Then download Woody for goodness sake. No reason to comlain about things you can work around. As far as XFree86 4.0, no that's not in Woody either, but that's besides the point. Why run something when it's unsatable unless you plan to hack it and contribute back? If you're going to do that then you can download the sources yourself and compile it.
Oh, and I've checked the latest distributions and their latest kernel packages are:
RedHat => kernel-2.2.14-12
Debian => kernel-2.2.17pre6
SuSe => A patched 2.2.14 (for security issue)
Caldera => A patched 2.2.14 (for security issue)
Corel => 2.2.14
TurboLinux => 2.2.16 Did I leave anyone out? I've spent enough time looking into this for you. If you're not running at least the version listed above for your distribution (except may be Debian because it's a pre) then you can't blame XFree86 for any lockups.
If my post was a troll then post the panic that you got after upgrading to XFree86 4.0. I'm sure that everyone would be glad to take a look at it and help you determine what the real problem is. The proper way to fix kernel panics is to document it appropriately and post it on the linux-kernel mailing list or contact your distribution vendor (after purchasing a support contract). It's the equivalent to calling Microsoft when your Windows box keeps crashing, except the results are much more reliable and forthcoming.
You also won't get the non-pimple faced 3D animators onto your platform. As a person who does both graphics and plays games, you wouldn't believe how much stuff there is in UNIX that offends me.
I assume that you are not referring to professional animators when you make that statement. I'm certainly not a professional animator, but I've read plenty of articles about software shops pushing them towards Windows boxes and the backlash that occured as a result. It's my understanding that professional animators and CAD/CAM engineers overwhelmingly prefer Unix platforms to Windows.
Nobody wants to deal with installing all the libraries and keeping stuff up to date and all that. Take, for example, this latest XFree86 upgrade. Under windows, it would have been distributed as an EXE. You double click on it, it chugs, you hit OK when it asks you to reboot, and voila, you're running a new version.
Nope, with Windows this is more like an upgrade from Windows95 to Windows2000 Professional. No, the upgrade to XFree does not change as many underlying OS level pieces as a 95 => 2000 upgrade would, but it does change the basic architecture of the windowing system and would not be a simple "click the EXE file" upgrade. This is not equivalent to upgrading a display driver in Windows! Now, Windows "beats" Linux as far as that is topic is concerned, but that's not what XFree86 4.0 is compared to 3.x.
An even more accurate comparison would be upgrading Windows 3.11 to Windows95. The underlying OS architecture was, and still is, basically the same, but the graphics architecture changes so drastically that it was often easier to reinstall the whole box than attempt an upgrade. At least with Linux the windowing system is not tied so tightly to the core OS that screwing an upgrade of the windowing system up basically screws your box up beyond repair (or fubar for those that prefer that term).
Your kernel dumps (panics) or your box "locks up" (X freezes and you don't have another box to login from so you reboot)? I've certainly had some, infrequent, issues with the kernel panicing, but I'd find it hard to believe that XFree would cause your kernel to panic "more than a fat man on an eating binge."
What kernel are you running? Hopefully something recent, like 2.2.16 or one of the 2.2.17ac versions. If you're running a 2.3.x or 2.4.0pre version then your post is almost laughable in it's inacuracy and tendancy to implicate the wrong part of your system as the source of the problems.
I'd be careful with using that card on-line. Visa check cards usually don't have the same "protections" as real Visa cards. My wife bought me a CDR for Christmas from UCD with a Visa check card and it came delivered damaged. The box was fine, they just shipped a damaged unit. It took us like 3 months to clear that up, because the check cards don't have the same features as real Visa cards as far as consumer protection. Your's might, but I'd check it out...
Well, you could say the same thing for routers, but you don't see anyone hooking up a dumb terminal to every router they have. You hook up to it when you (rarely) need to. Configure your Linux boxen to have their console on the serial port and there is absolutely no reason to have a monitor and keyboard for every one, or a KVM switch for the lot.
Yes, any price is too high. Mark this as a troll if you will, but Windows 2000 is a joke. No one really uses it. They talk about it, but yet, nearly every "microsoftie" posts from a Linux or Windows 95/98/NT computer. They rant and rave how great "2000" is but they don't use it on a daily basis; note the threads on C#, in which all the karma fucks ^h^h^h^h^h hordes are Windows 95/98/NT or Linux programmers. Windows 2000 is a pathetic joke. I ask you dip shit moderator, are you reading this in a Windows 2000 compliant web browser? Sorry, Internet Explorer fails to count, it's included in the base product. Ouch to you. Regards
Sorry, I couldn't resist! It was funny, or at least was to me...
Just like breast implants causing systemic problems, this has been effectively debunked. I'd like a pointer to any valid studies that you know about that actually shows cell phones cause brain tumors. Sure there can be "links" between cell phone use and brain tumors, but I'll bet you that the study participants eat a lot of red meat also. Wonder if they smoke, or drink also. Just like the detrimental effects of living next to or under an ultra high power electric line (such as that coming from a nuclear power plant) were blown out of proportion so are the effects of 2.4GHz network equipment.
Yes, but this is not a production unit, it's a development machine used to get Linux running on the new CPU. It makes little sense to me to have that many disks. Even if you were testing RAID you'd only need about 5 or 6 to do some nice tests. I have a SUN E450 at work that has a bunch of disks in RAID5 also, but it's also a production box...
Ya think they really needed all those SCSI disks just for getting Linux to boot on a Power4 CPU? I mean cripes, they have like 15 17GB disks and 2 8.5GB disks in there! I can see a few for testing RAID, but 17 disks?!? Isn't that a little overkill?
The ability to design complex programs with system administrative capabilities should be difficult to master.
So computers should be made purposefully made more difficult to use?
You didn't read, or quote, my whole message did you? I specifically addressed this question. Please read again.
You know, tons of people die in car accidents every year; why don't we have cars require you to answer a multiple-choice American History question and then perform 60 push-ups before they will turn on?
Were you aware that every state in the United States of America requires people to get a license before they get in a car and take it on public roads? If they don't, they could be fined or thrown into jail. The laws differ from state to state, but they are pretty much the same. People are not allowed to drive until they are a certain age. People have to take eye exams to make sure the can see. People have to take test to make sure they understand the "rules of the road", and the laws of the state. There are special licenses for different types of vehicles. Truck drivers must take a much more extensive test and have superior driving abilities (or at least knowledge on how to handle a big rig on the road) before they are given a license.
You seem to be advocating that everyone, no matter what age, eyesight, physical coordination, knowledge of transporation laws, or other criteria, should be able to jump in an 18 wheeler and drive it down your local intrastate highway.
Making things easy is a very good thing. If I had to write all scripts in x86 assembler rather than in Perl, I would not be happy. Yes, it would prevent buggy Perl scripts, but it would also unnecessarily restrict the use of computers to those with a great deal of previous knowledge. Or, in short, saying that things should be made purposefully hard to keep away the unwashed masses is elitist crap.
Please try to give your comments more thought before posting. Again, you ignore a significant part of my post which specifically says I don't believe that making computer programming more difficult is the right answer. I never said that everyone should be forced to program in x86 assembler, and the implication that I did is plain deciteful. I love Perl, and currently it's my favorite language of choice. What I am saying is that Microsoft should not have included functions and utilities in Visual Basic, which was designed, implemented, and marketed as a language for people who don't have professional programming skills, that make it easy for an inexperienced person to call harmful system functions. Those capabilities should be reserved for programming languages that require a little bit or experience, and hopefully some wisdom. Or at least don't include these capabilities in Visual Basic for Applications. If someone wants to use VB I don't have a problem with that. But, they should possibly pay for the added functionality.
I've got to add to that last statement, since I support Open Source and advocating paying for any programs is questionable from my perspective. Microsoft is not an Open Source company. None of their products that I know of fall under the Open Source Definition. They sell Windows. They sell the applications that come with VBA. They sell professional programming tools. It would only make sense that they would sell this professional level VB programming environment that would contain the additional functionality for system integrators.
In an open source world, you wouldn't "sell" the additional functionality. You would most likely include it in a separate package, specifically designed for the professional programmer. You wouldn't necessarily include it in the "base" package for a programming language or in the application package. The Perl packages don't include every single module available on the face of the earth. There's no reason why Microsoft needs to include these "dangerous" API calls in the base application versions.
How do you prove that something is impossible? By not trying.
You're missing the word tie again. I don't think it is wrong for Microsoft to include every option with Windows. But, when they tie IE into Windows and they tie other apps into the "core-os" so that you can not effectively replace an application with an offering from another company, this breaks anti-trust law because they have a monopoloy with Windows. There is no technical reason, performance, user interface, or otherwise, why Microsoft couldn't include IE with Windows 98 without tying it to Windows. How would they do this? Just like any other application. Don't put the friggin DLL's in the windows system directory. Put them in the application directory. If the application, such as IE, provides "middleware" there is still no reason to tie it to the OS.
Instead of adding the middleware API to the windows API, it should provide a well defined API to applications that sit on-top of the windows API. This would allow other companies to offer alternative middleware products that accomplish the same thing in a different way. Possibly with a different user interface. Possibly using different algorithms which result in greater performance.
Get the point now?
Actually, my understanding is that Microsoft themselves realized the faults in trying to tie applications to the OS, by putting application API files (dll's) in the system directory. They finally realized that this was not a good practice, and in Windows 2000 it's my understanding that this does not happen any more (or it is frowned upon). Keeping the application API files separate allows one to "upgrade" an application without causing catestrophic failure of the core OS (BSOD). Sure, you still have to maintain compatability with the API if the application provides services or is otherwise a middleware product (which was presumably done when applications were tied to the OS). But, it makes it much easier because it kind of forces a well defined separation of the core OS API and the application API.
That separation and well defined interface between the OS and application/middleware APIs allows for greater competition. One could argue that the instability in Windows is a direct result of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions in trying to maintain their Windows monopoly and extend this monopoly into the applications/middleware sector.
The DOJ can't drop the case. The case is done, complete, finished. They could have dropped the case by coming to a settlement with Microsoft before the court ruled. They only thing they can do now is support Microsoft on their appeal. They could say, "oh, we didn't realize what a mistake we were making, please reverse the decision," but it would just be a request. If the appeals court, or Supreme Court, believes that the ruling was just and followed all the laws they probably won't (and it's questionable if they could) just drop the case.
Just as the DOJ didn't decide the final ruling, they can't just "drop the case."
Java virtual machines? Every major OS has now successfully integrated Java, but now Windows can't? Does that mean I have to run my Java apps within IE, or application providers have to include a VM with their package?
You're missing the point. What does "every major OS" mean? Microsoft has a monopoly. What other "major OS's" are out there? Solaris? MacOS? BeOS? GNU/Linux? Although I like Solaris and Linux better than Windows that doesn't make the a "major OS." Solaris doesn't have Java "integrated" like Windows attempts to. Linux certainly doesn't either. Neither embeds the calls into system libraries. Under Solaris it's a package that is usually installed in the/opt directory. Under Linux you can install it wherever you like. Users can replace either with a different Java JRE (or JDK for that matter) whenever they want. Borland offers one. IBM offers one, Sun offers one. Why should Microsoft get to so deeply embed their JVM into their OS while others don't? (Not like others can't, they just realize it's not a good idea). Let Microsoft offer their latest, greatest JVM as a separate product (free if they want to) so that other companies can offer alternatives. That's all that is being asked.
This is just one example, and I could comment on each of your complaints, but it's not necessary. The basic answer is that these things should not be embedded, integrated, "innovated", or otherwise tied SO tightly to the core OS that it prevents any other companies from competing fairly. That's the whole crux of the problem, and why Microsoft was brought to court in the first place. You say a breakup is "a good thing" yet complain that Microsoft should be able to tie non-core OS features, such as a JVM, into Windows to prevent competition (even if that isn't the intent it's the result). I don't get it.
I think the Judicial Branch of the USA just ruled. The Judicial Branch is in no way affiliated with the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch (the other is the Legislative Branch which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate for those that didn't know). I can't believe that Slashdot made such a mistake. Then again, I can...
Here's a suggestion that, while probably not what the majority of Napster users would want, seems to satisfy both Metallica's concern for pirated music on a large scale and indemnifies Napster from future legal problems.
The suggestion is simple (IMHO). Simply change the Napster protocol so that it verifies a user has a legally purchased CD before allowing a download. They could do this by simply selecting random locations on a CD and creating a hash that would uniquely identify the CD. Random locations are selected so that users could not pass around "hash lists" and get around the protocol. They would also have to somehow verify what exact song or CD a user was offering. (Perhaps this is more applicable to MP3.com which supposedly has full CD's that they own and tried to allow downloads for, unlike Napster who seems to depend on it's users to offer the music.)
This would seem to do two things. It would prevent Napster/MP3.com from distributing copyrighted songs without making a good-faith effort to determine that a consumer is legally entitled to the song. This should protect them from any future law suites.
It would also seem to address Lars' concern about "sharing" music on a vastly larger scale than was done in the past. While it would be possible for someone to loan me their CD so that I could download the song it does not appear that this type of "loaning" would result in any larger illegal disrtibution of music than in the past. In fact, if someone loaned me their CD, then I could easily rip the CD and encode it myself. After all, that does seem to be the main benefit of Napster and MP3.com, to provide pre-ripped and encoded songs that I already own. In exchange for marketing information that I provide, by virtue of what songs I download and already have purchased, they are giving me the service of providing pre-ripped/encoded files.
This would put a stop to these sites, but not technologies such as gnutella.
Compaq already has/had a "mess of coders" working on 64-bit Windows for the Alpha, before it was killed. If they did not have to pay any royalties to Microsoft and could create their own version of Windows, I don't see why they wouldn't do so. I'm sure they still have a LOT of information locked away in some storage site, and can't imagine them just junking everything. Do you know of any other company, until recently, that gave away or threw away old versions of software that they don't sell anymore? No, they still have all of their own "Intellectual Property" and could easily be up to speed rather quickly with releasing their own version.
There's also a maintenance issue. If you have a farm of 5 servers running various different processes it's a lot harder to keep the security on them as tight as you can on a "real" firewall. This is simply due to the number of systems configured and the fact that on the back-end systems changes in features may require changes in the firewall rules from time to time. The firewall, however, does not need to worry about what processes are communicating on the back-end servers. It only allows a very restricted set of packets through to the back-end and should be configured so that it's rules change very seldom, if at all.
I just had a wild thought. Not that I would ever do such a thing, or would even be capable of (I don't know jack about VBS), but what would be the effect if someone wrote a VBS virus that had as an attachment the copyrighted or trade secret documents? It would end up using Microsoft's own security holes to propogate their own claimed copyrights or trade secrets. Surely someone who wrote such a virus would be liable for the damage caused by distributing such works, but if Microsoft is "giving away" the text themselves, what real harm has been done?
Just a wild thought, which I don't condone at all.
I'm not saying that X, by itself, should have had a widget set. X's modularity is one of it's few truly good points. But what they should have thought to do is provide some kind of place to call the widgets-- i.e. a standard set of stub libraries or somesuch, where the application simply requests a widget of a certain abstract type, and whichever widget system is installed on the computer at the time handles the request. (i guess today we'd do that with some kind of XML, dunno how they'd have done it then..) I believe doing a similar thing to the open/save dialog boxes would seriously improve the *n?x experience.
Either you are very confused or I'm very confused. X does not dictate the call structure or API of all widget sets. The API for various widget sets are different, correct? Sure, most widget sets have "standard" items like scroll bars, buttons, and menus, but they also have those distinctive attributes that make them unique.
If X cast the API of the widget sets in stone when it was first created then there would be no way to "innovate" without coming out with a totally new API, or even worse "patches" to the existing API that are confusing and non-sensical on a regular basis. Hey! That kinda sounds like the Windows API, doesn't it? Every time someone comes out with a new useful widget you have to try to force an existing widget API call into the mold, if the widgets are somewhat similar, or create a totally new API call. Yet, you have to support the old API for legacy applications, so you end up with a jumbled mess.
No, I don't think it would be a good idea for the core X library to dictate a standard API set for widgets, because it would either limit the widgets to the lowest common denominator or create an API hell. I think it's much better for API's to come up with their own API calls and interface for application programs. Since most if not all widgets for X are open source, with the noted exception of motif, a new widget set developer is free to use the existing API calls for the non-unique calls in an existing widget set as the basis for their APIs.
I think you are under the impression that the window manager, which defines the window "dressing" and uses a particular widget set, also defines what widget set the application uses. Like I said, I may be mistaken but I don't think that just because your window manager uses GTK means that all the applications written for KDE with the Qt widget set will magically change appearance to look like GTK applications. At least when I run Kmail on my GNOME desktop it still LOOKS like a KDE application.
I think your beef is with the application developers who happen to use a widget set that you don't like. The only real solution to this is to use market pressure by stop giving the developers of those applications that you don't like your business, and let them know why you are not purchasing their products. Oh, but then most applications for Linux and X are Free, so you really have no ground to stand on and complain! Of course you could send in patches so that the user has a choice of what widget set is used when compiling and installing the applications. May be something like --enable-qt or --enable-gtk? Yes this is sarcastic and a bit of a troll, but IMHO you deserved it. I don't get that people who pay nothing for applications complain about those applications. If you don't like it, don't use it! If you think there are fundamental structural design issues with your platform switch to another like Windows or Mac.
If someone can write such a simple virus in visual basic, there is *something* wrong! (Both with M$ Windows and Outlook)
Wrong. The power behind the technology that made the script so trivial is a good thing. The problem is the security model behind the technology that makes the damage possible. Remember, technology is positive when the creators put the interests of their users before their bottom line.
Wrong. If you don't realize it, this is Microsoft's biggest mistake. That mistake is to make writing complex programs and wielding administrative power over computers "trivial." The ability to design complex programs with system administrative capabilities should be difficult to master. Only with experience comes responsible behavior. By tying their web browser (IE), application programming languages (VB), office automation tools (Outlook), and other sundry "features" to their monopoly operating system they make it easier for inexperienced people to write destructive programs (virus, worm, other).
I'm not strictly advocating making computer programming more difficult on purpose, but I think Microsoft went just a little too far in trusting the "average Joe" users of their software. It's like they totally ignored human nature in that there will always be a subset of society that is destructive. It's almost like putting guns in the hands of kids and saying, "You're not being fair! It's not their (those that distribute guns to kids) fault that there are some bad apples out there!"
Note that this is quite different that the current litigation blaming responsible gun manufacturers for the use of their product. We have laws that restrict the access to guns and other potentially destructive technology to responsible adults. Why don't we have the same type of rules for computer technology? What type of rules should they be? Certainly we can't limit access to computer technology to minors. That would be just plain stupid. But, how about making it illegal to have the default install state of email programs to even be able to "run" applications, at least? What about requiring manufacturers with over 20% market share in their field of endevor responsible for not fixing problems with the fundamental architecture they have designed if it shows repeated occurances of actively promoting loss of business and productivity? Especially if the loss is not limited to the individual using the product irresponsibly?
Hey. Read that over again. Sounds like that could apply to a lot of technologies and not just computers. Take car manufacturers for example. If some car maker designs a part, say a gas tank for a car, in such a way that it explodes or catches fire unreasonably often if "used" in the wrong way (such as getting in an accident, which you certainly don't try to do), wouldn't they be forced to redesign their product so that it wasn't so defective? Especially if it caused harm to those innocent people (the people in the car with the defective gas tank who got rammed from behind by no fault of their own)?
Or, take gun manufacturers, again. They certainly couldn't be sued if someone sticks a gun in their mouth and pulls the trigger. But, if a gun model routinely misfired and caused harm to the person who pulled the trigger or those nearby (but not aimed for!) there certainly would be cause for the ATF to push for a redesign (or pulling that particular model all-together).
I don't know. Sometimes I just don't understand Microsoft supporters. It's like they just don't have a clue. And this from someone who used to be an avid Microsoft supporter (in the mid-late 80's) and personally purchased many-a Microsoft C, Basic, MASM compiler/assembler.
There are places that you can "drop off" digital images and have them make the prints for you.
Quality on the latest megapixel digital cameras is acceptable, and I predict will soon be equivalent to "analog" film - for most practicle purposes. Yes, if you're talking about blowing up pictures to 8x10 size on a regular basis then you're not the typical comsumer and a low-priced digital will probably not suffice.
There are professional digital cameras that cost $25,000 that would probably aleviate any concerns you have.
Traditional cameras will always have their place. But, I think digital cameras are going to replace them for the vast majority of users who only want/need 4x6 or 5x7 prints.
Slashdot Mirror
Then download Woody for goodness sake. No reason to comlain about things you can work around. As far as XFree86 4.0, no that's not in Woody either, but that's besides the point. Why run something when it's unsatable unless you plan to hack it and contribute back? If you're going to do that then you can download the sources yourself and compile it.
RedHat => kernel-2.2.14-12
Debian => kernel-2.2.17pre6
SuSe => A patched 2.2.14 (for security issue)
Caldera => A patched 2.2.14 (for security issue)
Corel => 2.2.14
TurboLinux => 2.2.16
Did I leave anyone out? I've spent enough time looking into this for you. If you're not running at least the version listed above for your distribution (except may be Debian because it's a pre) then you can't blame XFree86 for any lockups.
If my post was a troll then post the panic that you got after upgrading to XFree86 4.0. I'm sure that everyone would be glad to take a look at it and help you determine what the real problem is. The proper way to fix kernel panics is to document it appropriately and post it on the linux-kernel mailing list or contact your distribution vendor (after purchasing a support contract). It's the equivalent to calling Microsoft when your Windows box keeps crashing, except the results are much more reliable and forthcoming.
Nope, with Windows this is more like an upgrade from Windows95 to Windows2000 Professional. No, the upgrade to XFree does not change as many underlying OS level pieces as a 95 => 2000 upgrade would, but it does change the basic architecture of the windowing system and would not be a simple "click the EXE file" upgrade. This is not equivalent to upgrading a display driver in Windows! Now, Windows "beats" Linux as far as that is topic is concerned, but that's not what XFree86 4.0 is compared to 3.x.
An even more accurate comparison would be upgrading Windows 3.11 to Windows95. The underlying OS architecture was, and still is, basically the same, but the graphics architecture changes so drastically that it was often easier to reinstall the whole box than attempt an upgrade. At least with Linux the windowing system is not tied so tightly to the core OS that screwing an upgrade of the windowing system up basically screws your box up beyond repair (or fubar for those that prefer that term).
Your kernel dumps (panics) or your box "locks up" (X freezes and you don't have another box to login from so you reboot)? I've certainly had some, infrequent, issues with the kernel panicing, but I'd find it hard to believe that XFree would cause your kernel to panic "more than a fat man on an eating binge."
What kernel are you running? Hopefully something recent, like 2.2.16 or one of the 2.2.17ac versions. If you're running a 2.3.x or 2.4.0pre version then your post is almost laughable in it's inacuracy and tendancy to implicate the wrong part of your system as the source of the problems.
I'd be careful with using that card on-line. Visa check cards usually don't have the same "protections" as real Visa cards. My wife bought me a CDR for Christmas from UCD with a Visa check card and it came delivered damaged. The box was fine, they just shipped a damaged unit. It took us like 3 months to clear that up, because the check cards don't have the same features as real Visa cards as far as consumer protection. Your's might, but I'd check it out...
Well, you could say the same thing for routers, but you don't see anyone hooking up a dumb terminal to every router they have. You hook up to it when you (rarely) need to. Configure your Linux boxen to have their console on the serial port and there is absolutely no reason to have a monitor and keyboard for every one, or a KVM switch for the lot.
Just like breast implants causing systemic problems, this has been effectively debunked. I'd like a pointer to any valid studies that you know about that actually shows cell phones cause brain tumors. Sure there can be "links" between cell phone use and brain tumors, but I'll bet you that the study participants eat a lot of red meat also. Wonder if they smoke, or drink also. Just like the detrimental effects of living next to or under an ultra high power electric line (such as that coming from a nuclear power plant) were blown out of proportion so are the effects of 2.4GHz network equipment.
Yes, but this is not a production unit, it's a development machine used to get Linux running on the new CPU. It makes little sense to me to have that many disks. Even if you were testing RAID you'd only need about 5 or 6 to do some nice tests. I have a SUN E450 at work that has a bunch of disks in RAID5 also, but it's also a production box...
Ya think they really needed all those SCSI disks just for getting Linux to boot on a Power4 CPU? I mean cripes, they have like 15 17GB disks and 2 8.5GB disks in there! I can see a few for testing RAID, but 17 disks?!? Isn't that a little overkill?
You didn't read, or quote, my whole message did you? I specifically addressed this question. Please read again.
Were you aware that every state in the United States of America requires people to get a license before they get in a car and take it on public roads? If they don't, they could be fined or thrown into jail. The laws differ from state to state, but they are pretty much the same. People are not allowed to drive until they are a certain age. People have to take eye exams to make sure the can see. People have to take test to make sure they understand the "rules of the road", and the laws of the state. There are special licenses for different types of vehicles. Truck drivers must take a much more extensive test and have superior driving abilities (or at least knowledge on how to handle a big rig on the road) before they are given a license.
You seem to be advocating that everyone, no matter what age, eyesight, physical coordination, knowledge of transporation laws, or other criteria, should be able to jump in an 18 wheeler and drive it down your local intrastate highway.
Please try to give your comments more thought before posting. Again, you ignore a significant part of my post which specifically says I don't believe that making computer programming more difficult is the right answer. I never said that everyone should be forced to program in x86 assembler, and the implication that I did is plain deciteful. I love Perl, and currently it's my favorite language of choice. What I am saying is that Microsoft should not have included functions and utilities in Visual Basic, which was designed, implemented, and marketed as a language for people who don't have professional programming skills, that make it easy for an inexperienced person to call harmful system functions. Those capabilities should be reserved for programming languages that require a little bit or experience, and hopefully some wisdom. Or at least don't include these capabilities in Visual Basic for Applications. If someone wants to use VB I don't have a problem with that. But, they should possibly pay for the added functionality.
I've got to add to that last statement, since I support Open Source and advocating paying for any programs is questionable from my perspective. Microsoft is not an Open Source company. None of their products that I know of fall under the Open Source Definition. They sell Windows. They sell the applications that come with VBA. They sell professional programming tools. It would only make sense that they would sell this professional level VB programming environment that would contain the additional functionality for system integrators.
In an open source world, you wouldn't "sell" the additional functionality. You would most likely include it in a separate package, specifically designed for the professional programmer. You wouldn't necessarily include it in the "base" package for a programming language or in the application package. The Perl packages don't include every single module available on the face of the earth. There's no reason why Microsoft needs to include these "dangerous" API calls in the base application versions.
How do you prove that something is impossible? By not trying.
You're missing the word tie again. I don't think it is wrong for Microsoft to include every option with Windows. But, when they tie IE into Windows and they tie other apps into the "core-os" so that you can not effectively replace an application with an offering from another company, this breaks anti-trust law because they have a monopoloy with Windows. There is no technical reason, performance, user interface, or otherwise, why Microsoft couldn't include IE with Windows 98 without tying it to Windows. How would they do this? Just like any other application. Don't put the friggin DLL's in the windows system directory. Put them in the application directory. If the application, such as IE, provides "middleware" there is still no reason to tie it to the OS.
Instead of adding the middleware API to the windows API, it should provide a well defined API to applications that sit on-top of the windows API. This would allow other companies to offer alternative middleware products that accomplish the same thing in a different way. Possibly with a different user interface. Possibly using different algorithms which result in greater performance.
Get the point now?
Actually, my understanding is that Microsoft themselves realized the faults in trying to tie applications to the OS, by putting application API files (dll's) in the system directory. They finally realized that this was not a good practice, and in Windows 2000 it's my understanding that this does not happen any more (or it is frowned upon). Keeping the application API files separate allows one to "upgrade" an application without causing catestrophic failure of the core OS (BSOD). Sure, you still have to maintain compatability with the API if the application provides services or is otherwise a middleware product (which was presumably done when applications were tied to the OS). But, it makes it much easier because it kind of forces a well defined separation of the core OS API and the application API.
That separation and well defined interface between the OS and application/middleware APIs allows for greater competition. One could argue that the instability in Windows is a direct result of Microsoft's anti-competitive actions in trying to maintain their Windows monopoly and extend this monopoly into the applications/middleware sector.
The DOJ can't drop the case. The case is done, complete, finished. They could have dropped the case by coming to a settlement with Microsoft before the court ruled. They only thing they can do now is support Microsoft on their appeal. They could say, "oh, we didn't realize what a mistake we were making, please reverse the decision," but it would just be a request. If the appeals court, or Supreme Court, believes that the ruling was just and followed all the laws they probably won't (and it's questionable if they could) just drop the case.
Just as the DOJ didn't decide the final ruling, they can't just "drop the case."
This is just one example, and I could comment on each of your complaints, but it's not necessary. The basic answer is that these things should not be embedded, integrated, "innovated", or otherwise tied SO tightly to the core OS that it prevents any other companies from competing fairly. That's the whole crux of the problem, and why Microsoft was brought to court in the first place. You say a breakup is "a good thing" yet complain that Microsoft should be able to tie non-core OS features, such as a JVM, into Windows to prevent competition (even if that isn't the intent it's the result). I don't get it.
I think the Judicial Branch of the USA just ruled. The Judicial Branch is in no way affiliated with the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive Branch (the other is the Legislative Branch which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate for those that didn't know). I can't believe that Slashdot made such a mistake. Then again, I can...
Here's a suggestion that, while probably not what the majority of Napster users would want, seems to satisfy both Metallica's concern for pirated music on a large scale and indemnifies Napster from future legal problems.
The suggestion is simple (IMHO). Simply change the Napster protocol so that it verifies a user has a legally purchased CD before allowing a download. They could do this by simply selecting random locations on a CD and creating a hash that would uniquely identify the CD. Random locations are selected so that users could not pass around "hash lists" and get around the protocol. They would also have to somehow verify what exact song or CD a user was offering. (Perhaps this is more applicable to MP3.com which supposedly has full CD's that they own and tried to allow downloads for, unlike Napster who seems to depend on it's users to offer the music.)
This would seem to do two things. It would prevent Napster/MP3.com from distributing copyrighted songs without making a good-faith effort to determine that a consumer is legally entitled to the song. This should protect them from any future law suites.
It would also seem to address Lars' concern about "sharing" music on a vastly larger scale than was done in the past. While it would be possible for someone to loan me their CD so that I could download the song it does not appear that this type of "loaning" would result in any larger illegal disrtibution of music than in the past. In fact, if someone loaned me their CD, then I could easily rip the CD and encode it myself. After all, that does seem to be the main benefit of Napster and MP3.com, to provide pre-ripped and encoded songs that I already own. In exchange for marketing information that I provide, by virtue of what songs I download and already have purchased, they are giving me the service of providing pre-ripped/encoded files.
This would put a stop to these sites, but not technologies such as gnutella.
What do you think?
Compaq already has/had a "mess of coders" working on 64-bit Windows for the Alpha, before it was killed. If they did not have to pay any royalties to Microsoft and could create their own version of Windows, I don't see why they wouldn't do so. I'm sure they still have a LOT of information locked away in some storage site, and can't imagine them just junking everything. Do you know of any other company, until recently, that gave away or threw away old versions of software that they don't sell anymore? No, they still have all of their own "Intellectual Property" and could easily be up to speed rather quickly with releasing their own version.
Me too me too!
I was going to post this. Isn't 12.1 experimental code? "Early Release" or somesuch?
There's also a maintenance issue. If you have a farm of 5 servers running various different processes it's a lot harder to keep the security on them as tight as you can on a "real" firewall. This is simply due to the number of systems configured and the fact that on the back-end systems changes in features may require changes in the firewall rules from time to time. The firewall, however, does not need to worry about what processes are communicating on the back-end servers. It only allows a very restricted set of packets through to the back-end and should be configured so that it's rules change very seldom, if at all.
I just had a wild thought. Not that I would ever do such a thing, or would even be capable of (I don't know jack about VBS), but what would be the effect if someone wrote a VBS virus that had as an attachment the copyrighted or trade secret documents? It would end up using Microsoft's own security holes to propogate their own claimed copyrights or trade secrets. Surely someone who wrote such a virus would be liable for the damage caused by distributing such works, but if Microsoft is "giving away" the text themselves, what real harm has been done?
Just a wild thought, which I don't condone at all.
Oh, someone who reads that site did something nice to us, so we'll let some other unrelated readers post licensed material without the license?
Hey, the "us" gave it away. Give it up.
Either you are very confused or I'm very confused. X does not dictate the call structure or API of all widget sets. The API for various widget sets are different, correct? Sure, most widget sets have "standard" items like scroll bars, buttons, and menus, but they also have those distinctive attributes that make them unique.
If X cast the API of the widget sets in stone when it was first created then there would be no way to "innovate" without coming out with a totally new API, or even worse "patches" to the existing API that are confusing and non-sensical on a regular basis. Hey! That kinda sounds like the Windows API, doesn't it? Every time someone comes out with a new useful widget you have to try to force an existing widget API call into the mold, if the widgets are somewhat similar, or create a totally new API call. Yet, you have to support the old API for legacy applications, so you end up with a jumbled mess.
No, I don't think it would be a good idea for the core X library to dictate a standard API set for widgets, because it would either limit the widgets to the lowest common denominator or create an API hell. I think it's much better for API's to come up with their own API calls and interface for application programs. Since most if not all widgets for X are open source, with the noted exception of motif, a new widget set developer is free to use the existing API calls for the non-unique calls in an existing widget set as the basis for their APIs.
I think you are under the impression that the window manager, which defines the window "dressing" and uses a particular widget set, also defines what widget set the application uses. Like I said, I may be mistaken but I don't think that just because your window manager uses GTK means that all the applications written for KDE with the Qt widget set will magically change appearance to look like GTK applications. At least when I run Kmail on my GNOME desktop it still LOOKS like a KDE application.
I think your beef is with the application developers who happen to use a widget set that you don't like. The only real solution to this is to use market pressure by stop giving the developers of those applications that you don't like your business, and let them know why you are not purchasing their products. Oh, but then most applications for Linux and X are Free, so you really have no ground to stand on and complain! Of course you could send in patches so that the user has a choice of what widget set is used when compiling and installing the applications. May be something like --enable-qt or --enable-gtk? Yes this is sarcastic and a bit of a troll, but IMHO you deserved it. I don't get that people who pay nothing for applications complain about those applications. If you don't like it, don't use it! If you think there are fundamental structural design issues with your platform switch to another like Windows or Mac.
Wrong. If you don't realize it, this is Microsoft's biggest mistake. That mistake is to make writing complex programs and wielding administrative power over computers "trivial." The ability to design complex programs with system administrative capabilities should be difficult to master. Only with experience comes responsible behavior. By tying their web browser (IE), application programming languages (VB), office automation tools (Outlook), and other sundry "features" to their monopoly operating system they make it easier for inexperienced people to write destructive programs (virus, worm, other).
I'm not strictly advocating making computer programming more difficult on purpose, but I think Microsoft went just a little too far in trusting the "average Joe" users of their software. It's like they totally ignored human nature in that there will always be a subset of society that is destructive. It's almost like putting guns in the hands of kids and saying, "You're not being fair! It's not their (those that distribute guns to kids) fault that there are some bad apples out there!"
Note that this is quite different that the current litigation blaming responsible gun manufacturers for the use of their product. We have laws that restrict the access to guns and other potentially destructive technology to responsible adults. Why don't we have the same type of rules for computer technology? What type of rules should they be? Certainly we can't limit access to computer technology to minors. That would be just plain stupid. But, how about making it illegal to have the default install state of email programs to even be able to "run" applications, at least? What about requiring manufacturers with over 20% market share in their field of endevor responsible for not fixing problems with the fundamental architecture they have designed if it shows repeated occurances of actively promoting loss of business and productivity? Especially if the loss is not limited to the individual using the product irresponsibly?
Hey. Read that over again. Sounds like that could apply to a lot of technologies and not just computers. Take car manufacturers for example. If some car maker designs a part, say a gas tank for a car, in such a way that it explodes or catches fire unreasonably often if "used" in the wrong way (such as getting in an accident, which you certainly don't try to do), wouldn't they be forced to redesign their product so that it wasn't so defective? Especially if it caused harm to those innocent people (the people in the car with the defective gas tank who got rammed from behind by no fault of their own)?
Or, take gun manufacturers, again. They certainly couldn't be sued if someone sticks a gun in their mouth and pulls the trigger. But, if a gun model routinely misfired and caused harm to the person who pulled the trigger or those nearby (but not aimed for!) there certainly would be cause for the ATF to push for a redesign (or pulling that particular model all-together).
I don't know. Sometimes I just don't understand Microsoft supporters. It's like they just don't have a clue. And this from someone who used to be an avid Microsoft supporter (in the mid-late 80's) and personally purchased many-a Microsoft C, Basic, MASM compiler/assembler.
There are places that you can "drop off" digital images and have them make the prints for you.
Quality on the latest megapixel digital cameras is acceptable, and I predict will soon be equivalent to "analog" film - for most practicle purposes. Yes, if you're talking about blowing up pictures to 8x10 size on a regular basis then you're not the typical comsumer and a low-priced digital will probably not suffice.
There are professional digital cameras that cost $25,000 that would probably aleviate any concerns you have.
Traditional cameras will always have their place. But, I think digital cameras are going to replace them for the vast majority of users who only want/need 4x6 or 5x7 prints.