No more wondering about different config file
syntax (xf86config anyone?). Everything is a file...
Unfortunately if you unify things in this way, you a) break every existing application, and more importantly b) apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry, not the Unix way. What form do you pick for this? The obvious one is that each file is named for an attribute, and contains the attribute's value. But unfortunately not everything is best expressed as attribute=value.
The current system already has everything as a file - in a format and in locations that the application(s) using it understand. While I'd agree that having lots of different config file formats is annoying, forcing the solution into kernel space isn't the answer - nor is applying the one-size-fits-all solution, whatever it might be. We don't more more damn pseudo-filesystems; there are way too many already. We've got stuff like pipefs now that are really invisible for example. Try and explain to me how that's any less magical and obscure than the registry. It's not the right solution. Besides, how is it an operating system's responsibility to manage configuration of applications anyway? As far as the OS is concerned, an application consists of one or more completely opaque processes. It doesn't know or care what they do. If you start blurring the lines, you end up with an OS that looks like Microsoft's - and works about as well.
Look, you can disagree with me if you want, but I know what I'm talking about here. We just went through a multi-week conversion from NT to 2k. While I was only responsible for the Unix side of things - I refuse to work on anything from Microsoft - I saw it all. I know what broke. I know what OSs are being used, and what applications. And I'm telling you that it doesn't work. While you may well be right about different registry branches, it seems like none of the apps out there are aware of it. And yes, that's the app vendors' fault. But it's also Microsoft's fault, for a) building a system that tries by default to do the wrong thing, b) maintaining back-compatibility (mostly) with a 100% single-user system, and c) botching the implementation of whatever ideas, good or bad, they may have had.
Set samba up to take encrypted aunth, or turn of NT and set it to cleartext.
Everything was tried. It just doesn't work. The only solution is to put in an smbpasswd file that contains all the users with empty passwords. Not very good but the only way to do it. Trust me on this one. We spent DAYS.
If you want to make a reasonable comparison you need to look at the fundamentals not just the IT-mangler-friendly checkmark sheets. I'm not going to make any direct comparisons with Linux in particular, but rather with Unix in general for the situation interesting to me. Specifically, an academic environment with about 80 workstations, a handful of servers, and about 1500 users.
The single biggest headache regarding w2k is that its multiuser capabilities have not advanced one iota since DOS 1.0. While Terminal Server is included, and provides the necessary core functionality to allow multiple users on a single server, thus earning the check mark, the actual implementation is a nightmare. Why? Simple - the evil all-consuming Registry. Everything wants to touch it, but if you allow it then you lose 100% of whatever security you may have had. Security vs functionality is a traditional tradeoff, but this is insane. You can have a little of either, but none of the other. The simple fact is that Microsoft has no concept of how to design a multiuser system. Instead of allowing each user to customize various aspects of application behaviour with small text files in their home directory, much system behaviour is controlled instead by a single central repository. Fundamentally flawed design, plain and simple.
The 40 systems in our lab that don't run Unix converted from using NT server to w2k server over the summer break. It's been nothing short of a nightmare. Half the applications used are either broken or spew errors. Our beautiful unified dos/unix print quota system broke because w2k refuses to authenticate for samba (as usual, another release from Microsoft containing enough changes to intentionally break competitors' products). Active Directory trashes our DNS zone files, making them unmaintainable and routinely breaking mail and NFS. The list of problems goes on and on...
Microsoft has conclusively demonstrated that the only sane upgrade from NT4 is Unix. Don't buy the hype. w2k may crash less than its predecessors, but the headaches involved with it are no less numerous or severe. If you don't like Linux, use one of the BSD flavours. Microsoft is just not an option.
Copying, for your own use, copyrighted material that you have obtained legally has never been illegal.
Of course. That's fair use. But don't kid yourself - Napster isn't about copying for one's own use. Unfortunately neither side in this case has the right view - that this is a matter between individual purchasers of recordings and the labels that hold the copyrights on them. Napster, lame and stupid as they are, should not be involved in any way. Nor should the RIAA. Instead of standing up for Napster and shouting nonsense like fair use and information wants to be free, we need to step back and acknowledge that most if not all Napster users are in violation of the law. And then fight to the death for the continuing existence of communication. The RIAA is evil. Napster know full well that their service is used mainly if not exclusively by people violating the law. But none of that is relevant to this case: the RIAA has no business being involved, and the case should be thrown out completely so the proper plaintiffs can bring a case against the proper defendants. Allowing the current trial to proceed at all is a serious blow to the continued existence of communication - it makes transfer media liable for the messages they carry, which I think we've all agreed here numerous times is a bad thing.
Quick summary:
There's no piracy here, because (AFAIK) none of this involved ships. The RIAA has no case, because they hold no relevant copyrights. Napster should not be defendants because they didn't violate any relevant copyrights. The individual labels should sue individuals who violated the relevant copyrights, if they feel that the violations harmed them. Acknowledging the current case as valid at all endangers the existence of all communications media.
Walk the plank, arrrr! 'Tis a watery grave for ye swabs, arrr!
What a crock of shit. I hope Napster and the RIAA both burn in hell. Piracy indeed. It's simply a license violation, a civil matter between the violators (not Napster, but the users) and the licensor (not the RIAA, that's for damn sure - usually a label).
Ban FTP; it can be used to illegally distribute stuff!
No, no, no! Avoid not starting any kind of confrontation. If a later employer insists on that nasty 'Y' platform, quit. You'll have a new job by the time you get to your car in the parking lot. As a student, fight the fight every single day, never let up, and never give an inch. If the TA is uncooperative (likely, they really aren't paid to take your shit), talk to the professor, then the chairman, then the dean, then the vice president(s). Schedule an appointment with the directors or trustees or board of regents at your university, or the president. Never stop, never give up. Remember, most of these people are basically droids - they have zero understanding of technical issues and they probably don't understand why Microsoft products don't help their students get an education. You need to tell them! And be ready with viable alternatives.
I an the systems administrator for a computing center at a university. The machines are half peecees running some type of Microsoft OS, half SGIs with IRIX. Every single day I fight with the lab manager over her priorities - she seems to favour the Microsoft platform, and I insist repeatedly that Unix is, if not dramatically superior, at least more important for students. The most important thing I've found is to always have answers to "yeah, well, I know how to do 'Z' in $FUCKED_UP_OS, but how the hell do you do it in Unix?" I have answers - viable answers that involve well-known, very usable software - for hundreds of those questions. The lab manager isn't stupid, just too tied to what she already knows, which unfortunately isn't Unix.
I will admit that I'm getting tired of fighting. After a while I do start to wonder whether there's an agenda involved; there have been several well-known incidents in which Microsoft has offered various bribes to schools to get them to teach only on their platforms. Any school that accepts these bribes is doing their students a terrible disservice, of course, but some still do. We aren't involved in such a thing, but I do sometimes wonder just how much pressure Microsoft and certain of their apologists are applying. Don't get me wrong - virtually every vendor offers bribes in the form of educational discounts - but Microsoft seems to be the only one to insist on exclusivity. And they're also the only one known to have offered bribes for favourable mention in papers and classes. This certainly seems contrary to a university's educational mission, but again, most of the higher-ups at a university are completely obsessed with money and have no real concept of education at all. Certainly that's true here, and that's really what makes it so hard to fight them and win. Both technical and educational goals take a back seat to money. It's interesting, then, that telling them about the enormous costs - licensing, maintenance, lost work due to unreliability - associated with the Microsoft platform doesn't seem to have any real effect. So it's hard not to become paranoid and assume that something bigger is afoot.
It's unfortunate that many if not most students enter the computer science field (which, incidentally, has little to do with coding, really) just for the money they can get when they leave. And certainly many of them have the mistaken impression that the Microsoft environments are where the money is. Fortunately, unlike most of the high rollers, the students can be convinced otherwise. I make it a point to mention, for example, that knowing Unix makes it much easier to get a job, and will almost always result in higher pay. Of a completely unscientific survey of several recent graduates I know, the ones doing only Unix work are being paid about $10k a year more than those doing mixed Unix/Microsoft work, and about $20k more than those doing only Microsoft work. It may not be scientific, but it is compelling.
GPG may not support this; however, what if a key created with GPG had this ADK appended to it and a PGP client was used to interpret
and use the key?? Is there any chance in the world of general key misuse due to the fact that PGP is a rather popular client??
Yes of course. So 1) Don't use PGP5/6, 2) Don't accept anything from anyone who uses PGP5/6, and 3) Make certain all keys come from known sources.
Of course, since the vulnerable versions of PGP are the Microsoft ones, this shouldn't really be a problem. After all, nobody who uses Microsoft products is really worth communicating with anyway, securely or not.
Their new Orign 3000 server line uses a cc:NUMA
architecure. They hope to run Linux on these someday, but Intel has been jerking them around with Itanium delays.
Actually in all likelihood Linux already runs on O3k. Certainly it does already run on O2k. Forget Itanium, these machines are available today with MIPS CPUs, which are arguably better than anything Intel's going to produce anyway.
Re:Most disgraceful thing on the web
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 2
and for God's sake, don't vote!
Don't worry, I won't. That was the whole point of my post - that voting is useless because every politician once elected completely discards his or her conscience on the altar of reelection. So instead of standing up for what's right, they focus on two things: raising enough money for the next campaign (basically, accepting bribes), and making sure they keep the support of the biggest voting blocs (generally, by casting votes according to polls, when they don't contradict the bribes they've taken).
This is a crock. I won't vote until meaningful reforms are implemented; namely, one-term-only for all offices, the prohibition of lobbying, of political contributions by corporations (for-profit or not) and of total political contributions exceeding $1000 per individual in any given year, and life in prison at hard labor for anyone who violates these terms. Yes, I realize that in many jurisdictions these changes would require constitutional amendments. So what? The current system in this country (and most others) is a farce. I don't expect integrity from politicians because not one this century has ever demonstrated knowledge of the concept.
I fail to see how believing as I do means I have no integrity, but if that's what you choose to think, I won't try and stop you.
Re:Most disgraceful thing on the web
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 2
But if you sell that vote, then your giving someone else a greater influence on the final decision than
everyone else.
My God man, how old are you? 5? Wake up and smell the money, jeezus. You really think this isn't already what happens? That major corporate and lobbying organizations don't already control more or less everything? The only difference here is that votes are being sold earlier in the process than they traditionally have been.
Quite frankly, I find the concept of buying individual votes to be inefficient. It's much cheaper, and quicker, to simply buy the politicians once elected. Since this is what's been going on all along, it's surprising that anyone would be willing to change it.
There's no such thing as justice. There's no such thing as freedom. There's no such thing as integrity. The concept of reelection threw those out the window right from the start.
and it integrates superbly with Visual C++ 6.0. From nothing to a
working Inventor app in 30 minutes with this, that can open, save, print, crash, lock up, hang, blue-screen, toast your machine,...
Just couldn't resist.:) And yes, I've worked with OIV on that platform. There's nothing you could offer me that would get me to use a microsoft product ever again. *shudder* Just thinking about that experience is disturbing.
Careful. I could put IRIX 5.3 on an Indigo and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't handle it. If you mean an origin (which would most likely run irix given that linux on such systems is quite experimental yet) instead of the crap sgi is trying to pass off as "servers" these days (x86, what a sick joke), then yes, absolutely you are right. But simply running irix does not a server make.
download limit set at 50? dont SGI know nothing about enterprise servers!? should be RUnNIng LIIIIINUX!! ! !@ @ @
Wake up and smell the sTuDlYcApS d00d. oss.sgi.com is an SGI 1000 series server. It has 2 700 MHz Intel weaklings. And yeah, it's running Linux. Maybe the download limit is there to keep ignorant fools from getting at it. Especially since you can get it by CVS too. oss.sgi.com is a lot more than just an FTP server; placing a limit on FTP connections is a sensible thing to do. Get a clue, man.
Whatever, as long as Linux is finally getting varied, high-end graphics attention, I'm happy. It's the biggest piece of the puzzle for Desktop
Domination(TM).
Dammit, it's got NOTHING to do with Linux. The software is now Free, which means you can build, use, and modify it on any of a wide array of systems. It's about having the source, not about Open Inventor for Linux. There's been OI for Linux/x86 for years already. I can't believe how narrow your view is.
However, that sort of licensing term is unlikely to stand up in court. It'd be nice if someone with at least half a testicle would stand up and tell the world that the terms are bullshit and most likely illegal.
I benchmarked Oracle and Microsoft-SQL against one another for box weight (that is, how heavy the software, packaging, and associated manuals are) and found that the differences are scale-dependent. Overall I found that Oracle was heavier.
Go ahead, guys, sue me. Good luck; you'll need it.
Not to beat a dead horse and/or start another religious war, but it seems to me that the main reason installing this stuff is so hard is that it isn't bundled with XFree. Why? Oh yeah, they won't release the source...
You have an absolute top of the line Indigo then. The majority of them on the market are R3000 33 MHz or R4000 100 MHz. These are slow, especially the R3k. There's still a bit of life in the R4k boxes, but the R3ks are truly dead.
Don't waste $500 on a x86 chip. Just get a REAL COMPUTER for the same price and see!
Linux runs quite well on Indy. My Distro is available, and there is Debian port in the works. See also The SGI site and The Unofficial site. There's even X available now for some configurations. This port isn't production-ready but it's certainly ok for casual use.
You can put the monitors on peecees. Besides, in many ways those machines are much faster than any peecee. Well, the Indy anyway, Indigos are hopelessly old. Never throw away workstations; they retain value for at least 10 years after manufacture. Peecees may in the "10 bucks and you have to haul it away" category after 2 or 3 years, but real computers are useful and worth money for many years.
Pretty poor troll there, friend. Linux != x86. How many times must I tell you this? Linux is a nice OS. Not perfect, just nice. x86 is a shitty architecture. Not merely bad, shitty. There are many things that peecees cannot do and will never do. There are a few things that Linux cannot do; perhaps it will do them in the future. *thwap*clue stick*
The more you know about
commercial practices like the ones MS is doing, the more you want to get your freedom back.
Amen! Instead of complaining about things like Microsoft's EULA and UCITA, just don't do business with the purveyors of slavery. These days, that's not even painful.
This, of course, is also why the people who scream that licenses on their CDs are meaningless and routinely steal (like RMS, I refuse to say "pirate") proprietary winDOS software have no right to get all riled up when nVidia or some other idiots violate the GPL. The license has meaning, or it doesn't. Under the rule of law, it does. So if you aren't willing or able to follow the licensing terms for a given product, you need to find alternate options, not just ignore the licensing terms. And it wouldn't hurt if you'd send them a quick email informing them that they lost your business over licensing terms.
Corporations are easily manipulated so long as they are in business to make a profit. If they get out of line, deny them their profits. Very simple.
Many of you Apple nay-sayers can whine all you want, but you would most likely do the same if it came down to it.
If the only thing going for my product is its appearance I've already lost. If I hire a lawyer to squash the opposition and frighten ordinary people, I've already lost. Apple's been a loser for 2/3 of its existence, and Jobs needs to be expelled from the US for conduct unbecoming a citizen. I'm sick of Apple's "we're-better-than-you" attitude, Jobs's arrogance, and the droves of weak-minded followers. The loss of competition would be a small price to pay for Apple's destruction. They haven't produced a genuinely innovative product is 14+ years, anyway (very few others have either).
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately if you unify things in this way, you a) break every existing application, and more importantly b) apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Sorry, not the Unix way. What form do you pick for this? The obvious one is that each file is named for an attribute, and contains the attribute's value. But unfortunately not everything is best expressed as attribute=value.
The current system already has everything as a file - in a format and in locations that the application(s) using it understand. While I'd agree that having lots of different config file formats is annoying, forcing the solution into kernel space isn't the answer - nor is applying the one-size-fits-all solution, whatever it might be. We don't more more damn pseudo-filesystems; there are way too many already. We've got stuff like pipefs now that are really invisible for example. Try and explain to me how that's any less magical and obscure than the registry. It's not the right solution. Besides, how is it an operating system's responsibility to manage configuration of applications anyway? As far as the OS is concerned, an application consists of one or more completely opaque processes. It doesn't know or care what they do. If you start blurring the lines, you end up with an OS that looks like Microsoft's - and works about as well.
Look, you can disagree with me if you want, but I know what I'm talking about here. We just went through a multi-week conversion from NT to 2k. While I was only responsible for the Unix side of things - I refuse to work on anything from Microsoft - I saw it all. I know what broke. I know what OSs are being used, and what applications. And I'm telling you that it doesn't work. While you may well be right about different registry branches, it seems like none of the apps out there are aware of it. And yes, that's the app vendors' fault. But it's also Microsoft's fault, for a) building a system that tries by default to do the wrong thing, b) maintaining back-compatibility (mostly) with a 100% single-user system, and c) botching the implementation of whatever ideas, good or bad, they may have had.
Everything was tried. It just doesn't work. The only solution is to put in an smbpasswd file that contains all the users with empty passwords. Not very good but the only way to do it. Trust me on this one. We spent DAYS.
The single biggest headache regarding w2k is that its multiuser capabilities have not advanced one iota since DOS 1.0. While Terminal Server is included, and provides the necessary core functionality to allow multiple users on a single server, thus earning the check mark, the actual implementation is a nightmare. Why? Simple - the evil all-consuming Registry. Everything wants to touch it, but if you allow it then you lose 100% of whatever security you may have had. Security vs functionality is a traditional tradeoff, but this is insane. You can have a little of either, but none of the other. The simple fact is that Microsoft has no concept of how to design a multiuser system. Instead of allowing each user to customize various aspects of application behaviour with small text files in their home directory, much system behaviour is controlled instead by a single central repository. Fundamentally flawed design, plain and simple.
The 40 systems in our lab that don't run Unix converted from using NT server to w2k server over the summer break. It's been nothing short of a nightmare. Half the applications used are either broken or spew errors. Our beautiful unified dos/unix print quota system broke because w2k refuses to authenticate for samba (as usual, another release from Microsoft containing enough changes to intentionally break competitors' products). Active Directory trashes our DNS zone files, making them unmaintainable and routinely breaking mail and NFS. The list of problems goes on and on...
Microsoft has conclusively demonstrated that the only sane upgrade from NT4 is Unix. Don't buy the hype. w2k may crash less than its predecessors, but the headaches involved with it are no less numerous or severe. If you don't like Linux, use one of the BSD flavours. Microsoft is just not an option.
Of course. That's fair use. But don't kid yourself - Napster isn't about copying for one's own use. Unfortunately neither side in this case has the right view - that this is a matter between individual purchasers of recordings and the labels that hold the copyrights on them. Napster, lame and stupid as they are, should not be involved in any way. Nor should the RIAA. Instead of standing up for Napster and shouting nonsense like fair use and information wants to be free, we need to step back and acknowledge that most if not all Napster users are in violation of the law. And then fight to the death for the continuing existence of communication. The RIAA is evil. Napster know full well that their service is used mainly if not exclusively by people violating the law. But none of that is relevant to this case: the RIAA has no business being involved, and the case should be thrown out completely so the proper plaintiffs can bring a case against the proper defendants. Allowing the current trial to proceed at all is a serious blow to the continued existence of communication - it makes transfer media liable for the messages they carry, which I think we've all agreed here numerous times is a bad thing.
Quick summary: There's no piracy here, because (AFAIK) none of this involved ships. The RIAA has no case, because they hold no relevant copyrights. Napster should not be defendants because they didn't violate any relevant copyrights. The individual labels should sue individuals who violated the relevant copyrights, if they feel that the violations harmed them. Acknowledging the current case as valid at all endangers the existence of all communications media.
What a crock of shit. I hope Napster and the RIAA both burn in hell. Piracy indeed. It's simply a license violation, a civil matter between the violators (not Napster, but the users) and the licensor (not the RIAA, that's for damn sure - usually a label).
Ban FTP; it can be used to illegally distribute stuff!
I an the systems administrator for a computing center at a university. The machines are half peecees running some type of Microsoft OS, half SGIs with IRIX. Every single day I fight with the lab manager over her priorities - she seems to favour the Microsoft platform, and I insist repeatedly that Unix is, if not dramatically superior, at least more important for students. The most important thing I've found is to always have answers to "yeah, well, I know how to do 'Z' in $FUCKED_UP_OS, but how the hell do you do it in Unix?" I have answers - viable answers that involve well-known, very usable software - for hundreds of those questions. The lab manager isn't stupid, just too tied to what she already knows, which unfortunately isn't Unix.
I will admit that I'm getting tired of fighting. After a while I do start to wonder whether there's an agenda involved; there have been several well-known incidents in which Microsoft has offered various bribes to schools to get them to teach only on their platforms. Any school that accepts these bribes is doing their students a terrible disservice, of course, but some still do. We aren't involved in such a thing, but I do sometimes wonder just how much pressure Microsoft and certain of their apologists are applying. Don't get me wrong - virtually every vendor offers bribes in the form of educational discounts - but Microsoft seems to be the only one to insist on exclusivity. And they're also the only one known to have offered bribes for favourable mention in papers and classes. This certainly seems contrary to a university's educational mission, but again, most of the higher-ups at a university are completely obsessed with money and have no real concept of education at all. Certainly that's true here, and that's really what makes it so hard to fight them and win. Both technical and educational goals take a back seat to money. It's interesting, then, that telling them about the enormous costs - licensing, maintenance, lost work due to unreliability - associated with the Microsoft platform doesn't seem to have any real effect. So it's hard not to become paranoid and assume that something bigger is afoot.
It's unfortunate that many if not most students enter the computer science field (which, incidentally, has little to do with coding, really) just for the money they can get when they leave. And certainly many of them have the mistaken impression that the Microsoft environments are where the money is. Fortunately, unlike most of the high rollers, the students can be convinced otherwise. I make it a point to mention, for example, that knowing Unix makes it much easier to get a job, and will almost always result in higher pay. Of a completely unscientific survey of several recent graduates I know, the ones doing only Unix work are being paid about $10k a year more than those doing mixed Unix/Microsoft work, and about $20k more than those doing only Microsoft work. It may not be scientific, but it is compelling.
Yes of course. So 1) Don't use PGP5/6, 2) Don't accept anything from anyone who uses PGP5/6, and 3) Make certain all keys come from known sources.
Of course, since the vulnerable versions of PGP are the Microsoft ones, this shouldn't really be a problem. After all, nobody who uses Microsoft products is really worth communicating with anyway, securely or not.
Actually in all likelihood Linux already runs on O3k. Certainly it does already run on O2k. Forget Itanium, these machines are available today with MIPS CPUs, which are arguably better than anything Intel's going to produce anyway.
Don't worry, I won't. That was the whole point of my post - that voting is useless because every politician once elected completely discards his or her conscience on the altar of reelection. So instead of standing up for what's right, they focus on two things: raising enough money for the next campaign (basically, accepting bribes), and making sure they keep the support of the biggest voting blocs (generally, by casting votes according to polls, when they don't contradict the bribes they've taken).
This is a crock. I won't vote until meaningful reforms are implemented; namely, one-term-only for all offices, the prohibition of lobbying, of political contributions by corporations (for-profit or not) and of total political contributions exceeding $1000 per individual in any given year, and life in prison at hard labor for anyone who violates these terms. Yes, I realize that in many jurisdictions these changes would require constitutional amendments. So what? The current system in this country (and most others) is a farce. I don't expect integrity from politicians because not one this century has ever demonstrated knowledge of the concept.
I fail to see how believing as I do means I have no integrity, but if that's what you choose to think, I won't try and stop you.
My God man, how old are you? 5? Wake up and smell the money, jeezus. You really think this isn't already what happens? That major corporate and lobbying organizations don't already control more or less everything? The only difference here is that votes are being sold earlier in the process than they traditionally have been.
Quite frankly, I find the concept of buying individual votes to be inefficient. It's much cheaper, and quicker, to simply buy the politicians once elected. Since this is what's been going on all along, it's surprising that anyone would be willing to change it.
There's no such thing as justice. There's no such thing as freedom. There's no such thing as integrity. The concept of reelection threw those out the window right from the start.
Just couldn't resist. :) And yes, I've worked with OIV on that platform. There's nothing you could offer me that would get me to use a microsoft product ever again. *shudder* Just thinking about that experience is disturbing.
Careful. I could put IRIX 5.3 on an Indigo and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't handle it. If you mean an origin (which would most likely run irix given that linux on such systems is quite experimental yet) instead of the crap sgi is trying to pass off as "servers" these days (x86, what a sick joke), then yes, absolutely you are right. But simply running irix does not a server make.
Wake up and smell the sTuDlYcApS d00d. oss.sgi.com is an SGI 1000 series server. It has 2 700 MHz Intel weaklings. And yeah, it's running Linux. Maybe the download limit is there to keep ignorant fools from getting at it. Especially since you can get it by CVS too. oss.sgi.com is a lot more than just an FTP server; placing a limit on FTP connections is a sensible thing to do. Get a clue, man.
Dammit, it's got NOTHING to do with Linux. The software is now Free, which means you can build, use, and modify it on any of a wide array of systems. It's about having the source, not about Open Inventor for Linux. There's been OI for Linux/x86 for years already. I can't believe how narrow your view is.
I benchmarked Oracle and Microsoft-SQL against one another for box weight (that is, how heavy the software, packaging, and associated manuals are) and found that the differences are scale-dependent. Overall I found that Oracle was heavier.
Go ahead, guys, sue me. Good luck; you'll need it.
Not to beat a dead horse and/or start another religious war, but it seems to me that the main reason installing this stuff is so hard is that it isn't bundled with XFree. Why? Oh yeah, they won't release the source...
Intel has strengths? Surely you jest.
Don't waste $500 on a x86 chip. Just get a REAL COMPUTER for the same price and see!
Amen, brother.
Linux runs quite well on Indy. My Distro is available, and there is Debian port in the works. See also The SGI site and The Unofficial site. There's even X available now for some configurations. This port isn't production-ready but it's certainly ok for casual use.
You can put the monitors on peecees. Besides, in many ways those machines are much faster than any peecee. Well, the Indy anyway, Indigos are hopelessly old. Never throw away workstations; they retain value for at least 10 years after manufacture. Peecees may in the "10 bucks and you have to haul it away" category after 2 or 3 years, but real computers are useful and worth money for many years.
Pretty poor troll there, friend. Linux != x86. How many times must I tell you this? Linux is a nice OS. Not perfect, just nice. x86 is a shitty architecture. Not merely bad, shitty. There are many things that peecees cannot do and will never do. There are a few things that Linux cannot do; perhaps it will do them in the future. *thwap*clue stick*
Amen! Instead of complaining about things like Microsoft's EULA and UCITA, just don't do business with the purveyors of slavery. These days, that's not even painful.
This, of course, is also why the people who scream that licenses on their CDs are meaningless and routinely steal (like RMS, I refuse to say "pirate") proprietary winDOS software have no right to get all riled up when nVidia or some other idiots violate the GPL. The license has meaning, or it doesn't. Under the rule of law, it does. So if you aren't willing or able to follow the licensing terms for a given product, you need to find alternate options, not just ignore the licensing terms. And it wouldn't hurt if you'd send them a quick email informing them that they lost your business over licensing terms.
Corporations are easily manipulated so long as they are in business to make a profit. If they get out of line, deny them their profits. Very simple.
I don't post anything I wouldn't want my real name attached to. I'd be far more ashamed to be posting anonymously.
If the only thing going for my product is its appearance I've already lost. If I hire a lawyer to squash the opposition and frighten ordinary people, I've already lost. Apple's been a loser for 2/3 of its existence, and Jobs needs to be expelled from the US for conduct unbecoming a citizen. I'm sick of Apple's "we're-better-than-you" attitude, Jobs's arrogance, and the droves of weak-minded followers. The loss of competition would be a small price to pay for Apple's destruction. They haven't produced a genuinely innovative product is 14+ years, anyway (very few others have either).