool. First of all, if you are on the Apache mailing list asking about config info for httpd, how can you possibly expect the person *helping you* to be familiar with the distro you use and what GUI tools are available for that distro? And even if they *are* familiar with it, how do you know they even use the Desktop? None of the servers I administer even have X on them. Does that make me less qualified to help you? I think not. Secondly, I have seen many times where the GUI tool made such a mess out of the config files (and borked the entire part of the system you are trying to get running) that the *only* way to fix them was on the command line. Now while I agree with what you are saying in some respect, I dont think it is as cut-n-dry as you make it out to be. I do remember thanking a higher power for KPPP when I had to set up dial-up as a complete newb (circa 1998 or so). Often times just because there is a GUI tool for the job that doesn't make it the *right* tool for the job. That being said, a quick explanation of the command line you are asking someone to run is not asking for too much either.
I agree with all you say 100%. However, do you think Compaq would have taken the time to do that if documentation was available and there was no legal issues involved? I did not mean to imply that reverse-engineering = crappy code; I simply meant to say that, given other options, it is a last ditch effort. Samba is another great example of a clean-room implementation of RE code. Dont you think the Samba guys would benefit greatly from a truely open documentation of MS protocols?
Not to nitpick (but hey, this is/.:), XP was released in October of 2001. Vista will not be released before January 2007 putting the time between releases at 5+ years, not 4. Otherwise, I think you are spot on.
Does NVidia have drivers that work on Sparc Linux? Solaris x86? PPC Linux? The answer is no, and I never expect them to - which IS the problem.
Incorrect about Solaris x86 - I have used those drivers and they work very well. Check it out here. However, the point you are making is valid; if NVidia does not support a platform that you use, you are SOL.
I think the point NVidia is making is that the driver is a big part of the package they're selling. A buggy driver will make the entire package, including the hardware, look bad.
You obviously never used the early versions of NVidia's Linux (and later FreeBSD and Solaris) drivers. No one expects any software to be 100% bug free (yes, I know there are exceptions to that but on the whole this is true). And if you counter this; I offer up ATI's drivers, including their Windows drivers, as repost. I have yet to have an ATI product that did not suffer miserably from driver problems under any OS.
If writing a graphics driver is indeed very complex, the chance of FOSS developers including bugs is quite realistic. The simple fact that FOSS developers have not been able to produce good GPU drivers despite reverse-engineering demonstrates the level of complexity involved.
Do you know anything about reverse engineering? It is a hack no matter how you look at it. You are trying to guess what something does by observing it. How can this be compared to knowing what something does because you have the documentation right in front of you. Nice troll. Or not.
Such version would come at the expense of NVidia's reputation; if ATI keeps their drivers closed, ATI will have the more stable package in the typical consumers' eye.
Redirecting me to the internet's most popular search engine when *no* DNS record is available is an order of magnitude different from redirecting me based on a "typo" -- how do they know it was a typo? That is before I have to worry about my browser reporting my surfing habits to MS.
In fact, as of yet, Google still (in my book - the whole China thing has nothing to do with me and it is not my place to impose my values on another country, regardless of how I feel) hasn't done anything evil. MS, IMHO, on the other hand, hasn't done a lot that *isn't* evil.
I am unsure as to why this is news. Subject X works in the Y industry, an industry not looked upon with great respect by a majority of the public. Because of this X does not want his family to know he works in the Y industry and generally associates with people from the Y industry so as to avoid embarassment due to his profession.
I'm no friend of SCO, but I don't see the "Judas" metaphor.
Considering that SCO used to be Caldera Linux and SCO is now doing everything in their power to destroy Linux (and any company using it), I think I can see the "Judas" reference as being valid:)
Regardless of whether he actually serves the time, he is still getting traffic to his router. His concern is his bandwidth cost. NTP is a *very* low traffic protocol so that most of the bandwidth traffic is the actual request. In other words, while he would no longer be serving these rogue routers, he would still incur the bandwidth resulting from the requests.
Re:Criminal charges against Microsoft too.
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Actually, I believe if you read the articles closely, you will see that MS is not removing the DRM functionality of the software. A subtle but important distinction.
I think you have it mostly right, with only one minor change:
clerk announces judge's arrival: 1 minute
judge repositions himself in chair: 1 minute
clerk announces case number : 1 minute
parties walk to tables: 1 minute
judge reads over case notes: 2 minutes
judge questions SCO about claims + SCO response: 5 mintues
judge questions DCC about claims + DCC response: 3 minutes
judge reams out SCO and tells them they are stupid : 3 minutes
SCO walking out with their tail between their legs : Timeless!
This does not work for shortcuts, but if you can find the executable and hold shift when you right click on it, there will be an option for run as another user. I don't remember the wording, and being that I am at home and I don't run windows, I cannot check. This works for W2k and WXP, but I don't know about the others. That is how I installed software many times on machines in a corporation where I did not want to log off the non-root user (not to mention, it makes browsing network shares as enterprise admin a breeze if you have the login info -- just do it to the IE icon in the quicklaunch bar, not the shortcut on the desktop).
The problem with Linux is that a lot of things don't make even the slightest bit of sense. Developers opt for brevity over simplicity, a hold over from the Unix Way of productivity over ease-of-use. The result? A platform that REQUIRES training, REQUIRES handholding, REQUIRES knowledge. It takes more time before you can start doing something because you have to learn how to do it, you can't just guess and be mostly right.
Please provide some examples. Or are you just saying this because you originally learned the microsoft way and relearning doesn't make sense?
This is a legitimate question. I began using computers with DOS, Win3.1 etc. It was only in about 1998 that I began using Linux and while the original learning curve was a bit steep, it was more because of what I had to unlearn than what I had to learn. Now, when I have to support windows (one of the downfalls of having an MCSE/MCSA, lol) I am baffled by some (most) of the things it does.
Nowadays, people don't know how to use computers. They know how to guess enough functionality to fake their way through them. Like it or not, these people could NEVER use the current Linux offerings...it'd be like handing a jackknife to a spastic.
Not to sound elitest, but maybe that is the problem. *Maybe* home users should stick to their webtv and gaming consoles and leave powerful tools to those that know how to use them. You don't see Average Joe(tm) using industrial tools around the house (well you might, but it is usually with a reference to Darwin). You might see him using a scaled down, not nearly as powerful version. There is a reason for this. Think about it, if a hairdryer needs a sticker telling the consumer not to use it in the shower, what does this tell us about the general populace? (other than we are a bunch of litigous bastards) I am not saying that a home user should not be able to own a computer, just that unless they really need one, why have it? *Most* (pardon the generalization) home users only want to browse the web, look at photos, and send email. They *don't* need a full blown home computer for that.
I was running 2 (legal) copies of winxp pro at home for one reason. Star Wars Galaxies (I have 2 accounts). That was, up until last weekend. The latest release of Cedega (winex) plays SWG almost perfectly. (2 little glitches that don't affect game play -- the login screen does not display the latest news and once in game, if you release the mouse cursor and try to pan by mousing to the edge of the screen it only pans a fraction at a time). In fact, the game runs smoother with shorter load times than it did under windows on the same hardware (who would have thought?). I am even using my Nostromo N52 and N50 (one on one machine, one on the other) seamlessly (Thanks trithemius!)
I am now once again Windows free at home. I cannot say Microsoft free because I need IE for a few things (2 admin devices my company has at our remote location -- 1 remote kvm and 1 remote power strip), but those run under Crossover Office and handles those crappy written for M$ java applets just fine.
Most Linux distributions may be rebooted into single-user mode in a moment, and (potentially) trojaned or otherwise mucked with. (Since Linux has good support for booting from a CD, attackers may also just boot from a CD.) With Linux, an administrator really needs to disable CD booting, lock the BIOS, and configure the bootloader (grub or lilo) to either disallow choosing any non-standard arguments when loading Linux or password-protect the simple process of rebooting the computer.
I don't suppose you have ever heard of the Trinity Rescue CD? You stick it in a Windows machine's CD drive, reboot, reset whatever local user account's password that you so desire (default and recommended account is the local admin), then just reboot and voila -- admin rights to windows. Thus, in this respect, Linux is no different from Windows. Admittedly, I haven't tried this with machines that do not allow local logins, but imagine the trouble someone could cause if they got into your server room (think "domain controller").
I do agree with many of your other points however.
It's called "maturation," which, for some reason, most propriatary software makers never saw coming.
I think they did see it coming... which is why so many bugs still exist in their products (not to mention all the vaporware -- why release it until it is time to prod the market?). While they were prolonging the "upgrade cycle" open source and free software caught up to and in many ways surpassed the quality of their proprietary alternatives (not to say that open source and free software is bug-free of course).
Actually, you don't get anything. The bond is posted by the marketer and is put in escrow. Everytime an infraction is reported you (as the marketer) are fined a relatively insignificant amount against the bond in escrow. This way, should the marketer send out a million emails and get 10 complaints, the "fine" is insignificant. If a marketer sends out a million emails and gets a hundred thousand complaints, their bond is consumed by the multitude of tiny fines and they are no longer bonded.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly the point I was trying to make -- thank you for being a little more clear and concise than I was. I also think the GP was way out of line with this statement: "If configuring httpd is so radically different that a user cannot be walked through the use of the mouse and a gui something is clearly wrong." My conclusion based on that statement was that his attitude towards what he was trying to do is entirely wrong. First of all, most servers will not have a GUI. Secondly, it is extremely arrogant on his part to determine how software should behave; especially based on his (evidently) limited experience with it. Based on my response to that GP concluded that I am part of the problem. Maybe I am.
"I happen to agree that the multitude of distros and their differing ways of managing the system makes it exceedingly unlikely that any company will ever offer effective end-user tech support for Linux, but that has nothing to do with Apache.
I agree with this as well, but I think this is why companies tend to align themselves with a single distro. I can see "Joe's Linux" being supported by a company fairly easily whereas a company trying to support *every* Linux is going to have an exceedingly difficult time of it.
"With Google OneBox for Enterprise, corporate information -- such as contact and calendar info, HR benefits, sales leads, or purchase order status -- is now instantly searchable through a Google search box as part of the Google Search Appliance."
I assume that in order to access this sort of information, Google is searching through the stores on an Exchange server. I have not heard of any deals w/MS regarding the connector used to connect to Exchange thus I assume it is something Google has either written or had written for them. My question is, how long is it until MS "updates" Exchange under the guise of security or what have you in order to "F'n kill Google" (and their appliance)?
Just a thought.
I believe the PDF standard is open in that you can implement it in your software without paying royalties to Adobe.
If you are implying that those statements negate each other I don't see it. No where in the second statement is a particular license mandated nor is OSS mandated. Interoperability, on the other hand is mandated. In other words, if Microsoft wants to supply software that is interoperable with other software that a citzen can use, all is well. Now getting Microsoft to interoperate with *anything* is where you might run into trouble :) It seems as though this is exactly the same thing as what Massachusettes is running into with regard to OpenDocument.
Just my 2cents.
"I think you just demonstrated the point of the article :)"
I disagree. In both of the comments I made I did not snub the person asking a question or making a suggestion. I did not insult the person to which I was replying. I offered an explanation of my view of why things are the way the are. Your retort was (basically) "well, why isnt it more like windows" to which I replied that you missed the point of what I was saying. Had you read what I said, you would see the reasons, IMHO, why Linux is not like windows and I even offered up that if you need specific information regarding a particular distribution and its tools that you would be better served asking the question on the resources provided by that distribution (aka mailing lists/forums etc...). Now if your question pertained to Apache specifically and not someone elses tool to configure Apache, I could see your point. I suggest it is the attitude that you are presenting that causes, right or wrong, many developers to take the attitudes that they do. I personally have never experienced this sort of attitude on a forum or mailing list, but then again, I did not say that the problem with someones software was that it was not the same as windows.
Woooshh -- that was the point going right over your head. If you need distro-specific support, go to your distros message boards/mailing lists/documentation. Most Apache servers don't even run a Desktop -- expecting the entire Linux world to start installing a Desktop and then collaborating on a single unified tool to configure Apache, when Apache has been running fine for over 10 years *with no such tool* comes across as extreme arrogance on your part. Why does the Linux world have to revolve around you? There is an abundance of documentation and many people who are willing to help you -- but no one is going to help you with that elitest attitude.
I caught that as well -- the gnaa.us is a dead giveaway.
"Which means not automatically giving the command line answer to obvious newbies when a perfectly good GUI tool solution exists for their disto."
I have heard this argument before (and even used it when I was very new to Linux) however there are often many reasons to *not* use the GUI tool. First of all, if you are on the Apache mailing list asking about config info for httpd, how can you possibly expect the person *helping you* to be familiar with the distro you use and what GUI tools are available for that distro? And even if they *are* familiar with it, how do you know they even use the Desktop? None of the servers I administer even have X on them. Does that make me less qualified to help you? I think not. Secondly, I have seen many times where the GUI tool made such a mess out of the config files (and borked the entire part of the system you are trying to get running) that the *only* way to fix them was on the command line. Now while I agree with what you are saying in some respect, I dont think it is as cut-n-dry as you make it out to be. I do remember thanking a higher power for KPPP when I had to set up dial-up as a complete newb (circa 1998 or so). Often times just because there is a GUI tool for the job that doesn't make it the *right* tool for the job. That being said, a quick explanation of the command line you are asking someone to run is not asking for too much either.
I agree with all you say 100%. However, do you think Compaq would have taken the time to do that if documentation was available and there was no legal issues involved? I did not mean to imply that reverse-engineering = crappy code; I simply meant to say that, given other options, it is a last ditch effort. Samba is another great example of a clean-room implementation of RE code. Dont you think the Samba guys would benefit greatly from a truely open documentation of MS protocols?
Not to nitpick (but hey, this is /. :), XP was released in October of 2001. Vista will not be released before January 2007 putting the time between releases at 5+ years, not 4. Otherwise, I think you are spot on.
Does NVidia have drivers that work on Sparc Linux? Solaris x86? PPC Linux? The answer is no, and I never expect them to - which IS the problem.
Incorrect about Solaris x86 - I have used those drivers and they work very well. Check it out here. However, the point you are making is valid; if NVidia does not support a platform that you use, you are SOL.
I think the point NVidia is making is that the driver is a big part of the package they're selling. A buggy driver will make the entire package, including the hardware, look bad.
You obviously never used the early versions of NVidia's Linux (and later FreeBSD and Solaris) drivers. No one expects any software to be 100% bug free (yes, I know there are exceptions to that but on the whole this is true). And if you counter this; I offer up ATI's drivers, including their Windows drivers, as repost. I have yet to have an ATI product that did not suffer miserably from driver problems under any OS.
If writing a graphics driver is indeed very complex, the chance of FOSS developers including bugs is quite realistic. The simple fact that FOSS developers have not been able to produce good GPU drivers despite reverse-engineering demonstrates the level of complexity involved.
Do you know anything about reverse engineering? It is a hack no matter how you look at it. You are trying to guess what something does by observing it. How can this be compared to knowing what something does because you have the documentation right in front of you. Nice troll. Or not.
Such version would come at the expense of NVidia's reputation; if ATI keeps their drivers closed, ATI will have the more stable package in the typical consumers' eye.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Redirecting me to the internet's most popular search engine when *no* DNS record is available is an order of magnitude different from redirecting me based on a "typo" -- how do they know it was a typo? That is before I have to worry about my browser reporting my surfing habits to MS.
In fact, as of yet, Google still (in my book - the whole China thing has nothing to do with me and it is not my place to impose my values on another country, regardless of how I feel) hasn't done anything evil. MS, IMHO, on the other hand, hasn't done a lot that *isn't* evil.
I am unsure as to why this is news. Subject X works in the Y industry, an industry not looked upon with great respect by a majority of the public. Because of this X does not want his family to know he works in the Y industry and generally associates with people from the Y industry so as to avoid embarassment due to his profession.
I'm no friend of SCO, but I don't see the "Judas" metaphor.
:)
Considering that SCO used to be Caldera Linux and SCO is now doing everything in their power to destroy Linux (and any company using it), I think I can see the "Judas" reference as being valid
Regardless of whether he actually serves the time, he is still getting traffic to his router. His concern is his bandwidth cost. NTP is a *very* low traffic protocol so that most of the bandwidth traffic is the actual request. In other words, while he would no longer be serving these rogue routers, he would still incur the bandwidth resulting from the requests.
Actually, I believe if you read the articles closely, you will see that MS is not removing the DRM functionality of the software. A subtle but important distinction.
Get google hammered with a big ol DOS, then post it to Slashdot where they are sure to get hammered some more!!
I think you have it mostly right, with only one minor change:
clerk announces judge's arrival: 1 minute
judge repositions himself in chair: 1 minute
clerk announces case number : 1 minute
parties walk to tables: 1 minute
judge reads over case notes: 2 minutes
judge questions SCO about claims + SCO response: 5 mintues
judge questions DCC about claims + DCC response: 3 minutes
judge reams out SCO and tells them they are stupid : 3 minutes
SCO walking out with their tail between their legs : Timeless!
This does not work for shortcuts, but if you can find the executable and hold shift when you right click on it, there will be an option for run as another user. I don't remember the wording, and being that I am at home and I don't run windows, I cannot check. This works for W2k and WXP, but I don't know about the others. That is how I installed software many times on machines in a corporation where I did not want to log off the non-root user (not to mention, it makes browsing network shares as enterprise admin a breeze if you have the login info -- just do it to the IE icon in the quicklaunch bar, not the shortcut on the desktop).
The problem with Linux is that a lot of things don't make even the slightest bit of sense. Developers opt for brevity over simplicity, a hold over from the Unix Way of productivity over ease-of-use. The result? A platform that REQUIRES training, REQUIRES handholding, REQUIRES knowledge. It takes more time before you can start doing something because you have to learn how to do it, you can't just guess and be mostly right.
Please provide some examples. Or are you just saying this because you originally learned the microsoft way and relearning doesn't make sense?
This is a legitimate question. I began using computers with DOS, Win3.1 etc. It was only in about 1998 that I began using Linux and while the original learning curve was a bit steep, it was more because of what I had to unlearn than what I had to learn. Now, when I have to support windows (one of the downfalls of having an MCSE/MCSA, lol) I am baffled by some (most) of the things it does.
Nowadays, people don't know how to use computers. They know how to guess enough functionality to fake their way through them. Like it or not, these people could NEVER use the current Linux offerings...it'd be like handing a jackknife to a spastic.
Not to sound elitest, but maybe that is the problem. *Maybe* home users should stick to their webtv and gaming consoles and leave powerful tools to those that know how to use them. You don't see Average Joe(tm) using industrial tools around the house (well you might, but it is usually with a reference to Darwin). You might see him using a scaled down, not nearly as powerful version. There is a reason for this. Think about it, if a hairdryer needs a sticker telling the consumer not to use it in the shower, what does this tell us about the general populace? (other than we are a bunch of litigous bastards) I am not saying that a home user should not be able to own a computer, just that unless they really need one, why have it? *Most* (pardon the generalization) home users only want to browse the web, look at photos, and send email. They *don't* need a full blown home computer for that.
I was running 2 (legal) copies of winxp pro at home for one reason. Star Wars Galaxies (I have 2 accounts). That was, up until last weekend. The latest release of Cedega (winex) plays SWG almost perfectly. (2 little glitches that don't affect game play -- the login screen does not display the latest news and once in game, if you release the mouse cursor and try to pan by mousing to the edge of the screen it only pans a fraction at a time). In fact, the game runs smoother with shorter load times than it did under windows on the same hardware (who would have thought?). I am even using my Nostromo N52 and N50 (one on one machine, one on the other) seamlessly (Thanks trithemius!)
I am now once again Windows free at home. I cannot say Microsoft free because I need IE for a few things (2 admin devices my company has at our remote location -- 1 remote kvm and 1 remote power strip), but those run under Crossover Office and handles those crappy written for M$ java applets just fine.
Most Linux distributions may be rebooted into single-user mode in a moment, and (potentially) trojaned or otherwise mucked with. (Since Linux has good support for booting from a CD, attackers may also just boot from a CD.) With Linux, an administrator really needs to disable CD booting, lock the BIOS, and configure the bootloader (grub or lilo) to either disallow choosing any non-standard arguments when loading Linux or password-protect the simple process of rebooting the computer.
I don't suppose you have ever heard of the Trinity Rescue CD? You stick it in a Windows machine's CD drive, reboot, reset whatever local user account's password that you so desire (default and recommended account is the local admin), then just reboot and voila -- admin rights to windows. Thus, in this respect, Linux is no different from Windows. Admittedly, I haven't tried this with machines that do not allow local logins, but imagine the trouble someone could cause if they got into your server room (think "domain controller").
I do agree with many of your other points however.
It's called "maturation," which, for some reason, most propriatary software makers never saw coming.
I think they did see it coming... which is why so many bugs still exist in their products (not to mention all the vaporware -- why release it until it is time to prod the market?). While they were prolonging the "upgrade cycle" open source and free software caught up to and in many ways surpassed the quality of their proprietary alternatives (not to say that open source and free software is bug-free of course).
Actually, you don't get anything. The bond is posted by the marketer and is put in escrow. Everytime an infraction is reported you (as the marketer) are fined a relatively insignificant amount against the bond in escrow. This way, should the marketer send out a million emails and get 10 complaints, the "fine" is insignificant. If a marketer sends out a million emails and gets a hundred thousand complaints, their bond is consumed by the multitude of tiny fines and they are no longer bonded.