I've been completely aware (and approve!) of the trend of buying a PC with Windows and nuking the Windows install to put linux on the machine. what I had never considered was the opposite! People could actaully be buying a Linux PC and nuking it to put Windows on it.
That's horrible! we need to find these people and tell them to hold off! Just try it for a week before putting windows on it. It's for thier own good!
And, if we can convinve them to try it (that's enough to keep 'em from switching back, I would think) Then we've helped MS cut down on that awful pirating. We've got to educate those users and reduce the pirating! Who's with me?!:)
just as a comparison, the web was doing just fine before it became overrun with adds. Before the companies made billboards of it, there was plenty of content that was put up just so people could get to the information. And, that is still there under the pile of crap..err adds the are all over the web now. Lots of sites are out there that just give information because it's useful. even the incentive-driven companies put out plenty of these web pages. Tech-support pages, company home pages, product comparison pages, etc.
This sounds like just a new format of web page to me, with machine readable info in it. Yeah, there will be spamming, but there will also be useful stuff too...just like now.
So you are going to argue that because it works that way on a computer, the parent is mistaken? This is for an embedded app you know. Yes, some devices probably do use windows or X-windows, but not that dang many, and embedded screens use custom graphics setups 99.9% of the time.
Your point would have been more meaningful if you'd at least menioned some examples that related to this article.
"Chapter three contains a quite interesting sample shader that uses constructive solid geometry techniques and metaprogramming in Sh to render text."
Which means it can do one of the most complicated sounding "Hello World" programs of any language!
While it's not horrible to use IPv4 in my opinion, I still would rather have people realize NAT is a trade-off, not a solution. NAT changes the intent of the internet. The internet is more fun if anyone can put content on it. NAT makes it so more CLIENTS (non-content producers) can get on and biases towards a small group of mass-producers putting content on. That kinda bothers me. I just wish more people realized that...
This was pretty much my thinking. I've never hated MS for their technology so much as for their bussiness practices. This kind of stuff is a win-win for people who are considering alternatives. (use OSS as a lever). If MS gives in, they win. If not, they call the bluff and still end up ahead by using OSS. The good thing about all of it is that MS has to finally work under competition.
This aims at 2 problems: physical pin crowding and MB complexity. The physical size of the pins is limiting computer designs right now (this is to build better super computers after all) Also, MB's right now are getting to be as much design complexity as a processor chip. I mean, they have, what? 17? 20? 50? layers right now? (I don't remember the latest number) If the MB only has to physically hold the chips and provide power, That's a huge step in reducing complexity (which reduces cost, bottlenecks, heat, etc.)
This part bothers me:
"The law is the law and if you break it, why does it have to be in front of a police officer to have any weight?"
because the laws were set up in our country to be rule by the people. Laws weren't meant to be absolute. A person being part of the system is what makes it work. You are being judged by your peers. Yeah an officer is appointed to do just that, but the main advantage there is that they provide an objective person you can turn to in a dispute.
There's supposed to be some "slop" in the system. it was designed that way for a reason.
Yeah, it's a bit more grey than my first knee-jerk reaction. But, What I saw was the creater of the hack causing those who may not believe in a casue (free software) to donate to it if they want the hack. "If you want my hack, support my cause" . It's not quite that bad, but it's still not pretty from all angles.
This gets rid of circuits (removing an extra piece) instead of replacing it with somethign else. If I read the article right, chips talk to each other directly without having to physically touch a wire. no wires needed. The only hard part is the chips have to be physically close to each other and stay there. If they can figure out a way to hold 'em still (like how tiles are held in a scrabble board) that is as cheap or cheaper than printed circuits, then they've got something better. Seems do-able to me, and the benefits are great.
So they took a bounty from the forum, and turned it into a political statemnet. They changed it form a friendly wager into a form of blackmail: "Buy our hack by supporting some cause" the direction TURNED it into something less than good. That's just geat eh?
The better way would have been collect the bounty, and THEN donte it to EFF. same result, just they would have been showing support instead of forcing support. Lot more up-and-up
If Sun bought Novell, isn't that also buying the part of Unix that Novell owns and is currently fighting with SCO about? What would happen if Sun then owns those rights? would they continue the legal fight with SCO? Would they use it against SCO? (didn't SCO threaten Sun at some point?)
Was it Sun or some other company that announced an agreement with MS not too long ago?
Now I've got a headache...too tangled....
I thougth back in the early '90s that MS WIndows should have been written as a window manager for X instead of a standalone. I still think that. But, they just gotta do it themselves instead of using what works.
That said, I don't think this is useless. Yeah, I disagree with most of it. What makes it intersting (and he admits to this at one point) is that this is how OSS is percieved. Is it a common perception? Who knows...but that's where I'd concentrate on instead of ripping his points to shreds.
The one point I agree with is the point about OSS telling people they need to fix it if they don't like it. That's a useless reply and doesn't capture why open source is useful. The point is if it breaks, YOU have the source. Having the source doesn't mean you have to fix it, it means you can fix it how you want (kinda related to the freedom thing). If you want to take it to your developer buddy and have him knock it out as a favor, go for it. If you want to contract an IT firm, go for it. I like it because I know how to program, so I can take a wack at it myself. But that doesn't mean I expect everyone else to fix it themselves also. I think it's unrealistic and counter-productive to spout that line all the time.
I can see why they would want this. It seemed like the kernel folks were spending all their enerygy packaging an unstable version so they could turn it into a stable one. They didn't get to do the fun devlopment that makes it worth it.
What I wonder about is it seems like the community will have to coordinate themselves a little more on which version of the kernel they patch at. Before it mostly centered on an even number. Now, there may be people and distributions working all over the place on which version they pick to enhance. Before at elast the features were the same even if they picked different point in like say, the 2.4 series. Now, the feature set will be different depending on which point they pick.
As these claims get more odd, I had an image of SCO losing in an interesting way:
They loose their case against IBM, and due to financial status, their assets and stocks are awarded to IBM. The image is of Darle and co. not being able to sell off and make their money, and reporting to IBM as the new stockholders. The thought of the those people not getting their money and being legally and financially bound to IBM made me giggle a bit...
I'm an IT person, not a Bussiness person, so if this isn't possible or doesn't make sense DON"T TELL ME. I don't wanna loose the image:)
Re:2^128 is a big, big number.
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but what happens when you stack carpets? Hmmm? THEN what do you do? Ha!
Actually, with high rises/urban development, we might be able to push the boundry even with IPv6 eventually. Not to mention wanting every device talking and making more and smaller devices (like RFID 'n stuff). Not to mention all the people living on Mars, the moon, space stations, etc. They all need IP numbers! It'll take a while, but I think we can still use 'em all up. It's human nature:) Register sub-nets now before they run out!
I like the idea of being able to tie lots of instant communication services into one package. Between stuff like this and asterix, linux and open source could redefine how we talk. 'bout time too.
Since VOIP is still pretty bandwith intensive, is there anyway to use this and asterix to route voice data over POTS while having data-type stuff (webcam, text, etc.) go over the internet for one call? Yeah, POTS will go away eventually, but it may have some uses yet;)
yeah, this isn't the most technically gifted article, but I didn't consider it FUD. I thought it gives a good warning (considering the audience for that site). VOIP isn't quite what is is advertised at. It's good to have an idea of what it DOES give you before relying on it. Buyer-beware. The only thing that looked actually wrong was the Broadband over powerline crap (if your power is out,um...so is broadband over POWERLINE. Hello)
I took this as a way of waring people who are not as likely to know the limitations to look it up first, which is needed with the state of VOIP right now. Just the 911 thing is enough to think about (yeah, you don't need it much, but then again, do buy insurance because becasue you are planning on being in a wreck? It's just gotta be there for when it's needed.)
This looks similar to the eyetoy for PS2. It works the same way.
This is a better use of the idea in my opinion. I'd like to use this to replace a mouse, plus the collaberation use looks great. Kudos to the ones who put it together!
Can we do this with X11?
First, I gotta rant a bit: This IS different than VNC and even Sun's stuff. This is talking about (as far as I can tell) suspending and physically moving a running desktop, not just serving your desktop from some central place.
Anyway, my question for this stuff, is how much can you suspend? For files and such, do you lock the files as long as the desktop is suspended? do the files also move with you? etc. This seems to solve some of that my assuming files are stored on internet locations. But, how about devices? If you are using a usb or serial device and suspend, what happens then? How about CDROM's? And if you solv it for todays devices, can you apply that to future ones?
I've thought about this for a while. My thought was to have a desktop that is limited in what you can use, but somehow integrate it with other apps 'n stuff on a PC. I'm not real fond of the "desktop in a window" that you get with VNC, etc. but that would be one way to do it....even better would be some elements of your screen being linked to this desktop and some not. Susupend would act on those only and leave the rest. How about it Gnome, KDE? Can you techncially do it? let's trounce MS before they can figure this out!
One thing I always wondered about Doc Oc was what his arms ran on. AA's? neural tap? 1000 yr NiCd? I've always been a casual doc oc fan, but always wondered if there was ever covered somewhere. Just curious.
I'd liek it to be able to park in a parking lot...no, it's not hard to park in a normal space. I'm just lazy. If I could have it slowly cruise the lot and put itself in a space, I'd be happy.
And, while I'm at it, let's make it an automagic un-parking car. Instead of pressing the button on my keychain and hearing "beep BEEP!", how about having the car slowly roll up to me as I walk out?
I know most cars would be a royal pain to get this to work, but cars like the prius are already wired up so they can start themselves...could it work?
After reading the comments on how this is technically unsound, I have a qyuestion for the IP savy/.'ers:
What IS the maximum granularity we can support now? It seems the limit is routers and routing table size, so I'm wondering, how far down the hierarchy can the IPv4 internet be IP portable? I assume from my limited knowledge, that there is some of that al ready in place (for the highest level of IP blocks....Those change when physical machines move or fail, right?) We can't give everyone a personal IP, but the high levels can be moved. Where is the mark where it's still possible to move thigns about, but no further? (given current tech) And, I assume the mark would be higher up the tree for IPv6 due to the larger addreses/routing info?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been completely aware (and approve!) of the trend of buying a PC with Windows and nuking the Windows install to put linux on the machine. what I had never considered was the opposite! People could actaully be buying a Linux PC and nuking it to put Windows on it. :)
That's horrible! we need to find these people and tell them to hold off! Just try it for a week before putting windows on it. It's for thier own good!
And, if we can convinve them to try it (that's enough to keep 'em from switching back, I would think) Then we've helped MS cut down on that awful pirating. We've got to educate those users and reduce the pirating! Who's with me?!
just as a comparison, the web was doing just fine before it became overrun with adds. Before the companies made billboards of it, there was plenty of content that was put up just so people could get to the information. And, that is still there under the pile of crap..err adds the are all over the web now. Lots of sites are out there that just give information because it's useful. even the incentive-driven companies put out plenty of these web pages. Tech-support pages, company home pages, product comparison pages, etc.
This sounds like just a new format of web page to me, with machine readable info in it. Yeah, there will be spamming, but there will also be useful stuff too...just like now.
So you are going to argue that because it works that way on a computer, the parent is mistaken? This is for an embedded app you know. Yes, some devices probably do use windows or X-windows, but not that dang many, and embedded screens use custom graphics setups 99.9% of the time.
Your point would have been more meaningful if you'd at least menioned some examples that related to this article.
"Chapter three contains a quite interesting sample shader that uses constructive solid geometry techniques and metaprogramming in Sh to render text." Which means it can do one of the most complicated sounding "Hello World" programs of any language!
While it's not horrible to use IPv4 in my opinion, I still would rather have people realize NAT is a trade-off, not a solution. NAT changes the intent of the internet. The internet is more fun if anyone can put content on it. NAT makes it so more CLIENTS (non-content producers) can get on and biases towards a small group of mass-producers putting content on. That kinda bothers me. I just wish more people realized that...
This was pretty much my thinking. I've never hated MS for their technology so much as for their bussiness practices. This kind of stuff is a win-win for people who are considering alternatives. (use OSS as a lever). If MS gives in, they win. If not, they call the bluff and still end up ahead by using OSS. The good thing about all of it is that MS has to finally work under competition.
This aims at 2 problems: physical pin crowding and MB complexity. The physical size of the pins is limiting computer designs right now (this is to build better super computers after all) Also, MB's right now are getting to be as much design complexity as a processor chip. I mean, they have, what? 17? 20? 50? layers right now? (I don't remember the latest number) If the MB only has to physically hold the chips and provide power, That's a huge step in reducing complexity (which reduces cost, bottlenecks, heat, etc.)
This part bothers me:
"The law is the law and if you break it, why does it have to be in front of a police officer to have any weight?"
because the laws were set up in our country to be rule by the people. Laws weren't meant to be absolute. A person being part of the system is what makes it work. You are being judged by your peers. Yeah an officer is appointed to do just that, but the main advantage there is that they provide an objective person you can turn to in a dispute.
There's supposed to be some "slop" in the system. it was designed that way for a reason.
Yeah, it's a bit more grey than my first knee-jerk reaction. But, What I saw was the creater of the hack causing those who may not believe in a casue (free software) to donate to it if they want the hack. "If you want my hack, support my cause" . It's not quite that bad, but it's still not pretty from all angles.
This gets rid of circuits (removing an extra piece) instead of replacing it with somethign else. If I read the article right, chips talk to each other directly without having to physically touch a wire. no wires needed. The only hard part is the chips have to be physically close to each other and stay there. If they can figure out a way to hold 'em still (like how tiles are held in a scrabble board) that is as cheap or cheaper than printed circuits, then they've got something better. Seems do-able to me, and the benefits are great.
So they took a bounty from the forum, and turned it into a political statemnet. They changed it form a friendly wager into a form of blackmail: "Buy our hack by supporting some cause" the direction TURNED it into something less than good. That's just geat eh?
The better way would have been collect the bounty, and THEN donte it to EFF. same result, just they would have been showing support instead of forcing support. Lot more up-and-up
If Sun bought Novell, isn't that also buying the part of Unix that Novell owns and is currently fighting with SCO about? What would happen if Sun then owns those rights? would they continue the legal fight with SCO? Would they use it against SCO? (didn't SCO threaten Sun at some point?)
Was it Sun or some other company that announced an agreement with MS not too long ago?
Now I've got a headache...too tangled....
I thougth back in the early '90s that MS WIndows should have been written as a window manager for X instead of a standalone. I still think that. But, they just gotta do it themselves instead of using what works.
That said, I don't think this is useless. Yeah, I disagree with most of it. What makes it intersting (and he admits to this at one point) is that this is how OSS is percieved. Is it a common perception? Who knows...but that's where I'd concentrate on instead of ripping his points to shreds.
The one point I agree with is the point about OSS telling people they need to fix it if they don't like it. That's a useless reply and doesn't capture why open source is useful. The point is if it breaks, YOU have the source. Having the source doesn't mean you have to fix it, it means you can fix it how you want (kinda related to the freedom thing). If you want to take it to your developer buddy and have him knock it out as a favor, go for it. If you want to contract an IT firm, go for it. I like it because I know how to program, so I can take a wack at it myself. But that doesn't mean I expect everyone else to fix it themselves also. I think it's unrealistic and counter-productive to spout that line all the time.
I can see why they would want this. It seemed like the kernel folks were spending all their enerygy packaging an unstable version so they could turn it into a stable one. They didn't get to do the fun devlopment that makes it worth it.
What I wonder about is it seems like the community will have to coordinate themselves a little more on which version of the kernel they patch at. Before it mostly centered on an even number. Now, there may be people and distributions working all over the place on which version they pick to enhance. Before at elast the features were the same even if they picked different point in like say, the 2.4 series. Now, the feature set will be different depending on which point they pick.
As these claims get more odd, I had an image of SCO losing in an interesting way: :)
They loose their case against IBM, and due to financial status, their assets and stocks are awarded to IBM. The image is of Darle and co. not being able to sell off and make their money, and reporting to IBM as the new stockholders. The thought of the those people not getting their money and being legally and financially bound to IBM made me giggle a bit...
I'm an IT person, not a Bussiness person, so if this isn't possible or doesn't make sense DON"T TELL ME. I don't wanna loose the image
Yeah, but what happens when you stack carpets? Hmmm? THEN what do you do? Ha! :) Register sub-nets now before they run out!
Actually, with high rises/urban development, we might be able to push the boundry even with IPv6 eventually. Not to mention wanting every device talking and making more and smaller devices (like RFID 'n stuff). Not to mention all the people living on Mars, the moon, space stations, etc. They all need IP numbers! It'll take a while, but I think we can still use 'em all up. It's human nature
I like the idea of being able to tie lots of instant communication services into one package. Between stuff like this and asterix, linux and open source could redefine how we talk. 'bout time too. ;)
Since VOIP is still pretty bandwith intensive, is there anyway to use this and asterix to route voice data over POTS while having data-type stuff (webcam, text, etc.) go over the internet for one call? Yeah, POTS will go away eventually, but it may have some uses yet
yeah, this isn't the most technically gifted article, but I didn't consider it FUD. I thought it gives a good warning (considering the audience for that site). VOIP isn't quite what is is advertised at. It's good to have an idea of what it DOES give you before relying on it. Buyer-beware. The only thing that looked actually wrong was the Broadband over powerline crap (if your power is out,um...so is broadband over POWERLINE. Hello)
I took this as a way of waring people who are not as likely to know the limitations to look it up first, which is needed with the state of VOIP right now. Just the 911 thing is enough to think about (yeah, you don't need it much, but then again, do buy insurance because becasue you are planning on being in a wreck? It's just gotta be there for when it's needed.)
Don't forget it's not only the money they sell their souls for. I've heard the benefits and work envirnment at MS is pretty good too...
This looks similar to the eyetoy for PS2. It works the same way.
This is a better use of the idea in my opinion. I'd like to use this to replace a mouse, plus the collaberation use looks great. Kudos to the ones who put it together!
Can we do this with X11?
First, I gotta rant a bit: This IS different than VNC and even Sun's stuff. This is talking about (as far as I can tell) suspending and physically moving a running desktop, not just serving your desktop from some central place.
Anyway, my question for this stuff, is how much can you suspend? For files and such, do you lock the files as long as the desktop is suspended? do the files also move with you? etc. This seems to solve some of that my assuming files are stored on internet locations. But, how about devices? If you are using a usb or serial device and suspend, what happens then? How about CDROM's? And if you solv it for todays devices, can you apply that to future ones?
I've thought about this for a while. My thought was to have a desktop that is limited in what you can use, but somehow integrate it with other apps 'n stuff on a PC. I'm not real fond of the "desktop in a window" that you get with VNC, etc. but that would be one way to do it....even better would be some elements of your screen being linked to this desktop and some not. Susupend would act on those only and leave the rest. How about it Gnome, KDE? Can you techncially do it? let's trounce MS before they can figure this out!
Kinda OT, but it might fit here:
One thing I always wondered about Doc Oc was what his arms ran on. AA's? neural tap? 1000 yr NiCd? I've always been a casual doc oc fan, but always wondered if there was ever covered somewhere. Just curious.
I'd liek it to be able to park in a parking lot...no, it's not hard to park in a normal space. I'm just lazy. If I could have it slowly cruise the lot and put itself in a space, I'd be happy.
And, while I'm at it, let's make it an automagic un-parking car. Instead of pressing the button on my keychain and hearing "beep BEEP!", how about having the car slowly roll up to me as I walk out?
I know most cars would be a royal pain to get this to work, but cars like the prius are already wired up so they can start themselves...could it work?
After reading the comments on how this is technically unsound, I have a qyuestion for the IP savy /.'ers:
What IS the maximum granularity we can support now? It seems the limit is routers and routing table size, so I'm wondering, how far down the hierarchy can the IPv4 internet be IP portable? I assume from my limited knowledge, that there is some of that al ready in place (for the highest level of IP blocks....Those change when physical machines move or fail, right?) We can't give everyone a personal IP, but the high levels can be moved. Where is the mark where it's still possible to move thigns about, but no further? (given current tech) And, I assume the mark would be higher up the tree for IPv6 due to the larger addreses/routing info?