How about per CPU usage for the program? You then would get a certain "usage" charge when you start up a program just to load it and basically no charge unless you are actively using the program. Plus, you could act as a host to multiple users of a program and only get one "bill." Even though I think the idea is stupid and no one in their right mind would go for this that's the best possibility I can think of. (O.K., maybe if the fee was like $5 per month for the OS, Office suite, games, etc. But I doubt that model would work for Microsoft's need for revenue).
you forget the most simple way. per month. No hassles with figuring who used it when or where.
Yes, but what about running a program on your local box, possibly multiple times, and displaying it remotely for other users. Do you still only get charged once per month a fixed fee? I know this capability is severely lacking in Windows now (BASE Windows, no add-on crap), but I think it will catch on in the future.
I sincerely doubt it. I would like to know exactly what the technical reasons for the outage were though. I'm in the position where I might need to support Lucent hardware in the near future, and I'd certainly like a heads-up on this one!
But what if RedHat bought SCO... then started putting features from SCO into RedHat... all the sudden AT&T Code shows up... OH NO!!! Its the BSD Lawsuit all over again!!
I don't think the GPL would allow that.
They could provide separate programs that were BSD licensed, but I don't think you can combine the actual source code from a GPL project and a BSD project and still have it GPL. That being the case, as long as they kept any BSD derived code completely separate then they could always pull that code at a later date without effecting the operation of the system.
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism? In my case that is a very bad assumption.
Probably because it is currently "illegal" to teach creationism in the good 'ol US o A. Therefore, it is "safe" to assume that, at least from a public education viewpoint, people who believe in evolution have never examined evidence of creationism.
I personally believe that public schools should teach a large range of "religious" beliefs. After all, it is part of history right? How many wars were started in the name of religion?
So they are blaming thier downtime on the "router?" Wonder what router they are using? Cisco? Nortel? 3Com? Ascend? I want to know. If a router is that unstable I don't want to be installing it at my customer sites...
Although I may be wrong I believe the restriction was on governments claiming rights to portions of the Moon or any other celestrial body. I believe, but may be wrong, that individual people can claim "land." Check the UN, I believe this is where this measure was "passed."
No Way! I watch The Screensavers all the time. Leo and Kate should spend some time and learn a little more about Linux though -- they sometimes make mistakes. I highly recommend for everyone to send their cable operator a request for this station if you don't get ZDTV...
Has anyone else received Authentication Errors even though they filled in the form and received an "official" userid and password? HP would probably be more impressive if they made sure their servers worked before announcing a new beta... (or do I just expect too much?)
Re:The implications are tremendous
on
NSI to be RBL'ed?
·
· Score: 1
As others have pointed out, email is not a legal communication in the eyes of the court (Any court, AFAIK). If NSI does not want to send snail-mail invoices, they should use a FAX.
Re:I work for a large national ISP. Here's the dea
on
NSI to be RBL'ed?
·
· Score: 1
I've never heard such a clueless person working for an ISP. I hope dso's cusomters become aware of their ISP's spam-friendly staff and either get rid of that staff or switch ISP's, putting dso out of business. I don't even think AOL has such a clueless stance on spam.
You mean Reno, don't you? Madeleine Albright is the Secretary of State, Janet Reno is the Director of the FBI and the author of this letter (which is way out of bounds for the FBI)
Er, isn't Louis Free [sp] the Director of the FBI? Janet Reno is the Attourney General [sp].
If the people who build the tools are promoting the questionable use of them then you should direct your anger at them. Like someone else said, it would be like a gun manufacturer promoting you buying a gun specifically to shoot someone that you were angry at...
A comment and a question, not necessarily in that order.
Question: What exactly does this have to do with the Amiga and Transmeta?
Comment: I've never had problems installing drivers for Linux. I don't have a use for "real" OpenGL support (whatever that means) and am content with the options avalable now. Although there are efforts to bring "official" OpenGL support to Linux, I don't think the majority of developers care that much. If you do, then you may consider joining the effort if you have any significant OpenGL programming abilities. If you're simply a user who wants to purchase a solution, there are many commercial solutions for high-end 3d graphics using OpenGL, as you are aware...
Having a security token, in addition to your password, is the true answer to security. The only problem is that the vendors who make the tokens charge an arm and a leg for them. I believe the latest pricing I've seen listed a 3-year token at $39 USD. Seeing that it can't realistically cost them more than $1 USD to make, that seems like a bit too much margin for me.
If you could get a token for $5 that lasted for three years then I think they would be much more prevalent and they would be incorporated into security schemes much more often.
Of course I would only be supportive of their use in internal systems or "services" such as your ISP that you have to give personal information to. I would not support their use in general e-commerce, as it would be too easy to track everybody and the products they purchase. Besides, the way these devices work now is not condusive to e-commerce (you can't share your token ID and serial with multiple vendors because if they knew it they could pose as you -- there could be a service company that was setup that multiple vendors could authenticate to though).
Who are "we?" If you are talking about the Free/Open source community then who are they going to sue? How can they sue someone for providing a program and saying "here, use it if you want but don't hold me responsible for any problems you have?" The fact that the program is "free" makes quite a bit of different to Microsoft, which charges for their programs...
Yes but there is one important fact that you seem to overlook.
Unix "specific" programs and interfaces are available for Windows. You can get cygwin and compile just about any Unix "specific" program that is called from within a perl program.
Windows "specific" features that are being put in perl are truely "specific." You can't, nor would anyone want to, port Windows "specific" API's to Unix.
Perl programs which contain Unix "specific" APIs can therefore be relatively easily ported to the Windows platform. The only exceptions would be when you are writing a program to do a truely Unix "specific" task, such as working with the/etc/passwd file or something.
Perl programs which contain Windows "specific" APIs generally CAN'T be ported to Unix. This is usually the case even when the task at hand is not overly Windows "specific."
Re:Better Balanced regexp, cool!
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 1
She (he?) did. s///g tends to either take too much out, or leave too much in. It's better to use one of the modules that parse HTML instead of trying to reinvent the wheel in every program you write that deals with HTML. If the modules don't do something you would like, contribute and send in a patch.
Sheesh indeed!
Re:Ummm... Red Hat's Linux?
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. That's what pisses me off. The fact that I now have to either
A) purchase Visual C from Microsoft to compile any module I want
or
B) Beg ActiveState to port a module for me.
They seem to indicate that they are perfectly willing to port any modules and provide a PPM but it appears that they would not be so willing if there are any problems (compile fails, etc)...
Re:Ummm... Red Hat's Linux?
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 1
You shouldn't have to "get into VC++. You should be able to install cygwin (a Free product) and do a
perl -MCPAN -e shell install module
like all other sane people.
I have no problem if perl is put in the Windows "distributions" (that was funny:-), but I would have a problem if the main maintainers of the language started to leave the Unix ports behind and changed it into a mainly Windows product with Unix ports instead of a mainly Unix product with a Windows port. (See how that works, a Unix product with one Windows port or a Windows product with multiple Unix ports?)
If you trust Microsoft and their intentions then you're worse off that I thought...
That's what I see from my perspective also. When we start seeing normal modules not being able to be compiled and having to wait for Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HActivState to release a binary PPM for our platform of choice then we know it's time to fork the tree and split the language into MS^H^Hperl and "normal" perl...
Re:Ummm... Red Hat's Linux?
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 1
Linux is only the kernel. There's nothing strange about saying that Redhat's using Linux 2.2.3 or whatnot.
To be reading an article on programming languages I'd thought you would have picked up on the symantics of the quote. The quote was "similar to RedHat's Linux where you have 2.2.3" implying that RedHat owns a product called Linux and it is referred to with a version number of 2.2.3. RedHat does have a product named "Offical RedHat Linux" Note the lack of the posessive 's in the product name. It's not "RedHat's Linux" So, he didn't say that "Redhat's using Linux 2.2.3 or whatnot" (which while not incorrect is misleading because your use of 's is not in the possessive sense as it is in the quote from the article).
In effect, he was tying the version number, which was the only reason to mention either Linux or Redhat to RedHat's product called Linux and not the Linux kernel. This is particularly disturbing because RedHat does not "own" Linux and does not set the version numbers for new versions of Linux.
This reflects a serious mis-understanding of the Linux movement by the person who made the statement. The fact that:
1) He is one of the primary developers of perl. 2) He works for ActiveState. 3) The goals of the direction of perl seem, IMHO, mis-directed (PPM sucks - what the hell is wrong with compiling modules when it's a programming tool for crying out loud?)
I don't personally mind ORL's involvement in perl or the "OpenSource" movement in general. I don't particularly trust ActiveState and don't have a great appreciation for their work with perl on Windows (it doesn't compare to perl on Unix as you can't generally download any perl module source code and compile it into your perl installation). Their work with perl on the Windows platform is a classic example of "embrace and extend" if I ever saw one. Not only do they make proprietary system interfaces in the language encouraging the creation of non-portable programs but now they are talking about putting an event loop in the friggin language. How are they going to do that? Is it going to be specific to Windows?
I'd much rather see an effort to getting the "official" perl back on track and compiling under cygwin for the Windows platform. That it may not have all the Windows proprietary system interfaces but the ActiveState port does not mean much to me, as I try to circumvent the Windows system every chance I get when forced to work on that platform. It just doesn't seem right to have to rely on someone else to compile a friggin package for me because I didn't happen to pay Microsoft an outrageous sum of money for their compilers...
Re:WTF? Idiot moderators....
on
On Perl 5.6
·
· Score: 0
How is this "offtopic"? I took a quote from the linked interview.
I'd tend to agree with you. In fact, I was so flipped out by that quote when I read the article yesterday that I sent in a comment to perl.com and let them know that RedHat doesn't "own" Linux (as implied) and that they never had a version of their product called 2.2.3.
Slashdot Mirror
How about per CPU usage for the program? You then would get a certain "usage" charge when you start up a program just to load it and basically no charge unless you are actively using the program. Plus, you could act as a host to multiple users of a program and only get one "bill." Even though I think the idea is stupid and no one in their right mind would go for this that's the best possibility I can think of. (O.K., maybe if the fee was like $5 per month for the OS, Office suite, games, etc. But I doubt that model would work for Microsoft's need for revenue).
you forget the most simple way. per month. No hassles with figuring who used it when or where.
Yes, but what about running a program on your local box, possibly multiple times, and displaying it remotely for other users. Do you still only get charged once per month a fixed fee? I know this capability is severely lacking in Windows now (BASE Windows, no add-on crap), but I think it will catch on in the future.
I sincerely doubt it. I would like to know exactly what the technical reasons for the outage were though. I'm in the position where I might need to support Lucent hardware in the near future, and I'd certainly like a heads-up on this one!
But what if RedHat bought SCO... then started putting features from SCO into RedHat... all the sudden AT&T Code shows up... OH NO!!! Its the BSD Lawsuit
all over again!!
I don't think the GPL would allow that.
They could provide separate programs that were BSD licensed, but I don't think you can combine the actual source code from a GPL project and a BSD project and still have it GPL. That being the case, as long as they kept any BSD derived code completely separate then they could always pull that code at a later date without effecting the operation of the system.
Why do you assume that someone who believes in evolution has never examined the evidence given for Creationism? In my case that is a very bad
assumption.
Probably because it is currently "illegal" to teach creationism in the good 'ol US o A. Therefore, it is "safe" to assume that, at least from a public education viewpoint, people who believe in evolution have never examined evidence of creationism.
I personally believe that public schools should teach a large range of "religious" beliefs. After all, it is part of history right? How many wars were started in the name of religion?
So they are blaming thier downtime on the "router?" Wonder what router they are using? Cisco? Nortel? 3Com? Ascend? I want to know. If a router is that unstable I don't want to be installing it at my customer sites...
Although I may be wrong I believe the restriction was on governments claiming rights to portions of the Moon or any other celestrial body. I believe, but may be wrong, that individual people can claim "land." Check the UN, I believe this is where this measure was "passed."
Flame On!!
No Way! I watch The Screensavers all the time. Leo and Kate should spend some time and learn a little more about Linux though -- they sometimes make mistakes. I highly recommend for everyone to send their cable operator a request for this station if you don't get ZDTV...
Has anyone else received Authentication Errors even though they filled in the form and received an "official" userid and password? HP would probably be more impressive if they made sure their servers worked before announcing a new beta... (or do I just expect too much?)
As others have pointed out, email is not a legal communication in the eyes of the court (Any court, AFAIK). If NSI does not want to send snail-mail invoices, they should use a FAX.
I've never heard such a clueless person working for an ISP. I hope dso's cusomters become aware of their ISP's spam-friendly staff and either get rid of that staff or switch ISP's, putting dso out of business. I don't even think AOL has such a clueless stance on spam.
>No way. Albright was
You mean Reno, don't you? Madeleine Albright is the Secretary of State, Janet Reno is the Director of the FBI and the author of this letter (which is way out of bounds for the FBI)
Er, isn't Louis Free [sp] the Director of the FBI? Janet Reno is the Attourney General [sp].
Er, Isn't NASA a government owned company or agency? If so, how can a company "invest" money it in?
If the people who build the tools are promoting the questionable use of them then you should direct your anger at them. Like someone else said, it would be like a gun manufacturer promoting you buying a gun specifically to shoot someone that you were angry at...
Now how do you suppose you have first post when you are replying to someone?
Think a little....
A comment and a question, not necessarily in that order.
Question: What exactly does this have to do with the Amiga and Transmeta?
Comment: I've never had problems installing drivers for Linux. I don't have a use for "real" OpenGL support (whatever that means) and am content with the options avalable now. Although there are efforts to bring "official" OpenGL support to Linux, I don't think the majority of developers care that much. If you do, then you may consider joining the effort if you have any significant OpenGL programming abilities. If you're simply a user who wants to purchase a solution, there are many commercial solutions for high-end 3d graphics using OpenGL, as you are aware...
Having a security token, in addition to your password, is the true answer to security. The only problem is that the vendors who make the tokens charge an arm and a leg for them. I believe the latest pricing I've seen listed a 3-year token at $39 USD. Seeing that it can't realistically cost them more than $1 USD to make, that seems like a bit too much margin for me.
If you could get a token for $5 that lasted for three years then I think they would be much more prevalent and they would be incorporated into security schemes much more often.
Of course I would only be supportive of their use in internal systems or "services" such as your ISP that you have to give personal information to. I would not support their use in general e-commerce, as it would be too easy to track everybody and the products they purchase. Besides, the way these devices work now is not condusive to e-commerce (you can't share your token ID and serial with multiple vendors because if they knew it they could pose as you -- there could be a service company that was setup that multiple vendors could authenticate to though).
Who are "we?" If you are talking about the Free/Open source community then who are they going to sue? How can they sue someone for providing a program and saying "here, use it if you want but don't hold me responsible for any problems you have?" The fact that the program is "free" makes quite a bit of different to Microsoft, which charges for their programs...
Yes but there is one important fact that you seem to overlook.
/etc/passwd file or something.
Unix "specific" programs and interfaces are available for Windows. You can get cygwin and compile just about any Unix "specific" program that is called from within a perl program.
Windows "specific" features that are being put in perl are truely "specific." You can't, nor would anyone want to, port Windows "specific" API's to Unix.
Perl programs which contain Unix "specific" APIs can therefore be relatively easily ported to the Windows platform. The only exceptions would be when you are writing a program to do a truely Unix "specific" task, such as working with the
Perl programs which contain Windows "specific" APIs generally CAN'T be ported to Unix. This is usually the case even when the task at hand is not overly Windows "specific."
She (he?) did. s///g tends to either take too much out, or leave too much in. It's better to use one of the modules that parse HTML instead of trying to reinvent the wheel in every program you write that deals with HTML. If the modules don't do something you would like, contribute and send in a patch.
Sheesh indeed!
Exactly. That's what pisses me off. The fact that I now have to either
A) purchase Visual C from Microsoft to compile any module I want
or
B) Beg ActiveState to port a module for me.
They seem to indicate that they are perfectly willing to port any modules and provide a PPM but it appears that they would not be so willing if there are any problems (compile fails, etc)...
You shouldn't have to "get into VC++. You should be able to install cygwin (a Free product) and do a
:-), but I would have a problem if the main maintainers of the language started to leave the Unix ports behind and changed it into a mainly Windows product with Unix ports instead of a mainly Unix product with a Windows port. (See how that works, a Unix product with one Windows port or a Windows product with multiple Unix ports?)
perl -MCPAN -e shell
install module
like all other sane people.
I have no problem if perl is put in the Windows "distributions" (that was funny
If you trust Microsoft and their intentions then you're worse off that I thought...
That's what I see from my perspective also. When we start seeing normal modules not being able to be compiled and having to wait for Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HActivState to release a binary PPM for our platform of choice then we know it's time to fork the tree and split the language into MS^H^Hperl and "normal" perl...
Linux is only the kernel. There's nothing strange about saying that Redhat's using Linux 2.2.3 or whatnot.
To be reading an article on programming languages I'd thought you would have picked up on the symantics of the quote. The quote was "similar to RedHat's Linux where you have 2.2.3" implying that RedHat owns a product called Linux and it is referred to with a version number of 2.2.3. RedHat does have a product named "Offical RedHat Linux" Note the lack of the posessive 's in the product name. It's not "RedHat's Linux" So, he didn't say that "Redhat's using Linux 2.2.3 or whatnot" (which while not incorrect is misleading because your use of 's is not in the possessive sense as it is in the quote from the article).
In effect, he was tying the version number, which was the only reason to mention either Linux or Redhat to RedHat's product called Linux and not the Linux kernel. This is particularly disturbing because RedHat does not "own" Linux and does not set the version numbers for new versions of Linux.
This reflects a serious mis-understanding of the Linux movement by the person who made the statement. The fact that:
1) He is one of the primary developers of perl.
2) He works for ActiveState.
3) The goals of the direction of perl seem, IMHO, mis-directed (PPM sucks - what the hell is wrong with compiling modules when it's a programming tool for crying out loud?)
I don't personally mind ORL's involvement in perl or the "OpenSource" movement in general. I don't particularly trust ActiveState and don't have a great appreciation for their work with perl on Windows (it doesn't compare to perl on Unix as you can't generally download any perl module source code and compile it into your perl installation). Their work with perl on the Windows platform is a classic example of "embrace and extend" if I ever saw one. Not only do they make proprietary system interfaces in the language encouraging the creation of non-portable programs but now they are talking about putting an event loop in the friggin language. How are they going to do that? Is it going to be specific to Windows?
I'd much rather see an effort to getting the "official" perl back on track and compiling under cygwin for the Windows platform. That it may not have all the Windows proprietary system interfaces but the ActiveState port does not mean much to me, as I try to circumvent the Windows system every chance I get when forced to work on that platform.
It just doesn't seem right to have to rely on someone else to compile a friggin package for me because I didn't happen to pay Microsoft an outrageous sum of money for their compilers...
How is this "offtopic"? I took a quote from the linked interview.
I'd tend to agree with you. In fact, I was so flipped out by that quote when I read the article yesterday that I sent in a comment to perl.com and let them know that RedHat doesn't "own" Linux (as implied) and that they never had a version of their product called 2.2.3.