> What you mean a 5% increase in performance isn't worth a 500% increase in cost ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a chipset (and for that matter, a CPU) specially designed around the RDRAM, you get something like double the effective memory speed.
Of course, that's assuming you can get the chipset and CPU working right, which isn't easy. I think this is one of the reasons Intel is backing out of their support for RDRAM.
Perhaps REAL Damage will Fix the Problem
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Root problem here is NOT so much the fact that MS makes buggy servers. Let's face it. Any software can have bugs. MS DID release a patch.
The problem is freaking clueless users installing web servers and then not maintaining them!
What we really need is a variant of Code Red that compleatly hoses any computer that it hits -- something that people can't overlook. Then and only then will the clueless twits running these servers get the idea that they have to be responsible when they expose themselves to the Internet.
> It must be massively disorenting to be christian.
It is disorienting, in the sense that people who come to the Bible for easy, pat answers to complicated questions aren't going to find them. Also, the Bible (and I'm sure every other "Holy Book") is full of statements which are easily taken out of context. If you don't look at a quote as it fits into the larger picture, you're bound to come up with a twisted understanding of what it's trying to say.
Methinks it's not that different from Stallman. Look at a quote here and there, and he looks like a raving loonie. Take all his statements together and they start to make sense, or at least follow a logical pattern.
However, this thread is getting out of hand. Please send me an email address if you wish to continue, and I'll be happy to respond.
> Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.
Unfortunately, there's more truth to that statement than a lot of people want to admit...
ut that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism"
I would think most christians fall under this category.
Interesting comment, though I'm not exactly sure how it applies here (in the context of RMS and the FSF).
However, now that you mention it, I have no idea what Stallman's religious beliefs are, but it is true that some of the primary people behind the Free Software and Open Source movement are Christians, and base a lot of their philosophy of giving things away on their religious convictions.
I will say however that Christians don't all fit into neat categories. There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat." There are plenty of conservative Christians who believe in being rewarded in proportion your work, and that riches (when held on to with a spirit of generosity) can be an indication of God's blessing.
Point is: When you get down to it, neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a really "Christian" economic system. They both have their strengths and pitfalls, and trying to shoehorn Christ or Christians into either one is no more useful than trying to pin a particular economic theory on all Athiests as if they were a monolythic group. You can still promote what are considered by the general public to be "radical ideas", without having to paint yourself Red or True Blue.
That's not the point here. The queston is, "Does the public perceive him as 'moderately leftist'"? My contention is, for better or worse, the public (or at least the media) sees RMS this way. The question then becomes, what's to be done about the perception?
NOTE: The answer may very well be to do nothing! In other words, perhaps this is the sort of thing the FSF wants to encourage. Personally, it's not what I would recommend, but that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism.
> You shouldn't use words you clearly don't know the definition of.
While it's obviously true that words often change their meanings over time, the term "pinko" was originally a reference to suspected Communist sympathizers, originating in the McCarthy era and subsequent purges shortly after WWII. They weren't "Red" (i.e., actual Communist Party members), but they were supposedly sympathetic to Communist views (i.e., "Pink"). Of course, the McCarthy trials turned into witch hunts, but that's a subject for another day...
In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of "Free Software", and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?
Only problem I have with Mozilla is that it has always been DOG slow on hardware that's more than a year old (e.g., AMD K6-2 500 fer crying out loud). The email composer is so frigging slow, it chews up 60% of my CPU cycles, and it STILL can't keep up with my less than zippy typing. Renders something like 3~4 characters a second.
That and the lack of a spelling checker are the last things keeping me from finally getting rid of NS4.XX
Microsoft has expressed its willingness to settle the case out of court, taking steps including changing its contracts with computer makers to allow them to remove Internet Explorer from the versions of Windows they install on new PCs.
Gee... You'd think the court actually found a way to make MS remove IE, not just hide the icon on the desktop!
The original poster said that "Most servers on the Internet are running Windows." This may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with how many servers are running IIS vs. Apache. It is possible to run an Apache server on Windows, and it too would be invulnerable to the worm.
Do the Netcract graphs show OS percentages as well as the Web server percentages?
(I think the original point stands though, that the Internet is being threatened by a relatively small percentage of the servers out there running MS software...)
Ugh! When will people learn that comparing raw MHz numbers on compleatly different architectures is totally meaningless??? Now, comparing two RISC chips might come close to giving you a meaningful idea of which chip is faster, but against a PIII? It's like comparing the top end RPM on a SUV engine and a motorcycle engine.
One important thing to remember: It is not illegal to have a monopoly.
In other words, even though people don't like MS's monopoly over the OS market, that by itself is not the problem.
But...
The real problem, as was so well pointed out in the above post, is that it is illegal to:
Use your monopoly power to charge higher prices for your products than you would otherwise be able to charge, and...
Use your monopoly power in one market to extend your power in another market.
This is the reason the whole Netscape issue was so important, because MS was shown to have used its monopoly in the OS to extend into the Applications (specifically, the browser) market.
Now, it's happening all over again... in the ISP market. If left unchecked, it should be a pretty simple matter for MS to crush AOL as an ISP, by simply making it far easier to install MSN than it is to load AOL.
MS wants to control the Internet, as can be seen by their plays in.NET and Hailstorm, and they will go to any length to get that power.
> You then claim that this software is rammed down users throats. Are you just gullible? I've never had software rammed down
my throat.
I take it you've never worked in a real job either, or worked on a school project, or had to deal with the Internet using anything more complex than a browser.
"Yes, that's right boss. I don't like this software you've said we all have to use, so I guess I'll just pack up my desk and find a job somewhere else. I could be a farmer I suppose. Oh... they're using computers too. Well, there's always flipping burgers at the local McDonalds..."
I don't think the technology was so stupid -- otherwise all the other memory and CPU chip manufacturers wouldn't have picked it up so fast back when the standards were being discussed.
The problem was that Rambus couldn't execute on their designs, and then decided to try to make money by blackmailing everyone else under the sun...:-/
The RAM is still a lot faster, and if we can get rid of all of Rambus's patent nonsense, the price will eventually come down.
> and the owner is required to maintain
basic security provisions, or face the equivalent of a traffic ticket
Hummm... If my brakes fail because I haven't maintained them, then people die.
If my server gets infected by a worm because I haven't maintained the software, then a couple other people (who are ALSO at fault) have their computers infected...
Sort of several orders of magnitude difference in consequences there.
I agree with your basic premise that people should be required to demonstrate their competence before handling dangerous systems, and that they should be held responsible for the consequences when they screw up, but I think you'll have a difficult time getting licensing regulations for owning and operating PERSONAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE passed in a country like this.
Seems to me that the manufacturers need to be held responsible for creating better, safer software, and for making it easier to update that software when problems are found.
(BTW, when's the last time you updated the Apache software on your system? Bet it was more than 30 days ago.)
It would be more accurate to ask, Can you sell a car with defective locks?
Then, what constitutes "defective"?
Can you design a lock that will keep out 90% of people trying to break in? Probably. Can you design a lock to effectively block all professional thieves? Don't bet on it. Worse yet, can you design a lock that will force all people to lock their cars? Not a chance.
So, if you can't even design idiot proof, perfectly secure cars (which we've had around for close to 100 years), then how are you ever going to create an idiot proof Internet?
Just got back from watching the movie about an hour ago...
Try this:
- open up image in editor.
- convert from 24bit to 8bit palated.
- randomize color palate
What this does is exaggerate subtle differences in skin tone. Whoever patched this together this did a pretty good job, but he didn't quite get the colors right. If you take a step back, you'll see that her face has a much redder tint than the rest of the body.
Also, Aki in the movie had MUCH smaller breasts.
(The fingernails are all wrong too, but that could be a difference in the model.)
My conclusion is, it's a fake, but I wouldn't bet my life on it...
> "While we're disappointed we weren't able to conclude a broader deal, Microsoft will continue work to make sure the AOL service runs well on Windows XP," Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma said.
Does anyone else think this statement sends a chill down their spine? Is it as much a threat by what it doesn't say as it is by what it does?
What would it be like if MS didn't "work to make sure the [service of your choice] runs well on Windoes XP"?
Problem seems to be in the permissions on the Plugins directory. If you installed as root (which most people do), then all the directories in/usr/local/mozilla are only writable by root.
Solution is to either temporarily chmod the plugins dir to "777", or to run mozilla itself from a root shell and then go to java.sun.com or somesuch.
(BTW, the Flash/Shockwave plugins work great too!!)
I thought 9.0 was a huge improvement. This release is even better!
Your example compares numbers of systems sold. You can also look at (a.k.a., "lie" with statistics) the dollar values of systems.
For example, another hypothetical situation. Let's say MS sells 500,000 low end servers. Sun sells 100,000 high end servers. Avg price on MS server is $5,000. Avg price on Sun Enterprise server is $100,000. That's $2.5B to $10B - a 4/1 difference, even with significantly fewer units sold.
(I'm not sure, but I suspect that most of those statistics are in $$$ amounts, not counts of licenses. Even then, there's no way to compare Linux with anything else, since one copy of a CD can still be installed on many servers. The only way to get a number there would be to count service contracts sold by companies like RH, which are actually gaining momentium as Linux is gaining credibility in the corporate environment.)
How many people remember the famous "Naked PC" page MS put out last year? Basically, "If someone asks you for a PC without an OS installed, you know they're just going to install a pirated copy of Windows on it!" Granted, this is more of an issue for desktops than it is for servers, but the "Just Say NO" attitude is still there, as are the insinuations and outright threats.
Unfortunately, I can't find the original Naked PC page. I have a feeling they must have taken it down. This is the best I can find...:-(
> I just want to point out that this is a blatent lie,...
How so?
Shoot... Most WINDOWS systems running in a corporate environment have to pay for two copies of Windows. The first Microsoft Tax comes with the OS installed by default on the system. The second one comes when the Sysadmin pulls the machine out of the shipping box and immediately wipes the drive so he can clone the "corporate standard configuration" on it.
How is that different from buying a "standard" system to install *nix on?
(BTW, most corporations don't LIKE building systems from scratch like you and I do. It's time consuming and expensive, and means that there is no hardware support for the system when they are done. They'd rather go to the Dell or Compaq site and buy something off the shelf)
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have a chipset (and for that matter, a CPU) specially designed around the RDRAM, you get something like double the effective memory speed.
Of course, that's assuming you can get the chipset and CPU working right, which isn't easy. I think this is one of the reasons Intel is backing out of their support for RDRAM.
The problem is freaking clueless users installing web servers and then not maintaining them!
What we really need is a variant of Code Red that compleatly hoses any computer that it hits -- something that people can't overlook. Then and only then will the clueless twits running these servers get the idea that they have to be responsible when they expose themselves to the Internet.
Any volunteers?
It is disorienting, in the sense that people who come to the Bible for easy, pat answers to complicated questions aren't going to find them. Also, the Bible (and I'm sure every other "Holy Book") is full of statements which are easily taken out of context. If you don't look at a quote as it fits into the larger picture, you're bound to come up with a twisted understanding of what it's trying to say.
Methinks it's not that different from Stallman. Look at a quote here and there, and he looks like a raving loonie. Take all his statements together and they start to make sense, or at least follow a logical pattern.
However, this thread is getting out of hand. Please send me an email address if you wish to continue, and I'll be happy to respond.
> Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.
Unfortunately, there's more truth to that statement than a lot of people want to admit...
However, now that you mention it, I have no idea what Stallman's religious beliefs are, but it is true that some of the primary people behind the Free Software and Open Source movement are Christians, and base a lot of their philosophy of giving things away on their religious convictions.
I will say however that Christians don't all fit into neat categories. There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat." There are plenty of conservative Christians who believe in being rewarded in proportion your work, and that riches (when held on to with a spirit of generosity) can be an indication of God's blessing.
Point is: When you get down to it, neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a really "Christian" economic system. They both have their strengths and pitfalls, and trying to shoehorn Christ or Christians into either one is no more useful than trying to pin a particular economic theory on all Athiests as if they were a monolythic group. You can still promote what are considered by the general public to be "radical ideas", without having to paint yourself Red or True Blue.
That's not the point here. The queston is, "Does the public perceive him as 'moderately leftist'"? My contention is, for better or worse, the public (or at least the media) sees RMS this way. The question then becomes, what's to be done about the perception?
NOTE: The answer may very well be to do nothing! In other words, perhaps this is the sort of thing the FSF wants to encourage. Personally, it's not what I would recommend, but that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism.
That's why I asked the question.
While it's obviously true that words often change their meanings over time, the term "pinko" was originally a reference to suspected Communist sympathizers, originating in the McCarthy era and subsequent purges shortly after WWII. They weren't "Red" (i.e., actual Communist Party members), but they were supposedly sympathetic to Communist views (i.e., "Pink"). Of course, the McCarthy trials turned into witch hunts, but that's a subject for another day...
In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of "Free Software", and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?
It is absolutely freaking unbelievable what students will throw out at the end of a semester!
That and the lack of a spelling checker are the last things keeping me from finally getting rid of NS4.XX
--
Do the Netcract graphs show OS percentages as well as the Web server percentages?
(I think the original point stands though, that the Internet is being threatened by a relatively small percentage of the servers out there running MS software...)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what an internal instruction cache is?
Duh!
In other words, even though people don't like MS's monopoly over the OS market, that by itself is not the problem.
But...
The real problem, as was so well pointed out in the above post, is that it is illegal to:
- Use your monopoly power to charge higher prices for your products than you would otherwise be able to charge, and...
- Use your monopoly power in one market to extend your power in another market.
This is the reason the whole Netscape issue was so important, because MS was shown to have used its monopoly in the OS to extend into the Applications (specifically, the browser) market.Now, it's happening all over again... in the ISP market. If left unchecked, it should be a pretty simple matter for MS to crush AOL as an ISP, by simply making it far easier to install MSN than it is to load AOL.
MS wants to control the Internet, as can be seen by their plays in .NET and Hailstorm, and they will go to any length to get that power.
--
I take it you've never worked in a real job either, or worked on a school project, or had to deal with the Internet using anything more complex than a browser.
"Yes, that's right boss. I don't like this software you've said we all have to use, so I guess I'll just pack up my desk and find a job somewhere else. I could be a farmer I suppose. Oh... they're using computers too. Well, there's always flipping burgers at the local McDonalds..."
--
I don't think the technology was so stupid -- otherwise all the other memory and CPU chip manufacturers wouldn't have picked it up so fast back when the standards were being discussed.
The problem was that Rambus couldn't execute on their designs, and then decided to try to make money by blackmailing everyone else under the sun... :-/
The RAM is still a lot faster, and if we can get rid of all of Rambus's patent nonsense, the price will eventually come down.
--
Hummm... If my brakes fail because I haven't maintained them, then people die.
If my server gets infected by a worm because I haven't maintained the software, then a couple other people (who are ALSO at fault) have their computers infected...
Sort of several orders of magnitude difference in consequences there.
I agree with your basic premise that people should be required to demonstrate their competence before handling dangerous systems, and that they should be held responsible for the consequences when they screw up, but I think you'll have a difficult time getting licensing regulations for owning and operating PERSONAL COMPUTER SOFTWARE passed in a country like this.
Seems to me that the manufacturers need to be held responsible for creating better, safer software, and for making it easier to update that software when problems are found.
(BTW, when's the last time you updated the Apache software on your system? Bet it was more than 30 days ago.)
--
It would be more accurate to ask, Can you sell a car with defective locks?
Then, what constitutes "defective"?
Can you design a lock that will keep out 90% of people trying to break in? Probably. Can you design a lock to effectively block all professional thieves? Don't bet on it. Worse yet, can you design a lock that will force all people to lock their cars? Not a chance.
So, if you can't even design idiot proof, perfectly secure cars (which we've had around for close to 100 years), then how are you ever going to create an idiot proof Internet?
--
Try this:
- open up image in editor.
- convert from 24bit to 8bit palated.
- randomize color palate
What this does is exaggerate subtle differences in skin tone. Whoever patched this together this did a pretty good job, but he didn't quite get the colors right. If you take a step back, you'll see that her face has a much redder tint than the rest of the body.
Also, Aki in the movie had MUCH smaller breasts.
(The fingernails are all wrong too, but that could be a difference in the model.)
My conclusion is, it's a fake, but I wouldn't bet my life on it...
--
Does anyone else think this statement sends a chill down their spine? Is it as much a threat by what it doesn't say as it is by what it does?
What would it be like if MS didn't "work to make sure the [service of your choice] runs well on Windoes XP"?
--
Problem seems to be in the permissions on the Plugins directory. If you installed as root (which most people do), then all the directories in /usr/local/mozilla are only writable by root.
Solution is to either temporarily chmod the plugins dir to "777", or to run mozilla itself from a root shell and then go to java.sun.com or somesuch.
(BTW, the Flash/Shockwave plugins work great too!!)
I thought 9.0 was a huge improvement. This release is even better!
--
Your example compares numbers of systems sold. You can also look at (a.k.a., "lie" with statistics) the dollar values of systems.
For example, another hypothetical situation. Let's say MS sells 500,000 low end servers. Sun sells 100,000 high end servers. Avg price on MS server is $5,000. Avg price on Sun Enterprise server is $100,000. That's $2.5B to $10B - a 4/1 difference, even with significantly fewer units sold.
(I'm not sure, but I suspect that most of those statistics are in $$$ amounts, not counts of licenses. Even then, there's no way to compare Linux with anything else, since one copy of a CD can still be installed on many servers. The only way to get a number there would be to count service contracts sold by companies like RH, which are actually gaining momentium as Linux is gaining credibility in the corporate environment.)
--
Unfortunately, I can't find the original Naked PC page. I have a feeling they must have taken it down. This is the best I can find... :-(
--
How so?
Shoot... Most WINDOWS systems running in a corporate environment have to pay for two copies of Windows. The first Microsoft Tax comes with the OS installed by default on the system. The second one comes when the Sysadmin pulls the machine out of the shipping box and immediately wipes the drive so he can clone the "corporate standard configuration" on it.
How is that different from buying a "standard" system to install *nix on?
(BTW, most corporations don't LIKE building systems from scratch like you and I do. It's time consuming and expensive, and means that there is no hardware support for the system when they are done. They'd rather go to the Dell or Compaq site and buy something off the shelf)
--
Anyone want a C-64 Floppy Disk Drive (5.25). Take it home for free (if you pay shipping). Should be enough cache space for 3 or 4 Web pages....
--