I "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade" nightly, and run quite a bit from testing/unstable; I have been for quite a long time now.
I do not recall this error; I suspect either it only came up with "dist-upgrade" or it was the result of a package which I do not run.
I agree; I don't know that there is any advantage to using "dist-upgrade". Most of the packages held back by default with "upgrade" are ones that you probably want to keep in stable.
Be sure to run "apt-get" with the "-u" option, or set this to be used by default in your/etc/apt/apt.conf. If you see a package wanting to move a major system component out of stable, try to find a backport to stable (woody) from an unofficial apt source.
If you don't want to do this, or if you are willing to accept the upgrade, then first go to the Debian project website's package lists and check for outstanding bugs against the package being upgraded before you proceed.
Some of the observed behaviors were incredibly interesting.
They categorized users based upon their performance in the tasks. Starting from page 74, I found some of the attributes and observations for each category to be interesting:
All observations are quoted directly from the report, but have been consolidated from multiple pages (74-77) 1. Group: Inexperienced performers - They cannot mentally differentiate between OS, desktop environment and application. - They are goal orientated and not interested in understand (sic) how they get there ("Now it is working"). - In order to place an application icon (Acrobat Reader) in the desktop bar at the bottom, they were looking for this option within the application itself (and did not succeed). This was the case for 21 of the 60 Linux test participants. - They left an application open and tried to perform all further tasks within this application. For instance, they created a new folder using the file dialog of the word processor. - They were confused by a high number of options and tried to find a familiar option from which they could start exploring the others.
2. Group: Experienced performers - They are interested in understanding how something works. - They consider themselves to be the cause of an error, not the computer. - Due to their impatient navigation, they did not see some (sometimes important or helpful) options. Also, they could hardly see the tooltips since they moved the mouse too quickly before the tooltip had been displayed. - If an action did not show an immediate result, they went onto another way and only came back much later to the initial action. Hence, this group needed to have the network folder displayed for quite a long time as they clicked somewhere else before the folder content was updated and displayed.
3. Group: Professional performers - They plan their steps by their assumptions of the potential ways that the systems may offer. - They can identify the "errors" or "inadequacies" of the system. - They had problems especially when they did not expect a certain system behavior. This could be observed e.g. in Windows XP when they tried to write a file on a CD, since this function is integrated into Windows Explorer, while those users expected a stand-alone application.
The following comment on Linux shortcomings drew a chuckle from me (page 28),
"The most striking example of this is the term "Verzeichnis" (directory). To 46% of all test subjects it was unclear whether "Ordner" (folder) and "Verzeichnis" (directory) were synonymous. Consequently, they had problems with the task which asked them to create a new folder."
Well, of course I realize this, but then I've found it to be advisable in some situations to go along with common (mis)conceptions.
OpenOffice.org, for example, figured prominently as I read it. Unless there exists an integrated KDE version of OpenOffice.org which I am unaware of, this is not a KDE-based application. But that's why I was trying to to be picky.
I also certainly wasn't about to say just "Linux", as referring to the entire system as "Linux" brings out the "GNU/Linux snob" in me. I said "Linux-based" specifically to avoid this, while still remaining understandable.
What would you prefer, that I use, "open source desktop environment"? I can go along with that, but then, KDE is largely GPL "Free Software", yes? It's all either rather vague, or too wordy.
If people understood what I was referring to by "Linux-based", and I think they did, then I am happy enough.
You're correct though that I didn't think about FreeBSD; I've never used it, and have no pressing plans to do so, although I have nothing against it.
To be clear, the report states as much, but I thought it might have been helpful to pull out a few examples for those who do not have the time to read the report.
From page eleven (11),
"The testing scenario tries to recreate the following situation: A company or a public office is migrating to Linux on desktop. The employees are using computers for their daily office routines, i.e. they are experienced in using applications and the Windows operating system."
Also, I found the following compliment on page eleven (11) to be particularly flattering (er, of the open source solution),
"Linux applications show an outstanding configurability and can be adapted according to the taste and experience of the user. Hence, it was the aim in configuring the system to make the most of every possibility offered by KDE and the applications in order to make the test system as usable as possible."
Looking at the screenshot of the menu as configured for the tests on page seventeen (17), it appears as though these naming conventions were in fact used.
Many of these tests are tests of familiarity and similarity, not strictly of usability. At least this is my impression, browsing the report.
Remember, these are users who, while they have "No experience with Windows XP" , are also not beginning computer users (but not expert computer users).
It is quite possible that even if a Mac OS X system were also tested, that the Windows system would score higher, despite Mac OS X having better usability, strictly speaking. This would be the case unless the usability of the Mac OS X system were sufficiently superior in usability, that it could overcome the advantage of the Windows system due to its familiarity.
Given this, that the Linux-based system did as well as it did is truly a testament to the quality of these open source environments.
On page eight (8) we see that task two (2) is to: - use a text editor to enter some specified text - "Format the first line as a centered heading" - "Add page numbers on right hand upper margin of the page" - "Print the document" - "Save document as 'Potter.doc' in WORD format in your personal folder" - "Close the program"
The user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how closely the Linux-based system's word processors resemble word processors in the Windows environment. This test does evaluate usability, but strict usability here, is secondary to familiarity.
Surely these users will have some -- if not extensive -- experience with Microsoft Word, or even Wordpad. No doubt these workers also have experience performing these very tasks in this Windows environment.
On page nine (9) we see task six (6): - "Open the email application" - "You have received a new mail which mentions the date of an appointment" - "Have a look at the organizer and see whether you are still free on that date" - "If that date is still availab le, please enter the appointment".
It seems certain here that the user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how similar the Linux-based system's email/groupware client is to Mircosoft Outlook Express, or Microsoft Outlook.
One last question: why does the KDE system as pictured in the report not have text below the "quicklaunch" icons? Wouldn't this significantly improve a new user's ability to quickly identify and launch the tool needed?
I do not know what a "blue dog house" means, what a "red lifesaver" means, or what a "K overlayed upon a sproket" means. I can probably make an educated guess given some previous experience with KDE, but that is hardly accessible.
"She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?""
Which raises an interesting question: Why, when your step-mother wants to "burn a cd" does she need to look for not just "Nero" or "k3b", but anything other than noun: "CD creator", or as a task: "Burn a CD", or "Create a CD"?
If, as seems to be the case, your step-mother knows what it means to "burn a CD", then a successful user interface will indicate to her how to "burn a CD".
We are not dealing with proprietary software; name recognition is nice, but we do not need to sacrifice usability to preserve it if that is the tradeoff. There is nothing wrong with referring to "Epiphany" as "Web Browser", which seems to be the default for Debian GNOME 2.2 (is this for GNOME in general?).
GNOME menu->Accessories gives me "Text Editor", "Hex Editor", "Dictionary", "Find Files". This is wonderful. Should "Accessories" be something more to the point? Perhaps, but what is there shows promise.
If we must refer to applications by name, and perhaps this is useful for multiple applications which accomplish the same task (another problem!), then "Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", or "Mozilla Firebird Web Browser" and "Konqueror Web Browser" seem much more approrpriate.
These all seem to be much better situations than finding names in menus such as "OpenOffice.org", "Ximian Evolution", "The GIMP", and "Mozilla".
When I think "I should check my email", I don't think "Ximian Evolution", I think "email" (well, actually I think "mutt", but that's beside the point). Sure, when I think "email", I know to look through my menu structure until I see "Ximian Evolution", but that is secondary to what I actually want.
As I'm fairly new to using full desktop environments with X ("Multiple XTerm Environment"), I don't have experience with the desktops of other distributions. How do these matters fare elsewhere?
Oh that it were not ever so present in my mind, always, the oppression that we face, that I could believe I am not made to be the pawn of the powerful for even a moment.
I acknowledge this without reservation.
It is not a report of what is. It is the hope of what someday must be. It is a cry of anger and frustration, that I do not freely consent to my present state, but find myself here nonetheless.
"Real world" money defeats the purpose of the MUD or MMORPG, as this is for myself, and as I understand this to be for many others.
As I have said in the past, the hope in the ideal of the MUD or MMORPG is that who or what we may be in the "real world" does not in any way limit who or what we can be in this alternate reality.
While one individual selling items for "real world" cash may not have significant effect, this behavior, in principle, is unacceptable if the above is the purpose of the MUD or MMORPG.
When my opportunity to behave as I would like and have a legitimate expectation to be able to in this alternate reality is restricted as a result of my subservience in the "real world" to the political and economic power of another, or of the elite, then I have not even in this alternate reality escaped their reach.
While we might certainly pretend that those who are powerful in this alternate reality as a result of their political and economic power in this reality, are not so for this reason, but are instead for some false or fanciful reason put in the context of the alternate reality, I refuse to do this, and I urge other concerned persons to voice this position.
Why would we bring this upon ourselves? Is the political and economic power of the elite of this world not sufficiently overbearing, that we should directly permit behaviors which have the effect of extending their reach into another?
Does the thought entertain you, that your superior who has power over you from Monday to Friday, from 9 to 5, can for a price extend his power over you, his enjoyment at the price of your integrity, and his opportunity at the price of your hope, even when you at home think you have finally escaped?
I will not be the pawn of another's wealth; not in this world, and not in any other.
"But the prosecutor in the case, David Sapieca, told the BBC: "We don't accept the conclusions of the defense expert report, but there were already other issues in the case regarding the history of the computer itself. We cannot show that Mr. Green downloaded the images on to the computer, so the Crown reluctantly offer no evidence in this case."
Despite having no evidence to support his claims, the prosecutor does not accept the conclusion of not guilty?
Gee, and here I had thought that a prosecutor of all people would understand the merits of aligning one's beliefs with the available evidence.
You know, I do on occasion bring things like this up with older family members, and family and friends who do not know anything about the tech world.
They see that these things are not right when I tell them what is happening. They know what is right and what is wrong when they see it. Our nation may be in the pockets of corporate interests, but our people are not.
They need only to be motivated, to find a passion to root out this injustice; they don't believe that it matters to any one. Tell them that it does.
"Tague and others think the manufacturers' restrictions are just not right. "It's a flat out scam," he says. "Just because it's typical, just because the other guys are doing it too, doesn't mean it's OK."
How is it, in a nation where it is the will of the people that is to be represented and reflected in our laws and statues, our laws and statues reflect not the will of the people, but the will of an elite minority?
What more evidence do we need than this that ours is not a government by the people, for the people, but instead a government by those who have power, for those who already have it?
These businesses and corporations exist, and may operate only as we permit them to; they are by our permission.
We must revoke their permission. We must revoke their permission to buy laws which ensure their profit margins. We must revoke their permission to buy laws which mandate revenue where there ought not to be any.
What was it that the Justice Department lawyers told us, and the technology lobyist told us in their interviews; that it is naive, uninformed, and probably just childish of us to suggest that our government is in the pockets of corporations, and that corporations can "buy laws"?
What I say to them is that it is they who are naive. The corporate interests of today do not need to buy a single new law to oppress us, to wrong us, and to devestate us.
They do not, because our laws, our resources, our nation, were bought and sold to corporate interests long before any one of us were even born.
We are born into chains and we die under their weight.
If you struggle, it only drives those in power to bind us all the tighter. And they grin in delight. And they swim in their gold. And they build the flames higher.
Computer software, for the purposes of determining whether or not it is a public good, is like information.
Many publicly funded institutions and agencies provide information at little -- and usually, no -- direct cost. The providing of this information is widely considered to be a public good.The particular purpose and sort of this information varies: - Some of this information is the sort of information which enables private citizens and land owners -- private citizens granted temporary, revocable, and limited authority over some portion of our natural resources -- to steward our nation's -- and our world's -- shared resources in a responsible way, consistent with the duties they as such have to each and every one of us. - Some of this information enables private citizens to do with these resources over which they have this temporary, revocable, and limited authority, that which they have a legitimate expectation to do. - Some of this information enables citizens to evaluate the risks they face by engaging in certain behaviors, or by living in certain ways or in certain environments. - Some of this information enables private citizens enables citizens to carry out tasks and to obtain certain other goods which they as people in these modern times have a legitimate expectation be able to do or to have access to, regardless of their social, political, or economic status, situation, and circumstance.
One example of this type of information is that provided through "extension services": Many counties, states, as well as public universities, provide publicly funded information services. This often includes providing information about agriculture, livestock, landscaping, land care, building, wildlife, codes, and drainage systems.
Another example of this information is personal health care related: We provide information to expecting mothers, to those citizens -- and non citizens within our borders -- who face an increased health risk due to their behavior, life choices, or environment,. We provide to everyone information about their bodies and life changes, to the extent that they as people in these modern times have a legitimate expectation to know about their bodies and life changes regardless of their education or their ability to pay for it.
Computer software as a public good is similar in many ways to information as a public good: - Computer software, like information, once obtained, is an unlimited resource. Distributing one copy of it does not limit or otherwise affect our ability to distribute another identical copy, and this distribution may be done at very little to no cost. - Computer software, like information, requires both an initial investment to organize, verify, and to be put into an accessible form, as well as continuing costs to maintain the accuracy and relevance of. - Computer software, like information, provides the groundwork which enables private citizens to be good stewards of that portion of our resources over which they have some temporary, revocable, and limited authority. - Computer software, like information, provides the groundwork which enable private citizens to carry out the tasks and to obtain the additional goods which they in virtue of being citizens have a legitimate expectation to carry out and to obtain.
One example of this is access to electronic communication: Increasingly, modern people have a legitimate expectation to be able to communicate with friends, family members, their representatives, and appointed government officials, electronically, and from the privacy of their own homes. Software provides the groundwork which enables these citizens to realize these legitimate expectations. It is unacceptable for the realization of private citizens' legitimate expectation to use secure, reliable, and comprehensible, and usable, electronic communication in the privacy of their own homes to be dependent upon their acceptance of a draconian set of terms of use and limitation of rights such as m
Lack of interest - Common topics just boring
on
The Introvert Advantage
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The majority of conversations that I encounter throughout the day are absolutely irredeemable, frivolous, and reek of an utter failure to see the seriousness of life.
Why should I want to reinforce this behavior?
I have a passion for three things: 1) Intelligent and passionate conversation about: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, human rights, institutionalized oppression, abuse of government power, consumerism, corporatism, and unseating the social, political, and economic elite. 2) Creating a passion in others to see and speak out about the great injustice in this life. 3) Helping those who are oppressed and downtrodden, whether in their middle class lives, or from through the cracks of society, and empowering them -- making them to realize that they matter -- that they are loved as brothers and sisters, and that they can make a difference; believe that we will overcome.
- I do not care whether James' new girlfriend is hot. I will not reinforce this behavior. - I do not care what happened on Friends last night. I will not reinforce this behavior. - I do not care who the Bachelor picked. I will not reinforce this behavior. - I do not want to get hopped up on alcohol and make it out what a 'stud' I am at the club tonight in order to get a member of the opposite sex into bed for a night. I will not reinforce this behavior. - I do not think that your racist, sexist, immature jokes are humorous. I will not reinforce this behavior.
But 5.35 MB version used no executable packer?
on
Windows 95 in 4.47MB
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
From this page, it appears that the previous 'record holder', 5.35 MB, did not use an executable packer or other compression.
"Apparently only 5.35Mb in size (at the moment.... I'm told this might go down!) - without using UPX / any compression"
So, is what this fellow has done a superior acheivement, or did he mostly just run an executable packer on a few binaries?
Certainly if the idea here is to just shrink the physical disk space usage we can do better than either of these entries by compressing all files and hacking the Windows I/O subsystem calls to handle our compression.
I think all of this raises an interesting question. (ok, so it's not interesting at all, but I've had similar issues come up in a lot of other unofficial sort of 'competitions' like this, and we all just kind of use interest at that point;). Just what is the purpose of this, and at what point do your modifications, whether extreme, or just running binaries through an executable packer, defeat the purpose of doing this in the first place?
Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS capable of doing x or y?
Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS that looks like Windows 95?
Is the idea to have the smallest possible 'distribution' of Windows 95 attainable by just removing unecessary features?
Do we want smallest in terms of RAM usage, or smallest in terms of disk space? What do we then if we run it on a RAM disk? Which space counts?
Surely depending up just what is the goal here, we can do a lot better than 4.47 MB.
I guess I don't 'get it', what they're doing =)
That's Windows users for you!
There is a micro Linux distribution floating around somewhere that provides an X server in under 2 MB of physical disk space (but 4 or 8 MB of RAM), but I can't recall the name of it just now.
Hrm, well, for one he says he is using an executable packer, but this isn't necessarily going to increase RAM usage.
I wonder how much RAM is required?
I used to run Windows 95 on a 486 DX4 75 laptop with 8 MB RAM. It was suprisingly responsive compared to my 486 SX 25 (I think I got that right, anyhow, it has been a while).
I think that what will have to happen is for an enterprise solution provider to see the stronger position to be to differentiate on the services provided rather than on the software its services are based upon.
When this happens, this solution provider will be able to be open to an open source development model. So long as the solution provider finds that the stronger position is to differentiate on the software on which their services are based, or that this software contributes to their ability to differentiate themselves, the provider will not be willing to consider an open source development model.
If an open source, corporate funded, development model is superior in this arena, I think it is just a matter of time before we see a shift in the decisions of solution providers who do not have the market share they they are after, or are uncertain of their ability to maintain their current market share.
If this happens, depending upon who makes the move first, I think it is then that we might expect to see legal tension with open source solutions at the enterprise level.
Sure, it's easy for companies to see open source as a platform or environment for their products, but what happens when open source starts to move into their territory?
Of course Microsoft doesn't like open source solutions. Open source solutions are already, and are increasingly so, in direct competition with the products that make up their revenue stream.
Not all of these companies that are jumping on the open source bandwagon are going to be understanding and cooperative when open source comes knocking on their door: their revenue stream.
In fact, I'd venture to guess that the majority of them will be anything but understanding and cooperative. These companies are not adopting open source solutions because they want to advance the common good. They are not doing this out of community spirit. These companies are jumping on the open source bandwagon because they see it as a good economic decision; this is the bottom line.
When their bottom line is threatened, they will turn around, lash out, and bite the hand that feeds them.
They may not succeed, but they will try, and I for one know that I do not want to be the developer contributing to software that infringes whatever wealth of patents they are holding when that time comes.
...at least not if I can be held liable, which, if I am a start-up distributing this competing open source solution as part of a package to support my service-based company, certainly I can be.
I do not trust our new corporate bed-fellows.
I do not trust our legal system to protect me from them.
I do not trust our policy makers to even care about protecting me from them.
Oh that I could. Fortunately, or unfortunately, people like me just don't matter in this country of ours.
Well, if nothing else, at least our votes can help the existing power structure project the illusion that we ever had a real, actualizable opportunity to have our interests represented.
If you have done what I think you have, then you are quite probably screwed no matter what course of action you choose.
If you do report the problem, the IT administrators will be obliged to perform a damage assessment. They will scan their logs for behavior possibly taking advantage of this exploit. That you say you have proof of concept code, and presumably have tested it, if IT discovers that you have so much as tried to take advantage of this or a related exploit, it will almost certainly result in your dismissal for that Semester, criminal charges, and possibly the end of your academic career.
It won't help to go through a professor. If IT comes back and says that they have evidence that you tried to take advantage of the exploit (by 'testing'), you will not be spared, and the professor will either be unwilling or unable to protect you.
If you do not report the problem, you risk IT discovering the exploit on their own or through a security update from the vendor, and similarly performing damage assessment to discover whether or not their systems or data have been compromised, or attempted to have been compromised.
Don't scoff at this. If it is a significant exploit, and given that there is now a story on Slashdot about it, there is a significant possibility that IT will perform a damage assessment.
Further, depending upon how you found or 'tested' this exploit, IT may find you out whether or not they realize or are alerted to the nature of the exploit.
It is really up to you. Only you know the nature of your investigative activities and testing. If discovering these exploits required behavior which went beyond the normal use of the system, then you have a very serious problem.
How do you explain why you were doing this in the first place? You can't, and quite honestly, there is almost certainly no excuse for it. If you were concerned about the security of the system, you should have gone through official channels to get clearance to look for vulnerabilities, and report the sort of investigative techniques you would be using, and do only this.
If you have not done this, then you have one course of action: - Find out how long of a period IT keeps logs for. If you are a technically inclined, student, then surely you have aquaintences -- students -- who work in IT. - If the logs of your activity are gone, then you are in the clear. Report the vulnerability anonymously the next time you are off campus. Unfortunately, from the few academic IT departments I am familiar with, they keeps logs for a very long time, because of issues just like these. - If, on the other hand, the logs of your activity are not gone, then weigh the possibility of your activity being found out before the logs will be cycled or destroyed.
If the logs will be around for months still, then you are quite possibly in serious trouble. If the logs will be around for a year or more, then you are almost certainly in very serious trouble.
If you report your activities, then you are are almmost certainly in very serious trouble.
Personally, I would go with the first option, and hope that your IT department will not perform damage assessment, or that they will not find out above the exploit until next semester, and will not be interested in logs from the previous semester, or perhaps from the previous academic year.
The hope in the ideal of the MUD or MMORPG is that who or what we may be in the "real world" does not in any way limit who or what we can be in this alternate reality.
If I enter this "alternate reality" only to find I am condemned to be politically and economically subservient to Ben Afleck's or Larry Ellison's incarnation, then I have not left my own reality; I have not found a place where I am free from the political and economic chains that bind me.
Such a system, like the any other rule or establishment that the powerful among us seek to put in place or have put in place to elevate themselves above their peers, is nothing but a grant and promise of power to those who already have it.
Without the real, actualizable opportunity -- freedom -- to unseat those who oppress us -- those who through their established political and economic power structure enslave and bind us -- it is better not to live at all than to live a life condemned to serve their wretched ends as they worship their filthy money at the temple of their own power.
Death to tyrants! Death to institutionalized oppression!
"Novell also announced on Tuesday that it would be porting its entire GroupWise collaboration software, a product that significantly overlaps with Ximian's Evolution client, to Linux. The applications handle e-mail, scheduling and contact information to keep employees organized. Although Novell intends to support both software packages, the eventual goal is to have only one, said Stone."
Evolution is presently distributed under the GPL, so of course Evolution in its present state can not be "closed".
But, as far as I can tell, Novell Groupwise is not open source. Is this correct? I admit that I do not have any experience with their products.
What I am worried about is that the above quote is meant to suggest that the technologies in Evolution will be integrated with Novell's own proprietary solution, and that future development of Evolution as an open source product will be called into question, or will be seriously slowed.
Are these fears justified, or am I missing something here?
Slashdot Mirror
How long ago did this occur?
/etc/apt/apt.conf. If you see a package wanting to move a major system component out of stable, try to find a backport to stable (woody) from an unofficial apt source.
I "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade" nightly, and run quite a bit from testing/unstable; I have been for quite a long time now.
I do not recall this error; I suspect either it only came up with "dist-upgrade" or it was the result of a package which I do not run.
I agree; I don't know that there is any advantage to using "dist-upgrade". Most of the packages held back by default with "upgrade" are ones that you probably want to keep in stable.
Be sure to run "apt-get" with the "-u" option, or set this to be used by default in your
If you don't want to do this, or if you are willing to accept the upgrade, then first go to the Debian project website's package lists and check for outstanding bugs against the package being upgraded before you proceed.
Some of the observed behaviors were incredibly interesting.
They categorized users based upon their performance in the tasks. Starting from page 74, I found some of the attributes and observations for each category to be interesting:
All observations are quoted directly from the report, but have been consolidated from multiple pages (74-77)
1. Group: Inexperienced performers
- They cannot mentally differentiate between OS, desktop environment and application.
- They are goal orientated and not interested in understand (sic) how they get there ("Now it is working").
- In order to place an application icon (Acrobat Reader) in the desktop bar at the bottom, they were looking for this option within the application itself (and did not succeed). This was the case for 21 of the 60 Linux test participants.
- They left an application open and tried to perform all further tasks within this application. For instance, they created a new folder using the file dialog of the word processor.
- They were confused by a high number of options and tried to find a familiar option from which they could start exploring the others.
2. Group: Experienced performers
- They are interested in understanding how something works.
- They consider themselves to be the cause of an error, not the computer.
- Due to their impatient navigation, they did not see some (sometimes important or helpful) options. Also, they could hardly see the tooltips since they moved the mouse too quickly before the tooltip had been displayed.
- If an action did not show an immediate result, they went onto another way and only came back much later to the initial action. Hence, this group needed to have the network folder displayed for quite a long time as they clicked somewhere else before the folder content was updated and displayed.
3. Group: Professional performers
- They plan their steps by their assumptions of the potential ways that the systems may offer.
- They can identify the "errors" or "inadequacies" of the system.
- They had problems especially when they did not expect a certain system behavior. This could be observed e.g. in Windows XP when they tried to write a file on a CD, since this function is integrated into Windows Explorer, while those users expected a stand-alone application.
The following comment on Linux shortcomings drew a chuckle from me (page 28),
"The most striking example of this is the term "Verzeichnis" (directory). To 46% of all test subjects it was unclear whether "Ordner" (folder) and "Verzeichnis" (directory) were synonymous. Consequently, they had problems with the task which asked them to create a new folder."
Now that is mindshare.
Well, of course I realize this, but then I've found it to be advisable in some situations to go along with common (mis)conceptions.
OpenOffice.org, for example, figured prominently as I read it. Unless there exists an integrated KDE version of OpenOffice.org which I am unaware of, this is not a KDE-based application. But that's why I was trying to to be picky.
I also certainly wasn't about to say just "Linux", as referring to the entire system as "Linux" brings out the "GNU/Linux snob" in me. I said "Linux-based" specifically to avoid this, while still remaining understandable.
What would you prefer, that I use, "open source desktop environment"? I can go along with that, but then, KDE is largely GPL "Free Software", yes? It's all either rather vague, or too wordy.
If people understood what I was referring to by "Linux-based", and I think they did, then I am happy enough.
You're correct though that I didn't think about FreeBSD; I've never used it, and have no pressing plans to do so, although I have nothing against it.
To be clear, the report states as much, but I thought it might have been helpful to pull out a few examples for those who do not have the time to read the report.
From page eleven (11),
"The testing scenario tries to recreate the following situation: A company or a public office is migrating to Linux on desktop. The employees are using computers for their daily office routines, i.e. they are experienced in using applications and the Windows operating system."
Also, I found the following compliment on page eleven (11) to be particularly flattering (er, of the open source solution),
"Linux applications show an outstanding configurability and can be adapted according to the taste and experience of the user. Hence, it was the aim in configuring the system to make the most of every possibility offered by KDE and the applications in order to make the test system as usable as possible."
Looking at the screenshot of the menu as configured for the tests on page seventeen (17), it appears as though these naming conventions were in fact used.
"[Tool type](Application name)"
Many of these tests are tests of familiarity and similarity, not strictly of usability. At least this is my impression, browsing the report.
Remember, these are users who, while they have "No experience with Windows XP" , are also not beginning computer users (but not expert computer users).
It is quite possible that even if a Mac OS X system were also tested, that the Windows system would score higher, despite Mac OS X having better usability, strictly speaking. This would be the case unless the usability of the Mac OS X system were sufficiently superior in usability, that it could overcome the advantage of the Windows system due to its familiarity.
Given this, that the Linux-based system did as well as it did is truly a testament to the quality of these open source environments.
On page eight (8) we see that task two (2) is to:
- use a text editor to enter some specified text
- "Format the first line as a centered heading"
- "Add page numbers on right hand upper margin of the page"
- "Print the document"
- "Save document as 'Potter.doc' in WORD format in your personal folder"
- "Close the program"
The user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how closely the Linux-based system's word processors resemble word processors in the Windows environment. This test does evaluate usability, but strict usability here, is secondary to familiarity.
Surely these users will have some -- if not extensive -- experience with Microsoft Word, or even Wordpad. No doubt these workers also have experience performing these very tasks in this Windows environment.
On page nine (9) we see task six (6):
- "Open the email application"
- "You have received a new mail which mentions the date of an appointment"
- "Have a look at the organizer and see whether you are still free on that date"
- "If that date is still availab le, please enter the appointment".
It seems certain here that the user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how similar the Linux-based system's email/groupware client is to Mircosoft Outlook Express, or Microsoft Outlook.
One last question: why does the KDE system as pictured in the report not have text below the "quicklaunch" icons? Wouldn't this significantly improve a new user's ability to quickly identify and launch the tool needed?
I do not know what a "blue dog house" means, what a "red lifesaver" means, or what a "K overlayed upon a sproket" means. I can probably make an educated guess given some previous experience with KDE, but that is hardly accessible.
Am I missing something?
"She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?""
Which raises an interesting question: Why, when your step-mother wants to "burn a cd" does she need to look for not just "Nero" or "k3b", but anything other than noun: "CD creator", or as a task: "Burn a CD", or "Create a CD"?
If, as seems to be the case, your step-mother knows what it means to "burn a CD", then a successful user interface will indicate to her how to "burn a CD".
We are not dealing with proprietary software; name recognition is nice, but we do not need to sacrifice usability to preserve it if that is the tradeoff. There is nothing wrong with referring to "Epiphany" as "Web Browser", which seems to be the default for Debian GNOME 2.2 (is this for GNOME in general?).
GNOME menu->Accessories gives me "Text Editor", "Hex Editor", "Dictionary", "Find Files". This is wonderful. Should "Accessories" be something more to the point? Perhaps, but what is there shows promise.
If we must refer to applications by name, and perhaps this is useful for multiple applications which accomplish the same task (another problem!), then "Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", or "Mozilla Firebird Web Browser" and "Konqueror Web Browser" seem much more approrpriate.
These all seem to be much better situations than finding names in menus such as "OpenOffice.org", "Ximian Evolution", "The GIMP", and "Mozilla".
When I think "I should check my email", I don't think "Ximian Evolution", I think "email" (well, actually I think "mutt", but that's beside the point). Sure, when I think "email", I know to look through my menu structure until I see "Ximian Evolution", but that is secondary to what I actually want.
As I'm fairly new to using full desktop environments with X ("Multiple XTerm Environment"), I don't have experience with the desktops of other distributions. How do these matters fare elsewhere?
Oh that it were not ever so present in my mind, always, the oppression that we face, that I could believe I am not made to be the pawn of the powerful for even a moment.
I acknowledge this without reservation.
It is not a report of what is. It is the hope of what someday must be. It is a cry of anger and frustration, that I do not freely consent to my present state, but find myself here nonetheless.
"Real world" money defeats the purpose of the MUD or MMORPG, as this is for myself, and as I understand this to be for many others.
As I have said in the past, the hope in the ideal of the MUD or MMORPG is that who or what we may be in the "real world" does not in any way limit who or what we can be in this alternate reality.
While one individual selling items for "real world" cash may not have significant effect, this behavior, in principle, is unacceptable if the above is the purpose of the MUD or MMORPG.
When my opportunity to behave as I would like and have a legitimate expectation to be able to in this alternate reality is restricted as a result of my subservience in the "real world" to the political and economic power of another, or of the elite, then I have not even in this alternate reality escaped their reach.
While we might certainly pretend that those who are powerful in this alternate reality as a result of their political and economic power in this reality, are not so for this reason, but are instead for some false or fanciful reason put in the context of the alternate reality, I refuse to do this, and I urge other concerned persons to voice this position.
Why would we bring this upon ourselves? Is the political and economic power of the elite of this world not sufficiently overbearing, that we should directly permit behaviors which have the effect of extending their reach into another?
Does the thought entertain you, that your superior who has power over you from Monday to Friday, from 9 to 5, can for a price extend his power over you, his enjoyment at the price of your integrity, and his opportunity at the price of your hope, even when you at home think you have finally escaped?
I will not be the pawn of another's wealth; not in this world, and not in any other.
"But the prosecutor in the case, David Sapieca, told the BBC: "We don't accept the conclusions of the defense expert report, but there were already other issues in the case regarding the history of the computer itself. We cannot show that Mr. Green downloaded the images on to the computer, so the Crown reluctantly offer no evidence in this case."
Despite having no evidence to support his claims, the prosecutor does not accept the conclusion of not guilty?
Gee, and here I had thought that a prosecutor of all people would understand the merits of aligning one's beliefs with the available evidence.
I wish I could attribute it to someone more respectable than myself, but no, it was just my own doing.
Sorry.
It probably sounds better if you change "If you struggle", to "If we struggle".
If anyone asks, just tell them that it was uttered by one George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential election campaign; that would be fun.
You know, I do on occasion bring things like this up with older family members, and family and friends who do not know anything about the tech world.
They see that these things are not right when I tell them what is happening. They know what is right and what is wrong when they see it. Our nation may be in the pockets of corporate interests, but our people are not.
They need only to be motivated, to find a passion to root out this injustice; they don't believe that it matters to any one. Tell them that it does.
"Tague and others think the manufacturers' restrictions are just not right. "It's a flat out scam," he says. "Just because it's typical, just because the other guys are doing it too, doesn't mean it's OK."
How is it, in a nation where it is the will of the people that is to be represented and reflected in our laws and statues, our laws and statues reflect not the will of the people, but the will of an elite minority?
What more evidence do we need than this that ours is not a government by the people, for the people, but instead a government by those who have power, for those who already have it?
These businesses and corporations exist, and may operate only as we permit them to; they are by our permission.
We must revoke their permission. We must revoke their permission to buy laws which ensure their profit margins. We must revoke their permission to buy laws which mandate revenue where there ought not to be any.
What was it that the Justice Department lawyers told us, and the technology lobyist told us in their interviews; that it is naive, uninformed, and probably just childish of us to suggest that our government is in the pockets of corporations, and that corporations can "buy laws"?
What I say to them is that it is they who are naive. The corporate interests of today do not need to buy a single new law to oppress us, to wrong us, and to devestate us.
They do not, because our laws, our resources, our nation, were bought and sold to corporate interests long before any one of us were even born.
We are born into chains and we die under their weight.
If you struggle, it only drives those in power to bind us all the tighter. And they grin in delight. And they swim in their gold. And they build the flames higher.
Computer software, for the purposes of determining whether or not it is a public good, is like information.
Many publicly funded institutions and agencies provide information at little -- and usually, no -- direct cost. The providing of this information is widely considered to be a public good.The particular purpose and sort of this information varies:
- Some of this information is the sort of information which enables private citizens and land owners -- private citizens granted temporary, revocable, and limited authority over some portion of our natural resources -- to steward our nation's -- and our world's -- shared resources in a responsible way, consistent with the duties they as such have to each and every one of us.
- Some of this information enables private citizens to do with these resources over which they have this temporary, revocable, and limited authority, that which they have a legitimate expectation to do.
- Some of this information enables citizens to evaluate the risks they face by engaging in certain behaviors, or by living in certain ways or in certain environments.
- Some of this information enables private citizens enables citizens to carry out tasks and to obtain certain other goods which they as people in these modern times have a legitimate expectation be able to do or to have access to, regardless of their social, political, or economic status, situation, and circumstance.
One example of this type of information is that provided through "extension services":
Many counties, states, as well as public universities, provide publicly funded information services. This often includes providing information about agriculture, livestock, landscaping, land care, building, wildlife, codes, and drainage systems.
Another example of this information is personal health care related:
We provide information to expecting mothers, to those citizens -- and non citizens within our borders -- who face an increased health risk due to their behavior, life choices, or environment,. We provide to everyone information about their bodies and life changes, to the extent that they as people in these modern times have a legitimate expectation to know about their bodies and life changes regardless of their education or their ability to pay for it.
Computer software as a public good is similar in many ways to information as a public good:
- Computer software, like information, once obtained, is an unlimited resource. Distributing one copy of it does not limit or otherwise affect our ability to distribute another identical copy, and this distribution may be done at very little to no cost.
- Computer software, like information, requires both an initial investment to organize, verify, and to be put into an accessible form, as well as continuing costs to maintain the accuracy and relevance of.
- Computer software, like information, provides the groundwork which enables private citizens to be good stewards of that portion of our resources over which they have some temporary, revocable, and limited authority.
- Computer software, like information, provides the groundwork which enable private citizens to carry out the tasks and to obtain the additional goods which they in virtue of being citizens have a legitimate expectation to carry out and to obtain.
One example of this is access to electronic communication:
Increasingly, modern people have a legitimate expectation to be able to communicate with friends, family members, their representatives, and appointed government officials, electronically, and from the privacy of their own homes. Software provides the groundwork which enables these citizens to realize these legitimate expectations. It is unacceptable for the realization of private citizens' legitimate expectation to use secure, reliable, and comprehensible, and usable, electronic communication in the privacy of their own homes to be dependent upon their acceptance of a draconian set of terms of use and limitation of rights such as m
The majority of conversations that I encounter throughout the day are absolutely irredeemable, frivolous, and reek of an utter failure to see the seriousness of life.
Why should I want to reinforce this behavior?
I have a passion for three things:
1) Intelligent and passionate conversation about: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, human rights, institutionalized oppression, abuse of government power, consumerism, corporatism, and unseating the social, political, and economic elite.
2) Creating a passion in others to see and speak out about the great injustice in this life.
3) Helping those who are oppressed and downtrodden, whether in their middle class lives, or from through the cracks of society, and empowering them -- making them to realize that they matter -- that they are loved as brothers and sisters, and that they can make a difference; believe that we will overcome.
- I do not care whether James' new girlfriend is hot. I will not reinforce this behavior.
- I do not care what happened on Friends last night. I will not reinforce this behavior.
- I do not care who the Bachelor picked. I will not reinforce this behavior.
- I do not want to get hopped up on alcohol and make it out what a 'stud' I am at the club tonight in order to get a member of the opposite sex into bed for a night. I will not reinforce this behavior.
- I do not think that your racist, sexist, immature jokes are humorous. I will not reinforce this behavior.
From this page, it appears that the previous 'record holder', 5.35 MB, did not use an executable packer or other compression.
;). Just what is the purpose of this, and at what point do your modifications, whether extreme, or just running binaries through an executable packer, defeat the purpose of doing this in the first place?
"Apparently only 5.35Mb in size (at the moment.... I'm told this might go down!) - without using UPX / any compression"
So, is what this fellow has done a superior acheivement, or did he mostly just run an executable packer on a few binaries?
Certainly if the idea here is to just shrink the physical disk space usage we can do better than either of these entries by compressing all files and hacking the Windows I/O subsystem calls to handle our compression.
I think all of this raises an interesting question. (ok, so it's not interesting at all, but I've had similar issues come up in a lot of other unofficial sort of 'competitions' like this, and we all just kind of use interest at that point
Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS capable of doing x or y?
Is the idea to have the smallest possible OS that looks like Windows 95?
Is the idea to have the smallest possible 'distribution' of Windows 95 attainable by just removing unecessary features?
Do we want smallest in terms of RAM usage, or smallest in terms of disk space? What do we then if we run it on a RAM disk? Which space counts?
Surely depending up just what is the goal here, we can do a lot better than 4.47 MB.
I guess I don't 'get it', what they're doing =)
That's Windows users for you!
There is a micro Linux distribution floating around somewhere that provides an X server in under 2 MB of physical disk space (but 4 or 8 MB of RAM), but I can't recall the name of it just now.
Hrm, well, for one he says he is using an executable packer, but this isn't necessarily going to increase RAM usage.
I wonder how much RAM is required?
I used to run Windows 95 on a 486 DX4 75 laptop with 8 MB RAM. It was suprisingly responsive compared to my 486 SX 25 (I think I got that right, anyhow, it has been a while).
I think that what will have to happen is for an enterprise solution provider to see the stronger position to be to differentiate on the services provided rather than on the software its services are based upon.
When this happens, this solution provider will be able to be open to an open source development model. So long as the solution provider finds that the stronger position is to differentiate on the software on which their services are based, or that this software contributes to their ability to differentiate themselves, the provider will not be willing to consider an open source development model.
If an open source, corporate funded, development model is superior in this arena, I think it is just a matter of time before we see a shift in the decisions of solution providers who do not have the market share they they are after, or are uncertain of their ability to maintain their current market share.
If this happens, depending upon who makes the move first, I think it is then that we might expect to see legal tension with open source solutions at the enterprise level.
Of course Microsoft doesn't like open source solutions. Open source solutions are already, and are increasingly so, in direct competition with the products that make up their revenue stream.
Not all of these companies that are jumping on the open source bandwagon are going to be understanding and cooperative when open source comes knocking on their door: their revenue stream.
In fact, I'd venture to guess that the majority of them will be anything but understanding and cooperative. These companies are not adopting open source solutions because they want to advance the common good. They are not doing this out of community spirit. These companies are jumping on the open source bandwagon because they see it as a good economic decision; this is the bottom line.
When their bottom line is threatened, they will turn around, lash out, and bite the hand that feeds them.
They may not succeed, but they will try, and I for one know that I do not want to be the developer contributing to software that infringes whatever wealth of patents they are holding when that time comes.
I do not trust our new corporate bed-fellows.
I do not trust our legal system to protect me from them.
I do not trust our policy makers to even care about protecting me from them.
Oh that I could. Fortunately, or unfortunately, people like me just don't matter in this country of ours.
Well, if nothing else, at least our votes can help the existing power structure project the illusion that we ever had a real, actualizable opportunity to have our interests represented.
And that should be good enough for me, right?
Right?
?
If you have done what I think you have, then you are quite probably screwed no matter what course of action you choose.
If you do report the problem, the IT administrators will be obliged to perform a damage assessment. They will scan their logs for behavior possibly taking advantage of this exploit. That you say you have proof of concept code, and presumably have tested it, if IT discovers that you have so much as tried to take advantage of this or a related exploit, it will almost certainly result in your dismissal for that Semester, criminal charges, and possibly the end of your academic career.
It won't help to go through a professor. If IT comes back and says that they have evidence that you tried to take advantage of the exploit (by 'testing'), you will not be spared, and the professor will either be unwilling or unable to protect you.
If you do not report the problem, you risk IT discovering the exploit on their own or through a security update from the vendor, and similarly performing damage assessment to discover whether or not their systems or data have been compromised, or attempted to have been compromised.
Don't scoff at this. If it is a significant exploit, and given that there is now a story on Slashdot about it, there is a significant possibility that IT will perform a damage assessment.
Further, depending upon how you found or 'tested' this exploit, IT may find you out whether or not they realize or are alerted to the nature of the exploit.
It is really up to you. Only you know the nature of your investigative activities and testing. If discovering these exploits required behavior which went beyond the normal use of the system, then you have a very serious problem.
How do you explain why you were doing this in the first place? You can't, and quite honestly, there is almost certainly no excuse for it. If you were concerned about the security of the system, you should have gone through official channels to get clearance to look for vulnerabilities, and report the sort of investigative techniques you would be using, and do only this.
If you have not done this, then you have one course of action:
- Find out how long of a period IT keeps logs for. If you are a technically inclined, student, then surely you have aquaintences -- students -- who work in IT.
- If the logs of your activity are gone, then you are in the clear. Report the vulnerability anonymously the next time you are off campus. Unfortunately, from the few academic IT departments I am familiar with, they keeps logs for a very long time, because of issues just like these.
- If, on the other hand, the logs of your activity are not gone, then weigh the possibility of your activity being found out before the logs will be cycled or destroyed.
If the logs will be around for months still, then you are quite possibly in serious trouble. If the logs will be around for a year or more, then you are almost certainly in very serious trouble.
If you report your activities, then you are are almmost certainly in very serious trouble.
Personally, I would go with the first option, and hope that your IT department will not perform damage assessment, or that they will not find out above the exploit until next semester, and will not be interested in logs from the previous semester, or perhaps from the previous academic year.
Is the political and economic power of the elite of this world not overbearing enough, that we would seek to extend their reach into another?
Why would we bring this upon ourselves?
The hope in the ideal of the MUD or MMORPG is that who or what we may be in the "real world" does not in any way limit who or what we can be in this alternate reality.
If I enter this "alternate reality" only to find I am condemned to be politically and economically subservient to Ben Afleck's or Larry Ellison's incarnation, then I have not left my own reality; I have not found a place where I am free from the political and economic chains that bind me.
Such a system, like the any other rule or establishment that the powerful among us seek to put in place or have put in place to elevate themselves above their peers, is nothing but a grant and promise of power to those who already have it.
Without the real, actualizable opportunity -- freedom -- to unseat those who oppress us -- those who through their established political and economic power structure enslave and bind us -- it is better not to live at all than to live a life condemned to serve their wretched ends as they worship their filthy money at the temple of their own power.
Death to tyrants! Death to institutionalized oppression!
"Novell also announced on Tuesday that it would be porting its entire GroupWise collaboration software, a product that significantly overlaps with Ximian's Evolution client, to Linux. The applications handle e-mail, scheduling and contact information to keep employees organized. Although Novell intends to support both software packages, the eventual goal is to have only one, said Stone."
Evolution is presently distributed under the GPL, so of course Evolution in its present state can not be "closed".
But, as far as I can tell, Novell Groupwise is not open source. Is this correct? I admit that I do not have any experience with their products.
What I am worried about is that the above quote is meant to suggest that the technologies in Evolution will be integrated with Novell's own proprietary solution, and that future development of Evolution as an open source product will be called into question, or will be seriously slowed.
Are these fears justified, or am I missing something here?
Oops, Java Design Patterns is an Addison-Wesley book, not an O'Reilly book.
I read that one through O'Reilly's Safari service (which is great by the way), and hence the point of confusion =)
ISBN: 0-201-48539-7
publisher link: Java Design Patterns