Win95 = 4.0 Win95 A = 4.0 sp1 Win96 B = 4.0 R2 (FAT32) Win95 C = 4.0 R2.5 (USB!) Win98 = 4.1 Win98 SE = 4.1 sp 1 Sigh.. Way too much time working as a tech supporting bad software;-) ---
Then you have the "year" releases of other products, and then you see the "clearer" year versioning scheme fail as you see people talking about "windows 97" (since a big "97" pops up when they run Word or Excel from Office97) or Windows 2000 (same thing, except they bought Office 2000). It makes knowing *what* version people have a nightmare.
I think this is more of a PEBKAC issue than a versioning issue, but what you say is true. Perhaps it would be best if Operating Systems (defined as complete working kernel, and associated software) would be year versioned, with individual parts of it independanly versioned.
IE: "To upgrade from GNU/Linux Slackware 98 to GNU/Linux Slackware 99 you need to get X version kernel, X version this, " etc..
However, for multiple updates it becomes bad. Slackware 31/11/1999 anyone? It still is not a good solution. Numeric versioning provides too much independance from dates (and knowning if it is updated), and date versioning provides too close a tie to the date (and makes frequent updates problematic). ---
This happened in the same amount of time it took to go from Slackware 2.3 -> 3.x.
So, of course, Redhat had managed to get up to 6.0 by the time Slackware hit 4.0... Jumping 4 whole numbers, while Slackware went up < 1. Then going up two more, while Slackware hit 4. Sigh. Where's my Bob Young voodoo doll?;-)
Microsoft is about to release Windows 2000 datacenter which will allow up to 64gig of ram and 32 processors. How can any one company afford that kind of equipment for the development of Linux?
I'd just like to say to that poster that the 2.3.x tree supports scaling to many proccessors; has initial NUMA support; and has 1, 2, 4, and 64gb support.
Of course, you need a Xeon and the special Intel motherboards that support extended addressing, but I'm sure that if you can afford 64gb of ram, a few extra k$ on a mobo is nothing:-) ---
why not use and animated gif or better a png instead of a crappy script ?
They do use an animated gif (Opera shows it fine with scripting disabled). Now, PNGs wouldn't allow the animation they wanted, and would likely force some sort of weird javascript solution;-)
Of course, to have PNG animation, we'll have to wait for browser support of MNG. ---
The Linux kernel has had code to correct for the BIOS jumping "back" 99 years since mid 1995. The code resets the centenial portion of the RTC to 20 if it detects the jump. ---
Nitrozac: "If civilization manages to hold on to its tenuous existence, I'd like to find a cure for Agalmatophilia, and have others join me to rid the world of this illness that causes so much needless suffering. "
agalmatophilia: a fictional paraphilia, not yet observed as a syndrome, in which the sexuoerotic stimulus is a nude statue or model of a human being [from Greek, agalma, image + -philia]. Synonyms, statuophilia; Pygmalionism. See also pictophilia.
I'm am so glad Nitrozac is going to rid us of the "Naked/Petrified" people:) And she's French Canadian too... yumm ---
Well, I'm assuming we'll see a lot of pissed off survivalists and terrorists soonish.
On a more useful (but pedantic) topic.. Millennium and "Millenium"
Two Ms, two Ls, two Ns, two Is, an e, and a U is the correct number of letters (if not spelling). So all single Ned "millenium" people can go on spouting about how this is the start of a new "millenium" as we can get the Webster people to add it: "Millenium (n): 1. A thousandth anniversay of years, on the Gregorian calendar, since the time 1 BC."
This would make it proper to say "01/01/2000 is the start of the third millenium." Of course, I'm still going to have to resist the urge to curse and/or attack the person who says/writes these things;-)
The other millennium has no such definition of a fixed window of time (from dictionary.com ): "1. A span of one thousand years." "4. A thousandth anniversary."
So (im)proper spelling will count. I'm not sure how the pronunciation thing will work out, as we'll probably have to muddle through via context. ---
Maybe introduce it like handicapped access -- "you have to compromise on form to let certain people access it. You wouldn't want the blind sueing us, eh?"
I'm sure you can put some positive "help me, and I help you" spin on making a compatible page, with an "enchanced" version for the market droids to peer at. ---
Heck, the WIP is even on ZDNet, which should be familiar to your local PHB.
You can also grab screenshots of the various browsers in dual boot situations. Another option is to show them the access log of the webserver (for the past x years) broken down by user age. But I'm sure just Opera, Netscape, and IE under Windows (which should be available:0)) will be enough to convince them. ---
So, the question is; How do we inform computer illiterate managers that the Web is a collaberative community of standards, rather than a dictatorship governed by high school bully tactics?
Simple. Line up three machines running the same OS and 3 different browsers. Also have 3 different machines with the same browser next to it. Tell them to that to write the page they want, that only 1 of these 6 potential money paying customers will be able to see their fancy design. Show them how a simpler, more elegant design will probably solve the solution. Make the page designer fellows work in FrontPage or some similar gruby HTML "design" program, and then force them to look at it in a few browsers.
That should clear things up. If they don't believe you, lock them in a room with a terminal, Lynx, and a pot of coffee for a few days. ---
Citi f/i currently supports Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 running Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. It also supports Macintosh running Netscape Navigator only. If you need further assistance, please call 1-800-2-citifi.
It rendered differently using Netscape (I used both Netscape and Opera behind a junkbuster proxy that disables cookies and masquared my user agent to be Netscape 4.7 on 2.2.13). It looks like it used Javascript to block arbitray browsers.
As it's their website, it's their choice wether or not they allow people using things other than a certain browser and/or OS. I, however, don't see why they'd not allow any forms/SSL 128 capable browser to become a potential paying customer.
I do have one question, though. Are we, the Slashdot readers and contributors, going to become the "website design police" -- cracking down on any site that just plain doesn't have high standards and proper design? Let these companies go and block people out -- then politely email them to ask them why they don't want your money. This should raise eyebrows, and eductate over at the company's office. "You, IT guy, why are we blocking out paying customers? I know you can fix this, so please do." Why not setup a public forum, or a site of some kind to audit websites for people, free of charge? This would certainly kill a few bugs with one squish. ---
You'll want to read the recent Kernel Traffic. The first piece is all about closed binaries on Linux, and why they'll likely not happen any time soon in a big way.
It boils down to source code and maintenance. Once the company gives out specs that let people write source code, or otherwise release source code for the device, people can go ahead and use those devices. Companies seem afraid of giving out source code. I don't know why, becuase (at least with the Linux community) the community will support/maintain the code, fix bugs, and otherwise make it work well. If the company keeps their source closed, they have to take all the responsibility and work of making the code useful onto their shoulders. Simple psuedo code & specs for devices would allow a renaissance of proper hardware support for the BSDs, Linux, Hurd, and BeOS, among others. True, BeOS is a more closed source OS, but it could also benefit from LGPL drivers:-)
As for BSD, etc. Drivers in source form can be taken from Linux and put in the BSD kernels, as the LGPL licence is friendly about being linked with BSD licenced bits and bobs, IIRC. ---
The following error was encountered: Unable to determine IP address from host name for libranet.com The dnsserver returned: DNS Domain 'libranet.com' is invalid: Valid name, no data record of requested type.
OK, who hard is it to do the following (in zone file for libranet.com): libranet.com. A 127.0.0.1 www CNAME libranet.com.
eh? I hate clueless admins. "They'll never think to include the link without the WWW prefix, everyone knows you have to use the WWW prefix!"
Hmmm... patches like this are somewhat useless unless: A: The patch protects the Mac from getting attacked by a DOS. B: People are stupid enough to dl them.
Don't you mean smart enough to download them? If you're not smart enough to get patches for your favourite OS, then you have a problem.
most people want their computer to be safe from DOS
Ergo this discussion of MacOS:-) DOS is such an evil bastarization of CP/M and Unix(r).
At least this security problem was redressed quickly. There was no "force closing of apps" patch for the logout problem mentioned on BugTraq, nor one for the MacOS 9 weak password encryption. ---
I can't believe no one picked this juicy nugget out: "I can see Red Hat stock jumping skyward if a billion communists suddenly decide Linux is their desktop and server platform of choice."
Yes, a communist country feeding a free market economy -- Association with communism will increase the free market valuation.:-)
Only 2 weeks old! WTG, Hemos! Any day now, we'll be able to call this place News for Nerds!
I think the site you must really be looking for is more like "news for analy obsessive page reloading latest news now and all the time people." Hemos is allowed to post news as he gets them. It's not his fault that people don't submit things sooner. I'm sure anyday now some moderator will mark you as flamebait, or similar. One can always hope.
/me annoyed and cranky after a late night of insomnia ---
c) real security comes not from obscurity but from minimum disclosure.
Obscurity: I'm not going to tell you anything about me, because I might have a flaw.
Minimum discloser: I'm not going to tell you anything about me, because you don't need the info.
The difference is very, very slight. Here's a better example: Rather than do something silly, like broadcast everyone's info the client so it can "desynch" from the server, I'll just give you a few bits and do more managment on the server side. Disclosing less of your opponents' states. ---
I've always wondered when, where, and why you first became involved in the Linux community. When I started using it (around 1996), you were already "well known." How did you get involved? Is it related to your nice nickname? What is your Linux story:-) ---
the only way to have no one be able to cheat is with a closed-source system of checking.
We have GnuPG under the GPL, as well as Quake 1 and OpenSSH. So why not setup a system where first the client and server exchange keys and begin encrypting the session, then they verify the identities (this could allow a global "stats" centre) of the client and server. If the server is a good one, and the client has not been blacklisted, play commences. By encrypting the stream (or just compressing it), you make it harder for others to break in and/or forge identities. This could dovetail quite well with Netrek's blessed binaries, and would allow better "global" rankings:-) ---
The look on the kids faces when the presents don't arrive: priceless
Shopping online e-commerce. Ruined by stupid businesses everywhere.
Of course, I doubt they used a T1 or a VA Linux server. They probably spent more on a T3 and an NT solution, which was less reliable or just not flexible enough to say "Sorry -- this item out of stock." It's not just the CIO who should be fired.... ---
Slashdot Mirror
Win95 = 4.0 ;-)
Win95 A = 4.0 sp1
Win96 B = 4.0 R2 (FAT32)
Win95 C = 4.0 R2.5 (USB!)
Win98 = 4.1
Win98 SE = 4.1 sp 1
Sigh.. Way too much time working as a tech supporting bad software
---
Solaris 7 sounds (at least in their eyes) more mature than 2.7, and microsoft follows the same logic with with windows 2000 over NT 5.0.
:-)
Let's not forget that Windows NT did not exist in 0.x, 1.x, or 2.x form, and wasn't out there in a 3.0 form, either, AFAIK
---
Then you have the "year" releases of other products, and then you see the "clearer" year versioning scheme fail as you see people talking about "windows 97" (since a big "97" pops up when they run Word or Excel from Office97) or Windows 2000 (same thing, except they bought Office 2000). It makes knowing *what* version people have a nightmare.
I think this is more of a PEBKAC issue than a versioning issue, but what you say is true. Perhaps it would be best if Operating Systems (defined as complete working kernel, and associated software) would be year versioned, with individual parts of it independanly versioned.
IE:
"To upgrade from GNU/Linux Slackware 98 to GNU/Linux Slackware 99 you need to get X version kernel, X version this, " etc..
However, for multiple updates it becomes bad.
Slackware 31/11/1999 anyone? It still is not a good solution. Numeric versioning provides too much independance from dates (and knowning if it is updated), and date versioning provides too close a tie to the date (and makes frequent updates problematic).
---
Now that I have your attention :-)
;-)
Redhat Mother's Day release +0.1 -> Redhat 4.2
This happened in the same amount of time it took to go from Slackware 2.3 -> 3.x.
So, of course, Redhat had managed to get up to 6.0 by the time Slackware hit 4.0... Jumping 4 whole numbers, while Slackware went up < 1. Then going up two more, while Slackware hit 4. Sigh. Where's my Bob Young voodoo doll?
---
Microsoft is about to release Windows 2000 datacenter which will allow up to 64gig of ram and 32 processors. How can any one company afford that kind of equipment for the development of Linux?
:-)
I'd just like to say to that poster that the 2.3.x tree supports scaling to many proccessors; has initial NUMA support; and has 1, 2, 4, and 64gb support.
Of course, you need a Xeon and the special Intel motherboards that support extended addressing, but I'm sure that if you can afford 64gb of ram, a few extra k$ on a mobo is nothing
---
why not use and animated gif or better a png instead of a crappy script ?
;-)
They do use an animated gif (Opera shows it fine with scripting disabled). Now, PNGs wouldn't allow the animation they wanted, and would likely force some sort of weird javascript solution
Of course, to have PNG animation, we'll have to wait for browser support of MNG.
---
The Linux kernel has had code to correct for the BIOS jumping "back" 99 years since mid 1995. The code resets the centenial portion of the RTC to 20 if it detects the jump.
---
Those stupids blocked ICMP packets, including ping and MTU discovery. I'm guessing it was Al Gore's fault.
---
Nitrozac: "If civilization manages to hold on to its tenuous existence, I'd like to find a cure for Agalmatophilia, and have others join me to rid the world of this illness that causes so much needless suffering. "
:) And she's French Canadian too ... yumm
agalmatophilia: a fictional paraphilia, not yet observed as a syndrome, in which the sexuoerotic stimulus is a nude statue or model of a human being [from Greek, agalma, image + -philia]. Synonyms, statuophilia; Pygmalionism. See also pictophilia.
I'm am so glad Nitrozac is going to rid us of the "Naked/Petrified" people
---
Well, I'm assuming we'll see a lot of pissed off survivalists and terrorists soonish.
;-)
On a more useful (but pedantic) topic..
Millennium and "Millenium"
Two Ms, two Ls, two Ns, two Is, an e, and a U is the correct number of letters (if not spelling). So all single Ned "millenium" people can go on spouting about how this is the start of a new "millenium" as we can get the Webster people to add it:
"Millenium (n):
1. A thousandth anniversay of years, on the Gregorian calendar, since the time 1 BC."
This would make it proper to say "01/01/2000 is the start of the third millenium." Of course, I'm still going to have to resist the urge to curse and/or attack the person who says/writes these things
The other millennium has no such definition of a fixed window of time (from dictionary.com ):
"1. A span of one thousand years."
"4. A thousandth anniversary."
So (im)proper spelling will count. I'm not sure how the pronunciation thing will work out, as we'll probably have to muddle through via context.
---
Maybe introduce it like handicapped access -- "you have to compromise on form to let certain people access it. You wouldn't want the blind sueing us, eh?"
I'm sure you can put some positive "help me, and I help you" spin on making a compatible page, with an "enchanced" version for the market droids to peer at.
---
Perhaps you should just point them to the W3C verification tools, or the Web Interoperability pledge.
:0)) will be enough to convince them.
Heck, the WIP is even on ZDNet, which should be familiar to your local PHB.
You can also grab screenshots of the various browsers in dual boot situations. Another option is to show them the access log of the webserver (for the past x years) broken down by user age. But I'm sure just Opera, Netscape, and IE under Windows (which should be available
---
So, the question is; How do we inform computer illiterate managers that the Web is a collaberative community of standards, rather than a dictatorship governed by high school bully tactics?
Simple. Line up three machines running the same OS and 3 different browsers. Also have 3 different machines with the same browser next to it. Tell them to that to write the page they want, that only 1 of these 6 potential money paying customers will be able to see their fancy design. Show them how a simpler, more elegant design will probably solve the solution. Make the page designer fellows work in FrontPage or some similar gruby HTML "design" program, and then force them to look at it in a few browsers.
That should clear things up. If they don't believe you, lock them in a room with a terminal, Lynx, and a pot of coffee for a few days.
---
Citi f/i currently supports Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 running Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer. It also supports Macintosh running Netscape Navigator only. If you need further assistance, please call 1-800-2-citifi.
It rendered differently using Netscape (I used both Netscape and Opera behind a junkbuster proxy that disables cookies and masquared my user agent to be Netscape 4.7 on 2.2.13). It looks like it used Javascript to block arbitray browsers.
As it's their website, it's their choice wether or not they allow people using things other than a certain browser and/or OS. I, however, don't see why they'd not allow any forms/SSL 128 capable browser to become a potential paying customer.
I do have one question, though. Are we, the Slashdot readers and contributors, going to become the "website design police" -- cracking down on any site that just plain doesn't have high standards and proper design? Let these companies go and block people out -- then politely email them to ask them why they don't want your money. This should raise eyebrows, and eductate over at the company's office. "You, IT guy, why are we blocking out paying customers? I know you can fix this, so please do." Why not setup a public forum, or a site of some kind to audit websites for people, free of charge? This would certainly kill a few bugs with one squish.
---
You'll want to read the recent Kernel Traffic. The first piece is all about closed binaries on Linux, and why they'll likely not happen any time soon in a big way.
:-)
It boils down to source code and maintenance. Once the company gives out specs that let people write source code, or otherwise release source code for the device, people can go ahead and use those devices. Companies seem afraid of giving out source code. I don't know why, becuase (at least with the Linux community) the community will support/maintain the code, fix bugs, and otherwise make it work well. If the company keeps their source closed, they have to take all the responsibility and work of making the code useful onto their shoulders. Simple psuedo code & specs for devices would allow a renaissance of proper hardware support for the BSDs, Linux, Hurd, and BeOS, among others. True, BeOS is a more closed source OS, but it could also benefit from LGPL drivers
As for BSD, etc. Drivers in source form can be taken from Linux and put in the BSD kernels, as the LGPL licence is friendly about being linked with BSD licenced bits and bobs, IIRC.
---
The following error was encountered:
Unable to determine IP address from host name for libranet.com
The dnsserver returned:
DNS Domain 'libranet.com' is invalid: Valid name, no data record of requested type.
OK, who hard is it to do the following (in zone file for libranet.com):
libranet.com. A 127.0.0.1
www CNAME libranet.com.
eh? I hate clueless admins.
"They'll never think to include the link without the WWW prefix, everyone knows you have to use the WWW prefix!"
---
humour.lost = TRUE;
Sigh.
---
Hmmm... patches like this are somewhat useless unless:
:-) DOS is such an evil bastarization of CP/M and Unix(r).
A: The patch protects the Mac from getting attacked by a DOS.
B: People are stupid enough to dl them.
Don't you mean smart enough to download them? If you're not smart enough to get patches for your favourite OS, then you have a problem.
most people want their computer to be safe from DOS
Ergo this discussion of MacOS
At least this security problem was redressed quickly. There was no "force closing of apps" patch for the logout problem mentioned on BugTraq, nor one for the MacOS 9 weak password encryption.
---
I can't believe no one picked this juicy nugget out:
:-)
"I can see Red Hat stock jumping skyward if a billion communists suddenly decide Linux is their desktop and server platform of choice."
Yes, a communist country feeding a free market economy -- Association with communism will increase the free market valuation.
<cliche>Only in America.</cliche>
---
Only 2 weeks old! WTG, Hemos!
/me annoyed and cranky after a late night of insomnia
Any day now, we'll be able to call this place News for Nerds!
I think the site you must really be looking for is more like "news for analy obsessive page reloading latest news now and all the time people." Hemos is allowed to post news as he gets them. It's not his fault that people don't submit things sooner. I'm sure anyday now some moderator will mark you as flamebait, or similar. One can always hope.
---
c) real security comes not from obscurity but from minimum disclosure.
Obscurity:
I'm not going to tell you anything about me, because I might have a flaw.
Minimum discloser:
I'm not going to tell you anything about me, because you don't need the info.
The difference is very, very slight. Here's a better example:
Rather than do something silly, like broadcast everyone's info the client so it can "desynch" from the server, I'll just give you a few bits and do more managment on the server side. Disclosing less of your opponents' states.
---
Hi, Jon.
:-)
I've always wondered when, where, and why you first became involved in the Linux community. When I started using it (around 1996), you were already "well known." How did you get involved? Is it related to your nice nickname? What is your Linux story
---
the only way to have no one be able to cheat is with a closed-source system of checking.
:-)
We have GnuPG under the GPL, as well as Quake 1 and OpenSSH. So why not setup a system where first the client and server exchange keys and begin encrypting the session, then they verify the identities (this could allow a global "stats" centre) of the client and server. If the server is a good one, and the client has not been blacklisted, play commences. By encrypting the stream (or just compressing it), you make it harder for others to break in and/or forge identities. This could dovetail quite well with Netrek's blessed binaries, and would allow better "global" rankings
---
CIO job?
To rehash a certain Userfriendly. .
Customer Dialup connection: 20$
T1 for server: 200$
VA Linux server w/ Apache, PHP, and SQL: 2,500$
The look on the kids faces when the presents don't arrive: priceless
Shopping online e-commerce. Ruined by stupid businesses everywhere.
Of course, I doubt they used a T1 or a VA Linux server. They probably spent more on a T3 and an NT solution, which was less reliable or just not flexible enough to say "Sorry -- this item out of stock." It's not just the CIO who should be fired....
---
ancient kernels available for download. 2.2.0 .... :-P
---