Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.
I find it quite unbelievable some people's feelings of entitlement. No, you are not entitled that somebody provide an OS that does what you want how you want it.
Your job depends on using Windows? Quit. It's not that hard. You are not under threat of violence. There are other jobs out there. Start your own business. Mow a lawn, I don't care. You are free people in a free society. Just choose not to participate in what you disagree with. What are you, sheep?
No, mostly you're just arm chair pundents. Debating the evilness of some entity but not getting up long enough to do something about it.
I use Linux software raid. I bought a rack mount case that can hold a *hit Ton of drives, leave it in the closet, and randomlly put in old drives I obtain. I use Linux LVM to mash the drives together so no parts of the file system are on a single disk. Like, I have a 200Gb disk, a 150 GB disk, a 50 GB disk, and two 20 Gb disk. I split the 200Gb disk into a 150 partition and a 50 partition. I then mirror the two, i take the 50 gb partition and the 50 gb disk, and mirror them. The I mirror the two 20's. Then I append the entire thing together.
You can do stuff like that with software raid. Just get a great rack mount case that has as many 5.25 bays as possible, put in sata hot swap bays, and start collecting disks. Add extra SATA controllers to top it off.
Of course, that is just file storage. You can export it with iSCSI or Samba and use it from windows media center... or just use NFS with Myth. Whatever.
I think this is great. I'm sorry they built their work on the backs of other people who have always clearly stated their intentions with regards to the use of their software. The lack of this in GPLv2 is a HOLE. A HOLE which, of course, should be fixed.
If they disagree with the fundamental goal of the GPL, to free software so people CAN tinker with it, then they should have chosen a different set of software to build their product on.
We also have absolutely no user uptake, because we have nothing like ActiveX, which allowed a massive ecosystem of third party UI component developers to flurish.
Sure, we're secure, but without users, does it really matter?
The entire idea of these companies is that they present a publicly viewable, *SUE-ABLE* name to ensure a path to the company applying for the certificate. An "open ca" would be utterly useless in accomplishing this.
The idea is that verisign and pals spend a non-zero amount of time verifying you are who you say you are. Such a non-zero amount of time costs money. Hence the certificate costs money. Whether it is priced right or not is driven only by demand and production. Deal with it, or make your own.
Which honestly, in a way, is what MS did. They broke backwards compatibility to accomplish it. New code compiled with generic C# will not run on old VMs.
Because he has an honest belief that a) patents are bogus and b) C#/.Net are great platforms.
Is that so hard to understand? If we were all so scared of patents, we wouldn't have a) implemented FAT b) probably not written Linux itself c) would be scared of our own shadow.
There are patents that cover every aspect of every system you use, FOSS or not. This is not an issue that affects Mono specifically, but rather our entire free software ecosystem. It's rather nice to see somebody who isn't scared of his own shadow be willing to take them head on.
Heh. I have your exact same processor and XP takes about 15 seconds to boot, that's excluding bios and stuff... once windows actually gets going, I have 15 seconds to the desktop.
This is nothing but Skype trying to get the government to regulate a market for itself. If the cell provides saw business benefit in opening their network, they would do so. As it is now, they own the equipment because they paid to build it. They are free to do whatever they feel they can to capitalize on their investments. So as a humble user who wants to chat on IRC over a wireless carrier.... who am I to MANDATE to these sovereign owners any sorts of conditions?
This seems like a nice idea on the surface. Each software vendor certifies their software on their own software stack, all the way down to the OS. You can order a box to do a task, and be assured it will arrive and work. It will have lower support costs on the ISVs side, since they know what they are talking about. These are good things.
However, in the real world, we don't support isolated boxes. My database servers are required to integrate with our LDAP directory and security architecture properly. RedHat and Debian already do this differently. Do I need to learn two configurations, or more than two, one for each ISV's Linux flavor we deal with, and how to get them all to work together? This is complicated by the fact that not all of these different distros are likely to even support these things. Sure, RedHat comes with libpam_krb5, and so does Debian... but will Oracle Linux? Will it come with the same version, or will it support Heimdal instead of MIT? Oracle has to test this too... but not just inside Oracle.
Each OS stack will need to be tested with each other OS stack to assure compatibility. So now we've gone from Oracle having to test *their database* against RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu, and changed it to Oracle having to test *software they know nothing about* against RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu/*AND 50 OTHER ISV LINUX CONFIGURATIONS*. This is not an overall improvement, not for Oracle nor for an IT shop.
The number of Linux distros actually used in enterprises is actually pretty small. RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu. There really aren't significant figures of much else. Oracle has it nice in that they only have to test *one product* against *four*.
Sorry, but in the US there are many different charges which could be filed against a downloader. Receiving stolen property. Participating in a crime. Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. And probably many others.
Of course, like anything, only things people consider a real threat will bother being enforced.
This all comes together interestingly with Linus' work with per-process mounts/root namespaces. The idea of having a "standard posix environment" exposed to any specific process by exposing custom bound mount points to it is... interesting. It makes some things interesting. Probably would be a shit ton of work though.
It's important to remember the mindset you speak this from. You call it "Linux". You need to remember that the realities are: There is a kernel named Linux that anybody can do what they will with, and a huge body of software that can be twisted to anybody's purpose. Linux is a kernel. What makes a complete OS is the entire package. A distro is simply that.
As long as people are allowed to deviate from the standard stack: THEY WILL
Get people over this fundamental truth and we can start working for our particular distro, competing with other distros, for a share of the market.
Not enough apps. The only people who will be part of this are the people who want to see apple software run on non apple OSs. That must be a massively small minority.
Because there's nobody to standardize such an interface. Are you volunteering? All you need to do is write such an interface and get every hardware manufacturer to agree to it.
AoE is a networked block device technology. NFS and Samba are network file system. One is about making block level access to a device available over the network, the other is about making file operations available.
In the case of AoE, a single remote block device can be shared between multiple systems. Each client could issue it's own write/reads. in combination with a distributed file system, each node could mount the same FS.
It's the same as NBD, iSCSI, Shared SCSI, and Fiber Channel.
At work, we use vmware-server, running on Linux hosts, to run the Windows guests. We don't ever actually have any Linux guests. All of the services we use on Linux are perfectly capable of being installed parallel to other Linux apps... even installed or run multiple times on the same box. Nothing prevents you from launching two copies of Apache, two copies of some Java server, etc. Your limit is really RAM and CPU.
On Windows however it's a different situtation. You can only have one copy of IIS per each OS. One copy of IE. One copy of most server software, as it registers itself in places in the registry that can't really be duplicated. One copy of most software on user instances because it purposely detects itself running twice and just brings the current instance to the front.
It's just an aspect of the platform.
Even our test servers are just two copies of Apache running seperatly on the same boxes. Or somebody running a per-user Apache to test his own code. Or somebody running a complete instance of postgresql, twice.
The ideas enshrined in Unix have made most of this possible. Basically just having the ability to chroot alone does most of the work... but most of the time you dont' even need that. Most Unix programs can take a prefix you specify. Or aren't hard coded to read from absolute paths... or don't store in "absolute" storage bases, such as the registry.
Well, anyways, it just speaks to our environment. We have a very mixed environment. We have lots of WIndows servers, active directory, MS SQL, IIS... and we also have Linux boxes. And the Windows ones we have found a business requirement to VM, the Linux ones, we haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, ya'll must be sheep. Seriously.
Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.
I find it quite unbelievable some people's feelings of entitlement. No, you are not entitled that somebody provide an OS that does what you want how you want it.
Your job depends on using Windows? Quit. It's not that hard. You are not under threat of violence. There are other jobs out there. Start your own business. Mow a lawn, I don't care. You are free people in a free society. Just choose not to participate in what you disagree with. What are you, sheep?
No, mostly you're just arm chair pundents. Debating the evilness of some entity but not getting up long enough to do something about it.
Hmm. You're entitled to an internet connection? When did /. become a basic human right?
3) go fuck yourself is a perfectly acceptable position to be in. You don't like it, go change it.
Welp, somebody go grab a copy of his code and mirror it forever on the internets. That'll put an end to that.
I use Linux software raid. I bought a rack mount case that can hold a *hit Ton of drives, leave it in the closet, and randomlly put in old drives I obtain. I use Linux LVM to mash the drives together so no parts of the file system are on a single disk. Like, I have a 200Gb disk, a 150 GB disk, a 50 GB disk, and two 20 Gb disk. I split the 200Gb disk into a 150 partition and a 50 partition. I then mirror the two, i take the 50 gb partition and the 50 gb disk, and mirror them. The I mirror the two 20's. Then I append the entire thing together.
You can do stuff like that with software raid. Just get a great rack mount case that has as many 5.25 bays as possible, put in sata hot swap bays, and start collecting disks. Add extra SATA controllers to top it off.
Of course, that is just file storage. You can export it with iSCSI or Samba and use it from windows media center... or just use NFS with Myth. Whatever.
I think this is great. I'm sorry they built their work on the backs of other people who have always clearly stated their intentions with regards to the use of their software. The lack of this in GPLv2 is a HOLE. A HOLE which, of course, should be fixed.
If they disagree with the fundamental goal of the GPL, to free software so people CAN tinker with it, then they should have chosen a different set of software to build their product on.
We also have absolutely no user uptake, because we have nothing like ActiveX, which allowed a massive ecosystem of third party UI component developers to flurish.
Sure, we're secure, but without users, does it really matter?
The entire idea of these companies is that they present a publicly viewable, *SUE-ABLE* name to ensure a path to the company applying for the certificate. An "open ca" would be utterly useless in accomplishing this.
The idea is that verisign and pals spend a non-zero amount of time verifying you are who you say you are. Such a non-zero amount of time costs money. Hence the certificate costs money. Whether it is priced right or not is driven only by demand and production. Deal with it, or make your own.
Which honestly, in a way, is what MS did. They broke backwards compatibility to accomplish it. New code compiled with generic C# will not run on old VMs.
What serious patent concern? Please point one out. Please also point out why it doesn't equally apply to Java.
Because he has an honest belief that a) patents are bogus and b) C#/.Net are great platforms.
Is that so hard to understand? If we were all so scared of patents, we wouldn't have a) implemented FAT b) probably not written Linux itself c) would be scared of our own shadow.
There are patents that cover every aspect of every system you use, FOSS or not. This is not an issue that affects Mono specifically, but rather our entire free software ecosystem. It's rather nice to see somebody who isn't scared of his own shadow be willing to take them head on.
Heh. I have your exact same processor and XP takes about 15 seconds to boot, that's excluding bios and stuff... once windows actually gets going, I have 15 seconds to the desktop.
Sounds like your KDE needs some work.
This is nothing but Skype trying to get the government to regulate a market for itself. If the cell provides saw business benefit in opening their network, they would do so. As it is now, they own the equipment because they paid to build it. They are free to do whatever they feel they can to capitalize on their investments. So as a humble user who wants to chat on IRC over a wireless carrier.... who am I to MANDATE to these sovereign owners any sorts of conditions?
Bah to this proposal!
Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.
That's funny. I've been running most of my boxes from Sid all the way to Edgy. Simply a matter of replacing one packages version with another.
apt-get dist-upgrade
Sure, I've had problems, but wiping and reinstalling? Linux? Pssh!
This seems like a nice idea on the surface. Each software vendor certifies their software on their own software stack, all the way down to the OS. You can order a box to do a task, and be assured it will arrive and work. It will have lower support costs on the ISVs side, since they know what they are talking about. These are good things.
However, in the real world, we don't support isolated boxes. My database servers are required to integrate with our LDAP directory and security architecture properly. RedHat and Debian already do this differently. Do I need to learn two configurations, or more than two, one for each ISV's Linux flavor we deal with, and how to get them all to work together? This is complicated by the fact that not all of these different distros are likely to even support these things. Sure, RedHat comes with libpam_krb5, and so does Debian... but will Oracle Linux? Will it come with the same version, or will it support Heimdal instead of MIT? Oracle has to test this too... but not just inside Oracle.
Each OS stack will need to be tested with each other OS stack to assure compatibility. So now we've gone from Oracle having to test *their database* against RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu, and changed it to Oracle having to test *software they know nothing about* against RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu/*AND 50 OTHER ISV LINUX CONFIGURATIONS*. This is not an overall improvement, not for Oracle nor for an IT shop.
The number of Linux distros actually used in enterprises is actually pretty small. RedHat/Suse/Debian/Ubuntu. There really aren't significant figures of much else. Oracle has it nice in that they only have to test *one product* against *four*.
Chances are they want to know if the ticket is really yours. =) Just a guess!
Sorry, but in the US there are many different charges which could be filed against a downloader. Receiving stolen property. Participating in a crime. Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. And probably many others.
Of course, like anything, only things people consider a real threat will bother being enforced.
This all comes together interestingly with Linus' work with per-process mounts/root namespaces. The idea of having a "standard posix environment" exposed to any specific process by exposing custom bound mount points to it is... interesting. It makes some things interesting. Probably would be a shit ton of work though.
Why is AR busted, curiously? Sure it's not super modern technology based strictly on a timeline sense... but why is it busted?
If you have real reasons, that's fine. I'm just curious.
It's important to remember the mindset you speak this from. You call it "Linux". You need to remember that the realities are: There is a kernel named Linux that anybody can do what they will with, and a huge body of software that can be twisted to anybody's purpose. Linux is a kernel. What makes a complete OS is the entire package. A distro is simply that.
As long as people are allowed to deviate from the standard stack: THEY WILL
Get people over this fundamental truth and we can start working for our particular distro, competing with other distros, for a share of the market.
Not enough apps. The only people who will be part of this are the people who want to see apple software run on non apple OSs. That must be a massively small minority.
Because there's nobody to standardize such an interface. Are you volunteering? All you need to do is write such an interface and get every hardware manufacturer to agree to it.
Just slightly less overhead than iSCSI. It's the same shit though.
AoE is a networked block device technology. NFS and Samba are network file system. One is about making block level access to a device available over the network, the other is about making file operations available.
In the case of AoE, a single remote block device can be shared between multiple systems. Each client could issue it's own write/reads. in combination with a distributed file system, each node could mount the same FS.
It's the same as NBD, iSCSI, Shared SCSI, and Fiber Channel.
Heh. I think this is funny.
At work, we use vmware-server, running on Linux hosts, to run the Windows guests. We don't ever actually have any Linux guests. All of the services we use on Linux are perfectly capable of being installed parallel to other Linux apps... even installed or run multiple times on the same box. Nothing prevents you from launching two copies of Apache, two copies of some Java server, etc. Your limit is really RAM and CPU.
On Windows however it's a different situtation. You can only have one copy of IIS per each OS. One copy of IE. One copy of most server software, as it registers itself in places in the registry that can't really be duplicated. One copy of most software on user instances because it purposely detects itself running twice and just brings the current instance to the front.
It's just an aspect of the platform.
Even our test servers are just two copies of Apache running seperatly on the same boxes. Or somebody running a per-user Apache to test his own code. Or somebody running a complete instance of postgresql, twice.
The ideas enshrined in Unix have made most of this possible. Basically just having the ability to chroot alone does most of the work... but most of the time you dont' even need that. Most Unix programs can take a prefix you specify. Or aren't hard coded to read from absolute paths... or don't store in "absolute" storage bases, such as the registry.
Well, anyways, it just speaks to our environment. We have a very mixed environment. We have lots of WIndows servers, active directory, MS SQL, IIS... and we also have Linux boxes. And the Windows ones we have found a business requirement to VM, the Linux ones, we haven't.