I think installing cygwin is comparable to the irritation of going through Borland's website at filling things out to get to the download!
I think not. All you have to do is get the Cygwin installer, run it, pick a mirror, and go. The wackiness comes later, when you try to sort out differences in filesystem structure.
Okay guys, help me out here. Does this mean that developing or porting open source is kosher on Microsoft's platform, or not? I'm a little confused. Naturally, if I wanted to develop and OSS project, I would want it to be available for use to a wide audience. Since Windows is on 90%+ of PC desktops, it'd be logical to assume that Windows users would be part of the target audience. But previously, I've heard grumblings from MS about porting OSS programs to Windows, especially under dot Net.
So which is it? Are there restrictions here? Can this compiler be used for GPLed software, BSD-licensed software? What about other licenses, such as Apple's? Do you think this is a true effort to accomodate OSS developers? Is it just a PR gimmick? Is it just throwing a wrench in the open source works, where MS will change things later on?
"Ironically, the scathing and sometimes highly sarcastic commentary at the end of the article from former employees makes this read even better."
Speak for yourself. This is not good news for me, as I'm a long time AT&T Wireless Services customer. I chose them because they offered the best service, and now they're being bought out by the company I was trying to get away from.
Note how I placed quotation marks around the word "server". I understand that the terminology is used differently with X. The rest of the computing world understands "server" to mean "the big box in the closet". I did that to clear up any confusion for people that may not be familiar with X.
Radio ITSELF is a failing business. Arbitron ratings show that people are listening to it less and less, and that the decline has accelerated since the consolidation after the 1996 telecoms act.
Sounds like some very selective demographics to me. FM stations that broadcast pop music have shriking audiences, because that type/format of content sucks, and there are much more personalized alternatives without commercials (and possibly with larger playlists), like CD-R or CD + mp3. Talk radio? I don't think that's in any danger.
What do you broadcast on Live365? What format? What's the name of your station? I'm a Live365 listener.:o)
Why not take the terminal server model into the homes? There would need to be only one machine, it could sit in the closet w/ the cable modem or whatever, out of the way.
AKA, the "Network Computer", or "NC". Two problems with that model: Vendors wanted direct control for licensing and software distribution considerations. There still aren't enough high-bandwidth Internet connections for that to become popular. Plus the schemes proposed were pay-per-use, which consumers apparently hate.
I kicked around the concept of having a big, honkin' X "server" and two X terminals. It does kind of present some inconveniences with large audio and video files, or 3D games. Plus, I'd rather have something more efficient power-wise if I'm going to stick it in a closet and forget about it. Someday...
"The new proposal would allow transmissions at power levels higher than currently permitted for Part 15 unlicensed devices."
So? It's a "higher energy" portion of the spectrum. If they didn't do this, it would stunt the range of the devices. Sorry, I'm crabby today and I feel like being negative.
Just out of curiosity, were you able to find a webmail package that you liked?
That's a negative. I'm going to take three projects, cut out some of the stuff I don't like, clean up some of the features I do like, and make it generally easier for to maintain and teach my network users.
Well, that article was rather short (figures, I actually read the article and find it wasn't worth the effort). I think two points that need some greater detail are as follows:
1. The big advantage of open soure - sharing and code reuse - just isn't happening. For example, I'm looking for a new OSS webmail program. I have certain criteria. There are something like 209 projects related to this on Freshmeat. Why? That is no more efficient than a couple hundred closed-source vendors doing separate implementations of competing products. What have we gained?
2. Choice really isn't, sometimes. When I am faced with two OSS projects that supposedly perform the same task, I often find that each lacks a function that the other has, and neither do everything they should. Why don't they team up and make a single, solid project?
I think the answer may have something to do with the inability of people with different skill levels to work together. Or that differing programming styles prevent two developers from ever agreeing with eachother. That's not comforting.
The issue with the CBS movie wasn't caused by the government, so I don't see what this has to do with Constitutional rights. It was basically a fuss caused by an angry group of Reagan fans (obviously). If we're going to hand out awards based on one group's desire to hush another's opinion, or even the truth, maybe we should be handing out these awards to cable news networks as well.
Also, since the editorial already starts us off with an "OS X vs Linux" flamewar, let me add to the discussion... Windows and Linux admins in the same organization? What organization is this?!
Mine!...or anyone else's. Sometimes vendors don't have Linux server side software. Some of us work with what we have. I've got an NT4 box with enough CALs to last a while. It's running fine. Why throw it out? I had three Netware boxes that just weren't making the cut, but neither was my budget, so now they're running Linux. We've also got Win98, Windows 2000, XP desktops, and Mac OS 10 desktops. Network homogeneity costs money, and often there's a big trade in compatibility.
Okay, so technically we're all Linux/Netware/Mac OS/Windows admins, but sometimes we roleplay.
I know you were modded funny, but, why would servers need anti-virus software, even if they were Windows servers? Do we have sysops that configure servers to execute binaries off of their own shares?
Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program? I have McAfee VirusScan and I also have AdWatch running full time. Between the two, I feel fairly well protected from viruses and adware/spyware.
I think the answer is this: Because of maintenance costs, there are very few companies with virus detection tools that don't charge a subscription fee of some sort in order to get updates. That means Joe Aol is going to have a non-functional virus scanner within 3 months to one year. He'll probably never run an update to the sig database, but that may be changing now, because the programs are getting better at nagging. Also, some programs request that the virus software be disabled while an installer runs. Some folks can't figure out how to do this, and end up temporarily uninstalling the virus scanner to install software (those miniature system tray icons on Windows are a pretty bad interface design choice). I also wouldn't feel so comfy with McAfee or Symantec: They aren't catching many of the newer (or rare) variants. My own experience on the job suggests that Grisoft AVG is better, and that Clam AV works nicely on servers (CAV's detection abilities improved by leaps and bounds these past couple of months). AVG is a subscription-based scanner, but CAV is too involved to be useful to the Joe Aols of the world.
I like Ad Aware, but it doesn't catch all the malware programs, some of which now behave like viruses (planting spyware payloads, but remaining hidden inside the operating system).
Unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell my users about clicking on attachments, they still do it. I've come to realize this is partly my fault: I have to figure out a way to explain how I tell the difference. But my method is mostly this: Context. People I know rarely send me executables, compressed archives, program info files or PCM data files.
I think I'm going to author and test a trusted-sender e-mail client pretty soon. That seems to be the only way to minimize the effects of "spam" and viruses.
For the majority of users, there is no need to use further bandwith on optical drives. Even my 52x32x52 CDRW only runs at ATA-33. Why spend money to develop an ATA-150 model if it doesn't even use that much bandwith to begin with?
I know, what is it with that? The fastest single IDE drives I can find can't even show 40MB/s sustained transfer rates (I'm not talking about manufacturer's claims, I'm talking about what I've found with actual testing). So technically, spindle speed, head seek speed and density has to go up before we even reach the transfer rate that ATA-66 is supposedly capable of.
OTOH, maybe it's a cost-saving issue? If the de facto interface is SATA-150, it will be cheaper to produce controllers for those devices.
The 900MHz band is also shared in some parts. I believe certain portions are used by military radar. Is this still the case?
Anyway, those cordless phones are very low power, and the transceivers are generally very close to eachother, so if they're built correctly, that use of the band should be a non-issue.
Exactly. If you have price competition, everyone wins. If you have coverage competition, everyone loses. When broadcasters (even unintentional broadcasters) are interfering with eachother, the FCC isn't doing its job.
Funny, but true. The FCC isn't exactly enforcing its laws in terms of RFI, either (the AM bands are noiser than ever, 24 hours a day). It's too bad the FCC gets so much revenue from licenses, because I don't think they are making the right decisions here, but the more profitable ones.
I'm an amatuer radio operation. Can we have a few MHz of that band.:D?
No. Price rationing would occur. If the water company overcharged, consumption would drop too much for it to still be profitable. They'd be forced to find a fair rate, or go out of business. Unless the water company isn't privately owned.
Assuming that there are caps. I'm speculating here. There are water and power caps in my area, actually kind of a price-averaging. I hate them, because it creates a minimum price that I have to pay, no matter how little I use. I'm just venting here; it's a stupid system the ensures there will always be a minimum consumption that is both more expensive and less efficient than necessary.
I'd protest it because it probably isn't necessary, and yes, it has an environmental impact on the area where the plant is built. I bet MA has some sort of ridiculous, government-mandated price cap on water prices. Consumption problems? Let the water company charge what they want.
I already run biodiesel in my car. It goes better than it does on the gunk they sell in petrol stations, and it's closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. So, it's win-win.
So how much of this will have to be produced to power every internal combustion engine on the planet? How much acreage will be required to produce the raw materials? How much energy will be expended producing this material? How resistant will production be to the effects of weather? How "energy-dense" is the fuel, and how will that effect the total emission output of hundreds of millions of these engines?
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't this particular species very handy at soaking up Mercury?
I think installing cygwin is comparable to the irritation of going through Borland's website at filling things out to get to the download!
I think not. All you have to do is get the Cygwin installer, run it, pick a mirror, and go. The wackiness comes later, when you try to sort out differences in filesystem structure.
Okay guys, help me out here. Does this mean that developing or porting open source is kosher on Microsoft's platform, or not? I'm a little confused. Naturally, if I wanted to develop and OSS project, I would want it to be available for use to a wide audience. Since Windows is on 90%+ of PC desktops, it'd be logical to assume that Windows users would be part of the target audience. But previously, I've heard grumblings from MS about porting OSS programs to Windows, especially under dot Net.
So which is it? Are there restrictions here? Can this compiler be used for GPLed software, BSD-licensed software? What about other licenses, such as Apple's? Do you think this is a true effort to accomodate OSS developers? Is it just a PR gimmick? Is it just throwing a wrench in the open source works, where MS will change things later on?
"Ironically, the scathing and sometimes highly sarcastic commentary at the end of the article from former employees makes this read even better."
Speak for yourself. This is not good news for me, as I'm a long time AT&T Wireless Services customer. I chose them because they offered the best service, and now they're being bought out by the company I was trying to get away from.
Note how I placed quotation marks around the word "server". I understand that the terminology is used differently with X. The rest of the computing world understands "server" to mean "the big box in the closet". I did that to clear up any confusion for people that may not be familiar with X.
Radio ITSELF is a failing business. Arbitron ratings show that people are listening to it less and less, and that the decline has accelerated since the consolidation after the 1996 telecoms act.
:o)
Sounds like some very selective demographics to me. FM stations that broadcast pop music have shriking audiences, because that type/format of content sucks, and there are much more personalized alternatives without commercials (and possibly with larger playlists), like CD-R or CD + mp3. Talk radio? I don't think that's in any danger.
What do you broadcast on Live365? What format? What's the name of your station? I'm a Live365 listener.
Speaking of which, does someone have a complete list of all stations owned by ClearChannel? Hopefully with geographic location too?
Why not take the terminal server model into the homes? There would need to be only one machine, it could sit in the closet w/ the cable modem or whatever, out of the way.
AKA, the "Network Computer", or "NC". Two problems with that model: Vendors wanted direct control for licensing and software distribution considerations. There still aren't enough high-bandwidth Internet connections for that to become popular. Plus the schemes proposed were pay-per-use, which consumers apparently hate.
I kicked around the concept of having a big, honkin' X "server" and two X terminals. It does kind of present some inconveniences with large audio and video files, or 3D games. Plus, I'd rather have something more efficient power-wise if I'm going to stick it in a closet and forget about it. Someday...
"The new proposal would allow transmissions at power levels higher than currently permitted for Part 15 unlicensed devices."
So? It's a "higher energy" portion of the spectrum. If they didn't do this, it would stunt the range of the devices. Sorry, I'm crabby today and I feel like being negative.
Just out of curiosity, were you able to find a webmail package that you liked?
That's a negative. I'm going to take three projects, cut out some of the stuff I don't like, clean up some of the features I do like, and make it generally easier for to maintain and teach my network users.
Well, that article was rather short (figures, I actually read the article and find it wasn't worth the effort). I think two points that need some greater detail are as follows:
1. The big advantage of open soure - sharing and code reuse - just isn't happening. For example, I'm looking for a new OSS webmail program. I have certain criteria. There are something like 209 projects related to this on Freshmeat. Why? That is no more efficient than a couple hundred closed-source vendors doing separate implementations of competing products. What have we gained?
2. Choice really isn't, sometimes. When I am faced with two OSS projects that supposedly perform the same task, I often find that each lacks a function that the other has, and neither do everything they should. Why don't they team up and make a single, solid project?
I think the answer may have something to do with the inability of people with different skill levels to work together. Or that differing programming styles prevent two developers from ever agreeing with eachother. That's not comforting.
The issue with the CBS movie wasn't caused by the government, so I don't see what this has to do with Constitutional rights. It was basically a fuss caused by an angry group of Reagan fans (obviously). If we're going to hand out awards based on one group's desire to hush another's opinion, or even the truth, maybe we should be handing out these awards to cable news networks as well.
Also, since the editorial already starts us off with an "OS X vs Linux" flamewar, let me add to the discussion... Windows and Linux admins in the same organization? What organization is this?!
...or anyone else's. Sometimes vendors don't have Linux server side software. Some of us work with what we have. I've got an NT4 box with enough CALs to last a while. It's running fine. Why throw it out? I had three Netware boxes that just weren't making the cut, but neither was my budget, so now they're running Linux. We've also got Win98, Windows 2000, XP desktops, and Mac OS 10 desktops. Network homogeneity costs money, and often there's a big trade in compatibility.
Mine!
Okay, so technically we're all Linux/Netware/Mac OS/Windows admins, but sometimes we roleplay.
I know you were modded funny, but, why would servers need anti-virus software, even if they were Windows servers? Do we have sysops that configure servers to execute binaries off of their own shares?
And the most common Linux executable binary format is named 'ELF'. Coincidence? I think not!
Anyway, I know this sounds painfully obvious, but why don't folks take the simple step of running an antivirus program? I have McAfee VirusScan and I also have AdWatch running full time. Between the two, I feel fairly well protected from viruses and adware/spyware.
I think the answer is this: Because of maintenance costs, there are very few companies with virus detection tools that don't charge a subscription fee of some sort in order to get updates. That means Joe Aol is going to have a non-functional virus scanner within 3 months to one year. He'll probably never run an update to the sig database, but that may be changing now, because the programs are getting better at nagging. Also, some programs request that the virus software be disabled while an installer runs. Some folks can't figure out how to do this, and end up temporarily uninstalling the virus scanner to install software (those miniature system tray icons on Windows are a pretty bad interface design choice). I also wouldn't feel so comfy with McAfee or Symantec: They aren't catching many of the newer (or rare) variants. My own experience on the job suggests that Grisoft AVG is better, and that Clam AV works nicely on servers (CAV's detection abilities improved by leaps and bounds these past couple of months). AVG is a subscription-based scanner, but CAV is too involved to be useful to the Joe Aols of the world.
I like Ad Aware, but it doesn't catch all the malware programs, some of which now behave like viruses (planting spyware payloads, but remaining hidden inside the operating system).
Unfortunately, no matter how many times I tell my users about clicking on attachments, they still do it. I've come to realize this is partly my fault: I have to figure out a way to explain how I tell the difference. But my method is mostly this: Context. People I know rarely send me executables, compressed archives, program info files or PCM data files.
I think I'm going to author and test a trusted-sender e-mail client pretty soon. That seems to be the only way to minimize the effects of "spam" and viruses.
For the majority of users, there is no need to use further bandwith on optical drives. Even my 52x32x52 CDRW only runs at ATA-33. Why spend money to develop an ATA-150 model if it doesn't even use that much bandwith to begin with?
I know, what is it with that? The fastest single IDE drives I can find can't even show 40MB/s sustained transfer rates (I'm not talking about manufacturer's claims, I'm talking about what I've found with actual testing). So technically, spindle speed, head seek speed and density has to go up before we even reach the transfer rate that ATA-66 is supposedly capable of.
OTOH, maybe it's a cost-saving issue? If the de facto interface is SATA-150, it will be cheaper to produce controllers for those devices.
The 900MHz band is also shared in some parts. I believe certain portions are used by military radar. Is this still the case?
Anyway, those cordless phones are very low power, and the transceivers are generally very close to eachother, so if they're built correctly, that use of the band should be a non-issue.
Exactly. If you have price competition, everyone wins. If you have coverage competition, everyone loses. When broadcasters (even unintentional broadcasters) are interfering with eachother, the FCC isn't doing its job.
Correction:
"I'm an amateur radio operator."
Sheesh, I hit the edge of Submit, instead of preview.
Funny, but true. The FCC isn't exactly enforcing its laws in terms of RFI, either (the AM bands are noiser than ever, 24 hours a day). It's too bad the FCC gets so much revenue from licenses, because I don't think they are making the right decisions here, but the more profitable ones.
:D?
I'm an amatuer radio operation. Can we have a few MHz of that band.
"Claria said it has 43 million active users and 425 advertisers."
You've misspelled "involutary".
No. Price rationing would occur. If the water company overcharged, consumption would drop too much for it to still be profitable. They'd be forced to find a fair rate, or go out of business. Unless the water company isn't privately owned.
Assuming that there are caps. I'm speculating here. There are water and power caps in my area, actually kind of a price-averaging. I hate them, because it creates a minimum price that I have to pay, no matter how little I use. I'm just venting here; it's a stupid system the ensures there will always be a minimum consumption that is both more expensive and less efficient than necessary.
I'd protest it because it probably isn't necessary, and yes, it has an environmental impact on the area where the plant is built. I bet MA has some sort of ridiculous, government-mandated price cap on water prices. Consumption problems? Let the water company charge what they want.
I already run biodiesel in my car. It goes better than it does on the gunk they sell in petrol stations, and it's closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. So, it's win-win.
So how much of this will have to be produced to power every internal combustion engine on the planet? How much acreage will be required to produce the raw materials? How much energy will be expended producing this material? How resistant will production be to the effects of weather? How "energy-dense" is the fuel, and how will that effect the total emission output of hundreds of millions of these engines?