You hope wrong. It's BYTEs, not bits. Now, I'm normally one who dismisses paranoia, but there's something to be said for this being a government conspiracy. I mean, distributed or not, 1 GB/s of bandwidth isn't very accessible. Particularly to the skript kiddies and other losers that normally perpetrate this kind of thing. I really don't see how this can be anything but:
An act of war against the United States by a foreign power, most probably China since other nations with serious bandwidth are typically US allies.
An act of the United States government against its own people, possibly for the reasons described in the post michael linked.
The result of a heretofore unknown band of rogue backbone provider employees/agents who have ganged up to have some fun.
Looking at these options, I quite frankly find it difficult to look seriously at (1) or (3) compared with (2). I mean, it's scary as shit, but nothing else makes any fsckin sense.
I have it on good authority that the next version of Slashcode will have this, along with "-1, Petrification", "-1, Anti-Linux", and "+1, Anti-Linux". They thought about "-1, Sensible" but decided that Offtopic would serve to cover those.
You answer your own question. In general, the difficulty of porting depends on the sanity of the hardware and availability of specs. Hardware that is better in this regard tends to see rapid, complete ports (many examples). Hardware that is worse (sgimips, sgimips, sgimips) tends to see partial ports to small subsets of hardware that aren't totally inscrutable.
In most cases, the kernel can be easily ported to a well-documented architecture, but only once gcc is working properly on it. And even for well-documented architectures, porting gcc is a good deal of work; not because of gcc shortcomings but just that there is a great deal to do. Then libc must be ported, which is less work than it once was, but still can be a fair amount. Once gcc, libc, and Linux are done, the rest is pretty straightforward.
If the processor manufacturers know that they can port a mature OS with lots of tools to their new architecture with little effort, then the risk goes down.
Indeed. A sufficiently interesting architecture might well have a full port before a product even ships. Unfortunately, this requires the mfr to release more or less full documentation for the processor, bus(es), and supporting hardware in advance, or at least simultaneous with product release. Most refuse to do this, so their products aren't adopted very quickly. We'll see how well intermediate models (for example the IA-64 effort) work around this.
I believe that any distro with kernel 2.2.5 or higher will run on a SS1000/SC2000. Why DeadRat's site continues to insist that they don't work is beyond me. As another option, you could pick your favorite distro, put the SS/SC disk(s) in a "supported" machine, then build your own kernel on it that is known to work with sun4d, and put the disks back in. But, as I said, this shouldn't be necessary. Give it a try.
System V printing is an absolute mess, with considerable differences between HP-UX, Solaris, and other UNIXen flavors. I can't tell you how much of a pain it is supporting heterogeneous UNIX printing, even in a straight Postscript environment.
Agreed. That's why I use LPRng. It acts and works like BSD, except it's much more powerful and less archaic. It also replicates most of the SysV functionality if some sickos like to use that. I've not used CUPS, so I can't say much about it, only that I know of another solution that seems to work pretty well.
If you think this isn't a serious issue which compromises the potential adoption of Freenix at the consumer level, then we have nothing to discuss.
It is. But unlike almost everyone else here, I'm not of the opinion that every consumer on Earth should be using Free Unix...or computers at all.
CUPS is a reasonable solution to this problem, and I'm pleased it's evolved to provide both a GPL foundation ALONG WITH support for proprietary printer drivers. I challenge you to detail how this is different from Linus allowing proprietary binary only loadable modules in Linux.
No sucker bets here. It's essentially the same. It's just that I think Linus made a mistake.:)
As a former NeXT Cube and NeXTStation owner I argue that they were the most elegant computers I've ever had the pleasure to own. The damn things still work well and still hold up as excellent (if somewhat slow) workstations.
Yep. The NeXT cubes were exceedingly cool, and NeXTStep was pretty groundbreaking work. But MOSX doesn't look quite as good to me right now. Too much emphasis on the "MacOS" part, which, despite raves about its beauty and consistency, has repeatedly earned my "worst ui" award, even beating out windoze 3.1, which says a lot. JMHO, but after 7 years of using Unix, the more it emphasizes a gui the less likely I am to tolerate it. I'm sure MOSX will be better in this regard, and I'm equally sure Apple will try to hide it, which makes me ill.
While they've kept much of the core Apple products closed and proprietary, the fact is that this option is left open to them intentionally by the BSD coders.
I'm not trying to say that they violated the BSD license. Just that I don't much care for their particular products and licensing schemes, that's all.
Actually, printing in Unix works great if you have a reasonable printer. If you paid less than $200 for it, good odds it's going to suck. Of course, those printers are usually just crap under any os, but that's not at issue here. A printer that speaks languages like postscript, pcl, pjl, etc. is a good choice under any Unix. In spooler-land, I find that LPRng works wonderfully, in concert with ifhp if need be. It may not be intuitive for newbies, but it works just fine, and is exceedingly powerful.
Boy, MacOS X looks pretty good from this vantagepoint, eh?:-)
Not really. No source == not for me. If I'm going to use something for which I can't get the source, I'll use IRIX. At least IRIX doesn't try not to be Unix. Doesn't try too hard, anyway. Display PostScript? Sure! OpenGL? Fast as hell! A real X server? Of course! No thanks, Apple. Now we just wait for SGI to finish open-sourcing the remaining good parts of IRIX and go to town.
Should, should, should. I've yet to hear someone use the word in conjunction with computers and not get burned or be made to look foolish. Yeah, well, we should all lead perfect idyllic lives knocking back cocktails on our favorite beaches. Since this isn't fantasy-land, you've got to assume the worst. The successful candidate will:
Assume that every single user out there is dumb as a rock, or possibly dumber, and will never pay even the slightest attention to his/her browsing.
Assume that every single cracker is clever as hell, has access to any and every possible piece of equipment, exploit, and tool in existence.
Follow the principle of robustness: be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you produce. In this case, that means accepting input that can/will cause harm and handling it appropriately.
This isn't news to most programmers. Sure, some of the attacks mentioned are fairly clever, but the principles have been around since the beginning: find input that causes the program to behave in an undefined way, and hope that it can't tell the difference. My guess is that most programmers already check for this kind of crap - as in fact you point out from your own experience.
The thing that's always fascinated me about this sort of thing is how anyone can have so much free time and brain power to waste coming up with this garbage. Hello, don't you losers have anything better to do???
Microsoft is afraid of real firmware. Think about it - the Sun boot PROM (for example) has more features and functionality than windows, and fewer bugs! (that little floppy boot thing notwithstanding...)
Uh, these are to be consumer devices? What makes you think that consumers are concerned that their BIOS knows what an ethernet card is?
Consumers don't, of course. But in addition to real firmware being fun for the technically savvy, it's also very useful in embedded systems such as these. Why? Because it's nice to put simple drivers for simple hardware in 1 or 2 MB of ROM rather than wasting scarce RAM on more complicated os-level drivers. Because it's nice to be able to boot from a network. Because it's nice to have hardware diagnostics built in, especially for machines that aren't likely to have lots of flashing lights, beeps, and other traditional failure indicators. In embedded systems, good firmware can make the difference. Now, I realize these aren't strictly embedded systems, but it's easy to see (at least for me) that they would greatly benefit from a nice OF implementation.
Naturally, Transmeta's business plan revolves (for now) around x86 compatibility, and that means top-to-bottom peecee "emulation." I personally think that's a terrible idea that will condemn them to hang in the past while most everyone else rockets into the future, but in context, partnering with Phoenix makes perfect sense. And real firmware really just doesn't.
ObFirmwareAnecdote: The ultralinux project once mocked Sun's motto as "The PROM is the computer" in appreciation of real firmware and its benefits.
Re:On to Spanish Harlem!
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Maybe we did all start on an equal footing but that soon changed when Europeans decided to take what they wanted from other less greedy countries by force.
Of course the Europeans plundered. But I'd hate to think that you believe that practice was unique to them.
At the time of the agrarian and industrial revolutions, there were no practical subjects being taught in universities. In fact there was very little formal science involved in the development of the key technologies. It was trial-and-error engineering performed by enthusiasts, funded by rich aristocratic sponsors.
Thanks for agreeing with me. That was the point. IOW, something that could just as easily happen anywhere. Don't forget that while most people in the areas in question are very poor, there are a few with great wealth - the kings and warlords of the day. Unfortunately, they seem to be even more short-sighted than their European counterparts of yesteryear.
What did we do after we'd secured our head start, then? Did we share?
Of course not. Nobody does, nor should they.
We colonized those countries and governed them ourselves. Any blame for their lack of progress up to the middle of the 20th century therefore lies squarely with the colonial powers. The countries of the third world were denied even the opportunity to take control of their own destiny until they began demanding their freedom after the second world war.
Yes. This is probably the first intelligent analysis I've heard from you. And had I been a voting citizen of a colonial power in 1950 I would feel great shame for denying someone the right to self-determination. Though, despite the atrocities committed under colonial rule, there were a few benefits, specifically the development of infrastructure you referred to not having.
Of course, at the same time there's a great counterexample. Until the mid-19th century, Japan was an extremely primitive nation. Ancient, brutal government, no industry whatsoever, the works. A few decades later, it's a major world power. An industrial power. But Japan has almost no natural resources. Only a very small portion of Japan is arable. Timber is in very short supply. No petroleum supplies. In fact, Japan's only real resource is fish. Trade routes were generally local to the region, not worldwide as we saw with the Europeans beginning in the 13th-14th centuries. And yet Japan not only industrialized and modernized in a few decades, they fought a very competitive war with the world's greatest powers. So 40 or 50 years (say, since the end of colonialism in the 50s and 60s) is a long time for a people like the Japanese who have some commitment and motivation, but forever for those without.
while you are forced to pay 75% of what you can make to your white landlord?
Oh, so let's make this about racism now. I don't seem to recall that such was an issue here. But then, it does help you make me look bad by screaming "RACISM!!!!" What a sod you are. It's clear to me that you are obsessed with ancestral guilt over things you couldn't control and that you'd probably like to force me and everyone else to give up our lives on the altar of atonement. I suspect maybe your mother never told you that Life Is Not Fair and that if you get screwed, screw back, try again, and don't bitch. So Europeans were Imperialist bastards. The world's a tough place, moreso for some than others. Deal with it. So I wonder only why you are posting in the rich man's forum when you could be giving your computer to a starving Indonesian child (what he'll do with it I don't know), or feeding an African girl. Because it's easier to force others to do it?
Re:On to Spanish Harlem!
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Actually the vast majority of the world's population lives in conditions of extreme poverty.
Yes, but these are not the people who concern themselves with decisions regarding space exploration, are they? You also need to be careful how you define poverty - as one might expect, the definition varies from place to place. US$3000 might not sound like much, but for someone in a middle-income nation with such an income, it is plenty for survival and possibly a good deal more. Yes, most people in the world are far too poor to live in New York City or London. But then, most Europeans and Americans would fall into that category as well. Your view demonstrates exactly the narrowness you accuse me of.
Actually it is precisely your fault because the high-consumption lifestyle you boast that you enjoy would be impossible were it not for the fact that Europe and America have been screwing the developing countries for centuries, specifically by artificially depressing the price of third world exports (mainly raw materials).
They are welcome to industrialize. Of course, industrialization works best under a stable government, something most of the world has never seen fit to provide for itself. And before you try to argue that this is impossible, think back 200-250 years to industrialization in Europe. Where did the foreign aid come from? What industrial nation's universities trained the Europeans? Hmmm...nobody!!! They did it on their own. Not because they are better human beings but because they decided to stop the bullshit and do something useful. Yes, the foundations came from the Greeks, Arabs, and Chinese (among others). But everyone started on equal footing - after all, somewhere, sometime there had to be a first set of humans, all others descended from them. So anyone anywhere can make the same decision. But they'd rather fight each other over a few square kilometers of worthless desert somewhere (no specific reference intended).
Then don't expect us to carry you when it becomes your turn to suffer.
s/when/if/
And don't worry - I don't. In fact, I would hate you just as much for trying to help me as I do for insisting that I help others. It's not my fscking problem what happens to other people. Everyone needs to look out for number one. And no matter what you may think, I believe this is not only possible but practical, and would mean an end to warfare and crime. Once you realize that what I can obtain for myself is mine and only mine, and I the same for you, suddenly theft and killing just don't seem to have any place in the picture. So don't accuse me of being a Nazi. No warmonger I. ( Cue appropriate Usenet law)
The FreeBSD ports system could easily be implemented for Linux. I'm waiting for the `FreeBSD' distribution of Linux that does this. Any takers?
Project Foobazco, a recently-formed network-services/Free Software development cooperative, is in the early planning stages for such a thing. I do mean EARLY. It'll be a source-only package-by-package build-it-and-go distribution. Choice and security will be priorities. If you're interested, go to the idea page for some of my thoughts on where to go with this. Did I mention that it's in the EARLY planning stage?
Re:On to Spanish Harlem!
on
On to Mars
·
· Score: 1
Which is more important to you?
Space exploration. No contest.
What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
It says that, unlike lesser animals, I as a human can concern myself with issues other than food and other survival issues. This is a luxury humans have that other species do not. It's what intelligence is all about.
I can't help it that some people aren't able/willing to survive in today's world. That's not my fault. I can manage to feed, clothe, and house myself; why can't they? And for the rest of the 90+% of us who aren't complete losers, there's more than enough left over after survival considerations to do something that proves, yes proves, our humanity. Something fun! Something broadening! Something exciting!
If you believe the human experience should be about ensuring the survival of all humans and nothing else, you are badly mistaken. Even other animals only work to ensure their own/their children's survival. Altruism is unheard-of, and for good reason - altruistic species are "selected against" as the euphemism goes. Some people are losers and will die, just as some flatworms are losers and will die. It's natural and normal, not an excuse to stop being human. Onward and upward, folks, and all are welcome to come along; but I will not carry others.
Bah! Read the whole post. I'm not advocating any sort of legislative or economic prohibitions on computer ownership; only that people who don't want computers stop believing the hype that they should have them anyway.
The reason is because the market is not there. If you want there to be a market for Linux then you need to get the masses over.
Your fundamental error is assuming that I do. Like most people once did, I understand that if I want to do something with my computer, it's up to me to either find someone else's solution, or make up my own. Whining and bitching and signing porting petitions for third-rate proprietary products isn't the way to go. You have to decide: do I 1) Care most about minimal work and having my applications (suck it up and use windows), 2) Care most about my applications and using a good OS (write your own apps), or 3) Care most about minimal work and using a good OS (accept that your desired apps won't be available)? This is your problem, not mine. My operating environment does what I want it to. How dare you insist that I change it so as to make it more convenient for you to increase the size of the market!
As much as I respect Linus, he must take the blame for the biggest error the computing industry as recently seen: the idea that Linux-based environments should dominate the world. Sure, he said it in fun, and a few people managed to muster the clues to see it that way, but most people took it as a new mission statement. News flash, people: it's not going to happen, nor should it.
Powerful systems are by their nature more difficult to use. Even with the friendliest, flashiest interface and a slick, glossy manual written by the greatest technical writers of all time, a piece of software like sendmail is still going to require a competent, experienced individual to make use of its more powerful features. If you take away those powerful features, you can make its use much easier - but suffer from the loss of that feature set.
The idea that everyone should be using {Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, } is flawed just as is Microsoft's idea that everyone should be using Windows. The truth of the matter is that most people shouldn't be using computers at all, especially not in the current peecee/workstation model of desktop computing. It isn't the answer. All that this has done is cause thousands of mindless followers to adopt Linus's goal of World Domination and set about dumbing down the system to the point where it's unusable for the people who created it. What kind of sickness is this?
Unix is where it is today not because of its recent "progress" toward the "end-user" but because of its 30+ year tradition of design for the designers. The people who build this software know how it works and they expect that like-minded people, technical people, will find it intuitive to work with. Since these are the people who have the opportunity to put such systems to the greatest use, it makes sense to cater to them. The idea that computers should be easy for the end-user to understand is fundamentally flawed, because the type of computer in question was never designed to be used by end-users in the first place. It was designed for scientists, mathematicians, and hackers. By slapping some glitzy interface on it, all that's accomplished is making the system more difficult for the original intended user base. Everyone else stays confused as ever.
So let's kill the World Domination kick. Open Source or not, the typical idea of software and computers today isn't for everyone. Why pretend that it is, making everyone's life miserable? I for one don't give a rat's ass whether John and Jane Doe have a computer or not, or what it runs. That's their problem, not mine. I develop software for my own needs, and if it happens to be useful to others with similar (or even very different!) needs, they are welcome to it. That is the philosophy of Open Source, or as it probably ought to be called, Free Software. You've clearly lost your way. Go back and find it instead of making yourselves and everyone else adjust to a paradigm that, like most "compromises," doesn't really fit anyone very well.
What the world needs to recognize is that COMPUTERS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE. There are a great many people who don't need or want computers, and could do just as much useful work without them. Instead of treating this as a personal failure or career hindrance, the world should recognize that this is no different from the fact that many people just aren't cut out for using jackhammers, driving 10 ton trucks, or playing the flute. Not everyone needs a computer. Instead of trying to bend the tool for use by people who can't and/or won't learn to use it properly anyway, why not develop new tools and new jobs that better fit these people?
Saying that computers are important to everyone is just a cop-out for people who don't understand how the vast majority of people really want to work. Because for most, it just doesn't involve the traditional peecee/workstation model of computing. Lightweight, embedded devices will make more sense to many - the obviosity of the "computer" scares people, and to be fair, the model isn't a very good one anyway.
This goes way, way beyond interface design - it's really "whole-tool" design in the sense that slapping different-looking interfaces on otherwise warmed-over tools doesn't really make it any easier for users, and in fact makes it harder as they must constantly adjust to the new interfaces. What most people really want are entirely different tools. What form exactly they should take varies from person to person and task to task. It certainly isn't the light-beige one-size-fits-all solution we're marketing today, regardless of what UI of the day ends up on the light-beige raster display.
Ah, I see - you're targeting things like OfficeJet connectivity, the add-ons to the 1100 series, the 8000 series, etc. In that case, good luck. Sounds useful.
Well, the press release doesn't really say much. But I can state, as someone who just wrapped up a 90-system Linux/Samba/LPRng/multi-Laserjet installation, that whatever they're doing probably is just for show. To their credit, HP's midrange and high-end printers, ie Laserjets, have always been quite compliant with their own and Adobe's standards. I had no trouble getting this setup working without HP's help.
The one thing that's bothered me is HP's refusal to acknowledge this fact and state on their web site "our printers work with (or w/o, as appropriate to the printer) Ghostscript on Unix." It's all microsoft this, microsoft that. I'm mildly confused that they go to the trouble to make sure they're compliant and compatible, then don't bother to advertise the fact. So in that sense, maybe this is a step in the right direction. But we really don't need more printing systems, and we really don't need major changes to the existing ones. It pretty much just works great already! Now, inkjet support, that's another matter...
Re:Ah, time to FUD again.
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 1
Do you have benchmarks to back your claims? I'd like to see Linux smoke Solaris on a 2-CPU SPARC box
Well, I have one of these here, but unfortunately it's a production system so I can't be taking it down to put other OSs on it. Funny, that's what everyone with any decent system says, which makes it tough to get multi-os benchmarks on good hardware. Want to send me another one?
but then I guess it's difficult to put down all that youthful exuberance, eh?
Youth has nothing to do with it. Anybody with this big an advantage would have to be exuberant. But it's nice to know that our enemies are down to personal attacks. A sure sign of impending victory.
Sun has enough selfconfidence and strength to go on with its own plans and doesn't need to follow every trend that comes along.
So did Cray in 1980. So did SGI in 1990. It has nothing to do with trends. It has everything to do with whether unix as we know it will continue to exist. Everyone else is throwing serious weight behind what is universally agreed to have the best long-term chance. Solaris is not it. Sun can realize this now, before they become "a company on the brink of collapse" or they can realize it later, when their stock is at 9 as well.
Of course IBM isn't stopping their work. Nobody is, or should. But sooner or later the best of all of it is going into one big pot and what will emerge will be the Micro$hit killer we've all been waiting for.
Linux hasn't made Solaris superfluous by itself; read more carefully. There are applications for which Linux beats it. The remaining (mostly very high-end) applications are better served by other products from IBM or SGI. My argument is that there exists no application for which Solaris is the best product. That is what makes it superfluous.
Re:At least TRY to get your story straight.
on
Free Solaris 8
·
· Score: 1
I don't claim they're advantages, just differences. Read carefully: "Some more specific differences:" - since suck factor isn't specific or useful, I decided some UI was in order. Whether these differences are "good" or "bad" for either OS is open to interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
- An act of war against the United States by a foreign power, most probably China since other nations with serious bandwidth are typically US allies.
- An act of the United States government against its own people, possibly for the reasons described in the post michael linked.
- The result of a heretofore unknown band of rogue backbone provider employees/agents who have ganged up to have some fun.
Looking at these options, I quite frankly find it difficult to look seriously at (1) or (3) compared with (2). I mean, it's scary as shit, but nothing else makes any fsckin sense.I have it on good authority that the next version of Slashcode will have this, along with "-1, Petrification", "-1, Anti-Linux", and "+1, Anti-Linux". They thought about "-1, Sensible" but decided that Offtopic would serve to cover those.
In most cases, the kernel can be easily ported to a well-documented architecture, but only once gcc is working properly on it. And even for well-documented architectures, porting gcc is a good deal of work; not because of gcc shortcomings but just that there is a great deal to do. Then libc must be ported, which is less work than it once was, but still can be a fair amount. Once gcc, libc, and Linux are done, the rest is pretty straightforward.
If the processor manufacturers know that they can port a mature OS with lots of tools to their new architecture with little effort, then the risk goes down.
Indeed. A sufficiently interesting architecture might well have a full port before a product even ships. Unfortunately, this requires the mfr to release more or less full documentation for the processor, bus(es), and supporting hardware in advance, or at least simultaneous with product release. Most refuse to do this, so their products aren't adopted very quickly. We'll see how well intermediate models (for example the IA-64 effort) work around this.
I believe that any distro with kernel 2.2.5 or higher will run on a SS1000/SC2000. Why DeadRat's site continues to insist that they don't work is beyond me. As another option, you could pick your favorite distro, put the SS/SC disk(s) in a "supported" machine, then build your own kernel on it that is known to work with sun4d, and put the disks back in. But, as I said, this shouldn't be necessary. Give it a try.
Agreed. That's why I use LPRng. It acts and works like BSD, except it's much more powerful and less archaic. It also replicates most of the SysV functionality if some sickos like to use that. I've not used CUPS, so I can't say much about it, only that I know of another solution that seems to work pretty well.
If you think this isn't a serious issue which compromises the potential adoption of Freenix at the consumer level, then we have nothing to discuss.
It is. But unlike almost everyone else here, I'm not of the opinion that every consumer on Earth should be using Free Unix...or computers at all.
CUPS is a reasonable solution to this problem, and I'm pleased it's evolved to provide both a GPL foundation ALONG WITH support for proprietary printer drivers. I challenge you to detail how this is different from Linus allowing proprietary binary only loadable modules in Linux.
No sucker bets here. It's essentially the same. It's just that I think Linus made a mistake. :)
As a former NeXT Cube and NeXTStation owner I argue that they were the most elegant computers I've ever had the pleasure to own. The damn things still work well and still hold up as excellent (if somewhat slow) workstations.
Yep. The NeXT cubes were exceedingly cool, and NeXTStep was pretty groundbreaking work. But MOSX doesn't look quite as good to me right now. Too much emphasis on the "MacOS" part, which, despite raves about its beauty and consistency, has repeatedly earned my "worst ui" award, even beating out windoze 3.1, which says a lot. JMHO, but after 7 years of using Unix, the more it emphasizes a gui the less likely I am to tolerate it. I'm sure MOSX will be better in this regard, and I'm equally sure Apple will try to hide it, which makes me ill.
While they've kept much of the core Apple products closed and proprietary, the fact is that this option is left open to them intentionally by the BSD coders.
I'm not trying to say that they violated the BSD license. Just that I don't much care for their particular products and licensing schemes, that's all.
Boy, MacOS X looks pretty good from this vantagepoint, eh? :-)
Not really. No source == not for me. If I'm going to use something for which I can't get the source, I'll use IRIX. At least IRIX doesn't try not to be Unix. Doesn't try too hard, anyway. Display PostScript? Sure! OpenGL? Fast as hell! A real X server? Of course! No thanks, Apple. Now we just wait for SGI to finish open-sourcing the remaining good parts of IRIX and go to town.
Well, it's only been 14 months, then. That's pretty good for CERT.
This isn't news to most programmers. Sure, some of the attacks mentioned are fairly clever, but the principles have been around since the beginning: find input that causes the program to behave in an undefined way, and hope that it can't tell the difference. My guess is that most programmers already check for this kind of crap - as in fact you point out from your own experience.
The thing that's always fascinated me about this sort of thing is how anyone can have so much free time and brain power to waste coming up with this garbage. Hello, don't you losers have anything better to do???
Cue giant catapult.
Microsoft is afraid of real firmware. Think about it - the Sun boot PROM (for example) has more features and functionality than windows, and fewer bugs! (that little floppy boot thing notwithstanding...)
Consumers don't, of course. But in addition to real firmware being fun for the technically savvy, it's also very useful in embedded systems such as these. Why? Because it's nice to put simple drivers for simple hardware in 1 or 2 MB of ROM rather than wasting scarce RAM on more complicated os-level drivers. Because it's nice to be able to boot from a network. Because it's nice to have hardware diagnostics built in, especially for machines that aren't likely to have lots of flashing lights, beeps, and other traditional failure indicators. In embedded systems, good firmware can make the difference. Now, I realize these aren't strictly embedded systems, but it's easy to see (at least for me) that they would greatly benefit from a nice OF implementation.
Naturally, Transmeta's business plan revolves (for now) around x86 compatibility, and that means top-to-bottom peecee "emulation." I personally think that's a terrible idea that will condemn them to hang in the past while most everyone else rockets into the future, but in context, partnering with Phoenix makes perfect sense. And real firmware really just doesn't.
ObFirmwareAnecdote: The ultralinux project once mocked Sun's motto as "The PROM is the computer" in appreciation of real firmware and its benefits.
Of course the Europeans plundered. But I'd hate to think that you believe that practice was unique to them.
At the time of the agrarian and industrial revolutions, there were no practical subjects being taught in universities. In fact there was very little formal science involved in the development of the key technologies. It was trial-and-error engineering performed by enthusiasts, funded by rich aristocratic sponsors.
Thanks for agreeing with me. That was the point. IOW, something that could just as easily happen anywhere. Don't forget that while most people in the areas in question are very poor, there are a few with great wealth - the kings and warlords of the day. Unfortunately, they seem to be even more short-sighted than their European counterparts of yesteryear.
What did we do after we'd secured our head start, then? Did we share?
Of course not. Nobody does, nor should they.
We colonized those countries and governed them ourselves. Any blame for their lack of progress up to the middle of the 20th century therefore lies squarely with the colonial powers. The countries of the third world were denied even the opportunity to take control of their own destiny until they began demanding their freedom after the second world war.
Yes. This is probably the first intelligent analysis I've heard from you. And had I been a voting citizen of a colonial power in 1950 I would feel great shame for denying someone the right to self-determination. Though, despite the atrocities committed under colonial rule, there were a few benefits, specifically the development of infrastructure you referred to not having.
Of course, at the same time there's a great counterexample. Until the mid-19th century, Japan was an extremely primitive nation. Ancient, brutal government, no industry whatsoever, the works. A few decades later, it's a major world power. An industrial power. But Japan has almost no natural resources. Only a very small portion of Japan is arable. Timber is in very short supply. No petroleum supplies. In fact, Japan's only real resource is fish. Trade routes were generally local to the region, not worldwide as we saw with the Europeans beginning in the 13th-14th centuries. And yet Japan not only industrialized and modernized in a few decades, they fought a very competitive war with the world's greatest powers. So 40 or 50 years (say, since the end of colonialism in the 50s and 60s) is a long time for a people like the Japanese who have some commitment and motivation, but forever for those without.
while you are forced to pay 75% of what you can make to your white landlord?
Oh, so let's make this about racism now. I don't seem to recall that such was an issue here. But then, it does help you make me look bad by screaming "RACISM!!!!" What a sod you are. It's clear to me that you are obsessed with ancestral guilt over things you couldn't control and that you'd probably like to force me and everyone else to give up our lives on the altar of atonement. I suspect maybe your mother never told you that Life Is Not Fair and that if you get screwed, screw back, try again, and don't bitch. So Europeans were Imperialist bastards. The world's a tough place, moreso for some than others. Deal with it. So I wonder only why you are posting in the rich man's forum when you could be giving your computer to a starving Indonesian child (what he'll do with it I don't know), or feeding an African girl. Because it's easier to force others to do it?
Yes, but these are not the people who concern themselves with decisions regarding space exploration, are they? You also need to be careful how you define poverty - as one might expect, the definition varies from place to place. US$3000 might not sound like much, but for someone in a middle-income nation with such an income, it is plenty for survival and possibly a good deal more. Yes, most people in the world are far too poor to live in New York City or London. But then, most Europeans and Americans would fall into that category as well. Your view demonstrates exactly the narrowness you accuse me of.
Actually it is precisely your fault because the high-consumption lifestyle you boast that you enjoy would be impossible were it not for the fact that Europe and America have been screwing the developing countries for centuries, specifically by artificially depressing the price of third world exports (mainly raw materials).
They are welcome to industrialize. Of course, industrialization works best under a stable government, something most of the world has never seen fit to provide for itself. And before you try to argue that this is impossible, think back 200-250 years to industrialization in Europe. Where did the foreign aid come from? What industrial nation's universities trained the Europeans? Hmmm...nobody!!! They did it on their own. Not because they are better human beings but because they decided to stop the bullshit and do something useful. Yes, the foundations came from the Greeks, Arabs, and Chinese (among others). But everyone started on equal footing - after all, somewhere, sometime there had to be a first set of humans, all others descended from them. So anyone anywhere can make the same decision. But they'd rather fight each other over a few square kilometers of worthless desert somewhere (no specific reference intended).
Then don't expect us to carry you when it becomes your turn to suffer.
s/when/if/
And don't worry - I don't. In fact, I would hate you just as much for trying to help me as I do for insisting that I help others. It's not my fscking problem what happens to other people. Everyone needs to look out for number one. And no matter what you may think, I believe this is not only possible but practical, and would mean an end to warfare and crime. Once you realize that what I can obtain for myself is mine and only mine, and I the same for you, suddenly theft and killing just don't seem to have any place in the picture. So don't accuse me of being a Nazi. No warmonger I. ( Cue appropriate Usenet law)
Project Foobazco, a recently-formed network-services/Free Software development cooperative, is in the early planning stages for such a thing. I do mean EARLY. It'll be a source-only package-by-package build-it-and-go distribution. Choice and security will be priorities. If you're interested, go to the idea page for some of my thoughts on where to go with this. Did I mention that it's in the EARLY planning stage?
Space exploration. No contest.
What does that say about your priorities and your humanitarianism?
It says that, unlike lesser animals, I as a human can concern myself with issues other than food and other survival issues. This is a luxury humans have that other species do not. It's what intelligence is all about.
I can't help it that some people aren't able/willing to survive in today's world. That's not my fault. I can manage to feed, clothe, and house myself; why can't they? And for the rest of the 90+% of us who aren't complete losers, there's more than enough left over after survival considerations to do something that proves, yes proves, our humanity. Something fun! Something broadening! Something exciting!
If you believe the human experience should be about ensuring the survival of all humans and nothing else, you are badly mistaken. Even other animals only work to ensure their own/their children's survival. Altruism is unheard-of, and for good reason - altruistic species are "selected against" as the euphemism goes. Some people are losers and will die, just as some flatworms are losers and will die. It's natural and normal, not an excuse to stop being human. Onward and upward, folks, and all are welcome to come along; but I will not carry others.
Bah! Read the whole post. I'm not advocating any sort of legislative or economic prohibitions on computer ownership; only that people who don't want computers stop believing the hype that they should have them anyway.
Serial cable + null modem adapter + pc + minicom?
Your fundamental error is assuming that I do. Like most people once did, I understand that if I want to do something with my computer, it's up to me to either find someone else's solution, or make up my own. Whining and bitching and signing porting petitions for third-rate proprietary products isn't the way to go. You have to decide: do I 1) Care most about minimal work and having my applications (suck it up and use windows), 2) Care most about my applications and using a good OS (write your own apps), or 3) Care most about minimal work and using a good OS (accept that your desired apps won't be available)? This is your problem, not mine. My operating environment does what I want it to. How dare you insist that I change it so as to make it more convenient for you to increase the size of the market!
Powerful systems are by their nature more difficult to use. Even with the friendliest, flashiest interface and a slick, glossy manual written by the greatest technical writers of all time, a piece of software like sendmail is still going to require a competent, experienced individual to make use of its more powerful features. If you take away those powerful features, you can make its use much easier - but suffer from the loss of that feature set.
The idea that everyone should be using {Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, } is flawed just as is Microsoft's idea that everyone should be using Windows. The truth of the matter is that most people shouldn't be using computers at all, especially not in the current peecee/workstation model of desktop computing. It isn't the answer. All that this has done is cause thousands of mindless followers to adopt Linus's goal of World Domination and set about dumbing down the system to the point where it's unusable for the people who created it. What kind of sickness is this?
Unix is where it is today not because of its recent "progress" toward the "end-user" but because of its 30+ year tradition of design for the designers. The people who build this software know how it works and they expect that like-minded people, technical people, will find it intuitive to work with. Since these are the people who have the opportunity to put such systems to the greatest use, it makes sense to cater to them. The idea that computers should be easy for the end-user to understand is fundamentally flawed, because the type of computer in question was never designed to be used by end-users in the first place. It was designed for scientists, mathematicians, and hackers. By slapping some glitzy interface on it, all that's accomplished is making the system more difficult for the original intended user base. Everyone else stays confused as ever.
So let's kill the World Domination kick. Open Source or not, the typical idea of software and computers today isn't for everyone. Why pretend that it is, making everyone's life miserable? I for one don't give a rat's ass whether John and Jane Doe have a computer or not, or what it runs. That's their problem, not mine. I develop software for my own needs, and if it happens to be useful to others with similar (or even very different!) needs, they are welcome to it. That is the philosophy of Open Source, or as it probably ought to be called, Free Software. You've clearly lost your way. Go back and find it instead of making yourselves and everyone else adjust to a paradigm that, like most "compromises," doesn't really fit anyone very well.
Saying that computers are important to everyone is just a cop-out for people who don't understand how the vast majority of people really want to work. Because for most, it just doesn't involve the traditional peecee/workstation model of computing. Lightweight, embedded devices will make more sense to many - the obviosity of the "computer" scares people, and to be fair, the model isn't a very good one anyway.
This goes way, way beyond interface design - it's really "whole-tool" design in the sense that slapping different-looking interfaces on otherwise warmed-over tools doesn't really make it any easier for users, and in fact makes it harder as they must constantly adjust to the new interfaces. What most people really want are entirely different tools. What form exactly they should take varies from person to person and task to task. It certainly isn't the light-beige one-size-fits-all solution we're marketing today, regardless of what UI of the day ends up on the light-beige raster display.
Ah, I see - you're targeting things like OfficeJet connectivity, the add-ons to the 1100 series, the 8000 series, etc. In that case, good luck. Sounds useful.
The one thing that's bothered me is HP's refusal to acknowledge this fact and state on their web site "our printers work with (or w/o, as appropriate to the printer) Ghostscript on Unix." It's all microsoft this, microsoft that. I'm mildly confused that they go to the trouble to make sure they're compliant and compatible, then don't bother to advertise the fact. So in that sense, maybe this is a step in the right direction. But we really don't need more printing systems, and we really don't need major changes to the existing ones. It pretty much just works great already! Now, inkjet support, that's another matter...
Well, I have one of these here, but unfortunately it's a production system so I can't be taking it down to put other OSs on it. Funny, that's what everyone with any decent system says, which makes it tough to get multi-os benchmarks on good hardware. Want to send me another one?
but then I guess it's difficult to put down all that youthful exuberance, eh?
Youth has nothing to do with it. Anybody with this big an advantage would have to be exuberant. But it's nice to know that our enemies are down to personal attacks. A sure sign of impending victory.
So did Cray in 1980. So did SGI in 1990. It has nothing to do with trends. It has everything to do with whether unix as we know it will continue to exist. Everyone else is throwing serious weight behind what is universally agreed to have the best long-term chance. Solaris is not it. Sun can realize this now, before they become "a company on the brink of collapse" or they can realize it later, when their stock is at 9 as well.
Of course IBM isn't stopping their work. Nobody is, or should. But sooner or later the best of all of it is going into one big pot and what will emerge will be the Micro$hit killer we've all been waiting for.
Linux hasn't made Solaris superfluous by itself; read more carefully. There are applications for which Linux beats it. The remaining (mostly very high-end) applications are better served by other products from IBM or SGI. My argument is that there exists no application for which Solaris is the best product. That is what makes it superfluous.
I don't claim they're advantages, just differences. Read carefully: "Some more specific differences:" - since suck factor isn't specific or useful, I decided some UI was in order. Whether these differences are "good" or "bad" for either OS is open to interpretation.