Faster computers are going to be generally irrelevant to about 85% of the population.
85% of the population runs windows, and ordinary people will need faster computers to run Vista and Windows 7. These operating systems have a lot of services running in the background.
Remember running DOS on a 486? That was snappy! Lets bring back the snap.
There is also something to be said for the military advantages of decentralized power generation. Look at the way we make war:
Step 1. Destroy utilities, power plants, hospitals.
Result: Population is crippled, and unable to fight back.
How many power plants would you have to take out to cripple New York City? Not that many I think. If all of our electrical power is generated on rooftops, our infrastructure is less attackable.
Storms can also cause huge problems: Katrina. Or what about accidents? remember that huge east coast blackout a couple of years ago?
Ok, poor example. I submit, however, that there exists a way to violate the GPL without violating copyright law.
The GPL is not any more binding that Microsoft's EULA.
I think that software purchases are more akin to leasing a car. You don't _own_ software, the creator owns the software. You can't do whatever you want with it. You're just given a license to use it, and the license comes with conditions.
I disagree. If I obtain a product (buy it for $X or download a free product under certain licensing terms) then I can use it however I want (limited only by the law). If something in the EULA makes it illegal to use add-ins, then I suppose Microsoft can claim that end-users of TestDriven.NET are violating the VS Express EULA... but that still doesn't make TestDriven.NET's actions illegal.
So, If I 'obtain' a copy of some GPL'd software, I can copy all the code, and sell it as my own product? Maybe it violates the GPL, but its still not illegal right???
Microsoft is a company that wants to make a profit. That doesn't make it evil, it makes it like every other company that exists. They want to exclude add-ins so that you will have to buy the full version to get them. Is it so wrong for Microsoft to want to charge money for software? How many people here work at software companies that charge money for software? Or even - offer limited 'demo' packages for free?
You cannot hide things from someone on their own computer.
Of course you can. Don't even kid yourself. Malicious code can be embedded into existing system utilities. Completely original malware can be hidden amongst many other files in system directories. Plug-ins can be hidden in the registry.
There are 1000 places to hide something, and you're never going to find them all. If you delete 999 occurences, the single one left will rebuild them all. (in new and different hidden locations)
The only really effective manner of completely ridding a PC of a malicious spyware infection is to re-install the OS. Your other option is to turn off the computer and go back to pencil and paper.
Remember when you had to compile your device drivers into the kernel yourself instead of using a module? The idea here is that the vital OS features are part of the kernel.
The open source movement is about modifying your software and sharing it. Anyone with the ability can modify a vital OS feature and share it. voila! Many, many kernels.
But, the problem here is that real time processing does not belong in a macrokernel architechture. Look at the commercial RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems) like QNX and you will see that a microkernel architechture -- a kernel that a provides minimal feature set is favored. This is because if you are depending on time constraints, all you want in your kernel is message passing and task syncronization.
One of the things about having an open system with no laws is that faults show up much more readily when the entire (h/cr)acking community is involved.
I whole-heartedly agree. Has anyone ever thought of things from the other side? What if there were no laws regarding computers - security - intrusion - spamming - etc.
What if everything was free game ( realize that some activites would fall under existing laws like credit card fraud or industrial espionage ) Security would be much more of a concern. This would force vendors to carefully consider the possible misuse of any software they produce. Would you buy windows if there were no laws about how people can attack your computer/ read you email/ what have you. When something ( anything ) is put into a harsh environment, it is forced to become stronger or die. The same is true with internet software.
I answered yes to 35/200 questions and got an 81.5% slashdot purity rating. My suggestion would be to lie less . Don't tell me you answered yes to the part about following through on Jon Katz. --Ith
Yeah, but if you think about it, with linux's current popularity, there are users who couldn't give two Sh*ts about the ethics and values of open source. This is most likely the market they are targeting, the market that doesn't know any better.
Re:A little perspective
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 2
First off, very well put. However, I would tend to disagree with you on point number 2. Linux is not an operating system for beginners. It is a full-fledged multi-user server platform and as such needs an administrator. Someone brand new to linux will find out quickly that they don't get those annoying 'permission denied' messages if they always run as root. Plus, they don't want to use a password to use their own computer. They'll use 'password' or 'secret'. What I'm really trying to get at here is that The more you know about computers, the better you can use one. And using linux as an OS is somewhat pointless unless you know quite a bit about computers. It occurs to me that a person that would put linux on a FAT partition does not care about security, or multi-user capability, and is basically trying linux because its the 'Cool Thing'. If someone wants to try linux, that's great, but for God's sake, read the manual.
Thant perhaps the chineese govt might be aggravated about how NATO bombed the embassy? This is just my opinion, but if the chineese accidentally bombed the US states embassy, I would start hacking chineese sites.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably a wise precaution to install a firewall. Also known as a wall.
It's not going to be easy to get a girlfriend if you keep screwing ponies.
"14er" = 14,000 ft elevation.
I couldn't agree more.
Faster computers are going to be generally irrelevant to about 85% of the population.
85% of the population runs windows, and ordinary people will need faster computers to run Vista and Windows 7. These operating systems have a lot of services running in the background.
Remember running DOS on a 486? That was snappy! Lets bring back the snap.
Microsoft is driven by marketing, not by smart people.
Duh.
Every company is driven by marketing.
Superior technology looses to superior marketing. Every time.
There is also something to be said for the military advantages of decentralized power generation. Look at the way we make war:
Step 1. Destroy utilities, power plants, hospitals.
Result: Population is crippled, and unable to fight back.
How many power plants would you have to take out to cripple New York City? Not that many I think. If all of our electrical power is generated on rooftops, our infrastructure is less attackable.
Storms can also cause huge problems: Katrina.
Or what about accidents? remember that huge east coast blackout a couple of years ago?
Ok, poor example. I submit, however, that there exists a way to violate the GPL without violating copyright law.
The GPL is not any more binding that Microsoft's EULA.
I think that software purchases are more akin to leasing a car. You don't _own_ software, the creator owns the software. You can't do whatever you want with it. You're just given a license to use it, and the license comes with conditions.
So, If I 'obtain' a copy of some GPL'd software, I can copy all the code, and sell it as my own product? Maybe it violates the GPL, but its still not illegal right???
Microsoft is a company that wants to make a profit. That doesn't make it evil, it makes it like every other company that exists. They want to exclude add-ins so that you will have to buy the full version to get them. Is it so wrong for Microsoft to want to charge money for software? How many people here work at software companies that charge money for software? Or even - offer limited 'demo' packages for free?
Ok smart guy....
'1111111111' is already in base 10.
Since when have you seen a 10-digit base-2 number???
You cannot hide things from someone on their own computer.
Of course you can. Don't even kid yourself. Malicious code can be embedded into existing system utilities. Completely original malware can be hidden amongst many other files in system directories. Plug-ins can be hidden in the registry.
There are 1000 places to hide something, and you're never going to find them all. If you delete 999 occurences, the single one left will rebuild them all. (in new and different hidden locations)
The only really effective manner of completely ridding a PC of a malicious spyware infection is to re-install the OS. Your other option is to turn off the computer and go back to pencil and paper.
"You can't just skip the commercials, thats like stealing TV!" --Homer.
Remember when you had to compile your device drivers into the kernel yourself instead of using a module? The idea here is that the vital OS features are part of the kernel.
The open source movement is about modifying your software and sharing it. Anyone with the ability can modify a vital OS feature and share it. voila! Many, many kernels.
But, the problem here is that real time processing does not belong in a macrokernel architechture. Look at the commercial RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems) like QNX and you will see that a microkernel architechture -- a kernel that a provides minimal feature set is favored. This is because if you are depending on time constraints, all you want in your kernel is message passing and task syncronization.
I whole-heartedly agree. Has anyone ever thought of things from the other side? What if there were no laws regarding computers - security - intrusion - spamming - etc. What if everything was free game ( realize that some activites would fall under existing laws like credit card fraud or industrial espionage ) Security would be much more of a concern. This would force vendors to carefully consider the possible misuse of any software they produce. Would you buy windows if there were no laws about how people can attack your computer/ read you email/ what have you. When something ( anything ) is put into a harsh environment, it is forced to become stronger or die. The same is true with internet software.
I answered yes to 35/200 questions and got an 81.5% slashdot purity rating. My suggestion would be to lie less . Don't tell me you answered yes to the part about following through on Jon Katz.
--Ith
Yeah, but if you think about it, with linux's current popularity, there are users who couldn't give two Sh*ts about the ethics and values of open source. This is most likely the market they are targeting, the market that doesn't know any better.
First off, very well put. However, I would tend to disagree with you on point number 2. Linux is not an operating system for beginners. It is a full-fledged multi-user server platform and as such needs an administrator. Someone brand new to linux will find out quickly that they don't get those annoying 'permission denied' messages if they always run as root. Plus, they don't want to use a password to use their own computer. They'll use 'password' or 'secret'.
// ithmus
What I'm really trying to get at here is that The more you know about computers, the better you can use one. And using linux as an OS is somewhat pointless unless you know quite a bit about computers. It occurs to me that a person that would put linux on a FAT partition does not care about security, or multi-user capability, and is basically trying linux because its the 'Cool Thing'. If someone wants to try linux, that's great, but for God's sake, read the manual.
return 0;
Thant perhaps the chineese govt might
.sigs are taken! --
be aggravated about how NATO bombed the
embassy? This is just my opinion, but
if the chineese accidentally bombed the
US states embassy, I would start hacking
chineese sites.
-- all the good