Still offtopic... not that long ago, it looked like Parliament would be the people to overthrow the throne. As a kiwi, I followed it with some interest; living in the UK, the feeling was that Australians could overthrow her Maj just by getting their Prime Minister to - the horror! - kiss the Queen!
(Australia voted not to become a republic, by the way. Maybe they're just formulating a new Queen-kissing plan)
I'm not really looking for a speed benefit, or even labour-saving-ness (?)... what I'm after is a file-server (lots of power-hungry SCSI drives, maybe) that's only on when it needs to be. It sounds like modern power-management systems negate the need for this, however, so I may just be able to get away with it - especially once I mention that the cooker uses more energy;)
Disclaimer: my lack of knowledge about Wake-on-LAN is holding me back!;)
I've long borne the wrath of my girlfriend for the quantity of electricity "I" consome on PC gear, so I've been considering a "green" home network for a while - not got very far implementing it, though;)
One idea I've had to save power is for a box ("the alarm clock") that's on 24/7. This box would act as a controller, and handle CRON jobs. It'd wake up the PVR when it's time to record peak-time viewing, and suspend the PVR afterwards.
"The alarm clock" won't have a huge power requirements because it'll other boxes will be woken up to handle "labour intensive" chores.
I can see this as being one scenario where power management and _certain_ services would happily co-exist; a more realistic scenario might be where a controller wakes up boxes to meet peak-time demands, then sends them back to sleep to save on power, cooling, even labour costs.
Cue: someone tell me I've missed the parent-poster's point, or (better still) that a system like this already exists - please!
Yeah - just look at DARPAnet for how badly governments can screw up when they try and set up networks... oh, wait...
(As a side issue, in the UK at the moment there's a particularly annoying British Telecom/Yahoo broadband advertisement in which "Mikey" and "Jimmy", two circa-1970 geeks, talk about their hopes for the "Internetwork". I'm finding it really difficult to think about the Internet historically without calling it the "Internetwork")
1. not my current manager - previous managers, in a number of differnet workplaces. Typically government (UK) where cost and privacy are issues, but also in a small start-up where licensing was a bigger issue.
2. Agreed, but the ability to dictate exactly what hardware you get is a rare luxery - typically, I've used hardware chosen without much thought for what I need - hardware chosen by a procurement system that relies on large deals to get cost savings, and can afford to ignore the increased costs for certain departments or users.
3. I've bought a Panasonic Camcorder. It came with a driver CD, and I couldn't connect it to XP (firewire and USB2) without it. Maybe I just didn't try hard enough. Maybe I was just spoiled by Linux, where I didn't have to try at all.
5. Fair point. I woldn't recommend Linux to a number of my relatives;) The original point was that Windows applications usually do arcane things to the registry, and that that could cause problems. I accept those problems on Uncle Bob's PC - I just reinstall Windows when the registry becomes clogged up with cruft. But reinstalling an OS isn't an option at many places I've worked at - you need to keep the system running and that requires easy-to-edit config files, not the nightmare that is Windows' registry.
It's Windows. Forget "open". Only programmers care about that shit, and at least 99% of computer users are not programmers.
I've had managers who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they didn't trust them and/or couldn't extend them. I've had non-developer colleagues who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they cost money whilst open-source was a free-download away (and "why pay for something you'll only use once?", and "if it's closed source will people develop plug-ins for it?")
It's Windows. Forget "stable".
Ah, the joys of being able to choose your own hardward. I told my boss I wanted a beowulf-cluster of SPARC-stations. She laughed at me. Seriously, back in the real-world, some of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. Seriosuly, back in the real-world most of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. If open-source software can be stable on the same hardware as a closed-source BSOD-generator, which should I choose?
It's Windows. Forget "drivers" without a dozen driver install disks...
I run XP at home on the GF's laptop. I've got numerous driver install CDs. Strangely, I never received the one magic CD you hint at, the one with all the drivers for the hardware I've not bought yet. OK, XP comes with a lot of generic drivers, but every new piece of hardware I buy comes with a driver CD for Windows. Strangely, Linux typically "just works".
It's Windows. Forget "Source code".
A. I assume you're joking. Firstly, MS didn't license (eg. with the GPL) their leaked source code, so no one legit will touch it lest they "contaminate" themselves or open themselves up to prosecution. Secondly, it's only a fraction of the complete source.
B.See statements regarding #1.
It's Windows... most apps won't run without registry editing and all kinds of other crap.
I've installed very few apps on XP that didn't edit the registry. Sure, I didn't do it by hand - the installer did it, and I pray that the uninstaller will also do it (I live in hope...) Fixinf Registry foul-ups after botched uninstallers run amok terrifies me because like many Windows users I don't feel comfortable editting the Registry. Firing up vim (or Emacs, I suppose...;) and hacking a config file, however...different story. Easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to understand, etc.
With dotnet the choice boils down to completely closed-source (Microsoft) or completely open-source (Mono).
Sun's half-arsed approach, cosy-up to open-source but keep Sun Java closed, has resulted in only limited attepmts to produce an open Java; why bother, since Sun seem friendly-enough?
Sun needs to start recognising dotnet as a threat and respond appropriately. Choose sides. Open or closed.
...and, to add to the parent's excellent points, open-source gives you the option to say:
I only trust myself... and then compile the reviewed code yourself.
The impression I formed from the DevX article was that it was aimed at government (and I suppose you could article that that might influence large corporations, too).
In my experience government and corporate IT admins are *not* trusting souls. As an example, I once worked as a contractor for an agency that built software for the UK health service: everything I built was then reviewed and recompiled by in-house staff. The manager told me that they preferred open-source precisely because of the ability to review source code. Cost was only a secondary factor.
The same manager also commented that security-through-obscurity - relying on closed-source to deter evil-doers - was not an acceptable option as it placed to much reliance on third-parties.
Noted where? I've just re-read the review in case a graphic novel version had been released, and I'd failed to pick that up in first reading the (excellent - good work, feller!) review. The reviewer says nothing about it being a graphic novel - he compares it with work by a graphic novelist.
Not that I feel it matters; I loved King Rat, and would love to read a graphic novel ("whatever that is") version. The ending in particular, no, some of the more...imaginative deaths... the one with the tube train... hmmm... must dig it out and re-read it.
Then escalate your complaint. You could write direct to the Governors, or, for added fun, write to your MP (if you're UK-based) and ask them to raise the matter with the BBC Board *and* the relevant minister. MPs are obliged to forward correspondence to ministers if requested to by constituents.
FWIW, I'd *start* with just the governors. The BBC have enough trouble with the government at the moment, and I'd rather keep New Labour out of *this* debate as long as possible.
Most blogs have RDF/RSS feeds right now. And just a few days ago there was an article right here on/. about embedding licensing information in web sites - more semantic webbery;)
Microsoft? Didn't they use to make a browser or something?
There was quite a good post on Mozillazine about this (sorry, no link, the 'zine seems down right now), where a Moz developer basically said theres a limit to how much warning he can give. If people don't read/don't understand the dire warnings Mozilla give, there's not much Mozilla can do. I'm inclined to agree. It's not just the version number; this statement is still up:
"While this software may work well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability in its pre-1.0 state and it should not be relied upon for mission- critical tasks"
I've also got to suggest that people (AOL users or not) who don't know they're using a browser probably won't download and install a new browser: I think the real problem is fanboys like me encouraging our nearest-and-dearest to migrate to Firebird/Firefox. It's understandable, but not necessarily a good idea.
Incidentally, I've just installed Firefox 0.8 and Thunderbird 0.5 at work. I'm rolling back to Firebird 0.7 and Thunderbird 0.4 tomorrow, and submitting bug reports tonight. Is this a complaint? No - it's what "Technology Previews" are for, to gather feedback from interested users. But it sure ain't something I'd recommend subjecting mom & pop to!
Because they're not (yet) replaced the Browser Suite. Firefox is still only (!) at 0.8, and Thunderbird is only at 0.5. Personally, I reckon Thunderbird, great though it is (I use it at work, don't quite trust it for my home mail), is someway off 1.0 status. Until Thunderbird is ready, both it and Firefox will probably remain $WACKY_NAMED_BROWSER and $WACKY_NAMED_MAIL_UA. Once Thunderbird reaches show-time, both it and Firefox will, presumably, make the leap to Mozilla Mail amd Mozilla Browser.
The proverbial mom & pop user shouldn't, repeat shouldn't, be using Firefox. It's a technology preview, which means that it's effectively in Beta at the moment. Sure, it's a great browser, sure I wouldn't switch back to IE or even Mozilla Suite, but it is not ready for Joe Public.
Precisely because the technology is changing, precisely because the name is changing, precisely because they're only now looking at an integrated installer.
Get mom & pop to wait until Firefox 1.0. I trust the good folks at Mozilla to not release 1.0 until it's ready for mom & pop.
C'mon! Give the guys a break! They even label it 0.8 to provide a big red flag to non-geeks!
No, I picked four well known pieces of software, to prove a point (badly - as another poster pointed out, in my haste I chose 2.5 examples that weren't GPL'd)
There are numerous other examples from Freshmeat and Sourceforge that I use daily: Ant, Tomcat, etc (though admitedly they're both Apache-licensed, but humour me...)
OSS is natively better, because if the quality isn't where I'd like it to be I can improve it. The only way I can improve Windows XP is to...wait for it... download a better OS from sourceforge.
Beating up on Sourceforge and Freshmeat because there are, in your opinion, many bad applications there is like dismissing the Internet because of Homer Simpson's webpage. Not all websites are that <blinky>; not all apps on sourceforge and freshmeat suck.
FP: For some odd reason GPL software is always of 'better quality'.
Troll: And if you visit SF and FM as suggested, you will quickly lose this thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Still offtopic... not that long ago, it looked like Parliament would be the people to overthrow the throne. As a kiwi, I followed it with some interest; living in the UK, the feeling was that Australians could overthrow her Maj just by getting their Prime Minister to - the horror! - kiss the Queen!
(Australia voted not to become a republic, by the way. Maybe they're just formulating a new Queen-kissing plan)
Ah, dude, NSW is kind-of not in Europe. It's on the other side of the other pond - across the Pacific, not across the Atlantic.
Though here in sunny Glasvegas, Scotland, carrying knives is a pretty big no-no. Carrying alcohol in public is vorboten, too.
All the same, I think you're on crack.
It's Monday, dammit, of course I'm on crack ;)
I'm not really looking for a speed benefit, or even labour-saving-ness (?)... what I'm after is a file-server (lots of power-hungry SCSI drives, maybe) that's only on when it needs to be. It sounds like modern power-management systems negate the need for this, however, so I may just be able to get away with it - especially once I mention that the cooker uses more energy ;)
Disclaimer: my lack of knowledge about Wake-on-LAN is holding me back! ;)
I've long borne the wrath of my girlfriend for the quantity of electricity "I" consome on PC gear, so I've been considering a "green" home network for a while - not got very far implementing it, though ;)
One idea I've had to save power is for a box ("the alarm clock") that's on 24/7. This box would act as a controller, and handle CRON jobs. It'd wake up the PVR when it's time to record peak-time viewing, and suspend the PVR afterwards.
"The alarm clock" won't have a huge power requirements because it'll other boxes will be woken up to handle "labour intensive" chores.
I can see this as being one scenario where power management and _certain_ services would happily co-exist; a more realistic scenario might be where a controller wakes up boxes to meet peak-time demands, then sends them back to sleep to save on power, cooling, even labour costs.
Cue: someone tell me I've missed the parent-poster's point, or (better still) that a system like this already exists - please!
Omigod! It's the Windows source code!
;)
Interestingly, I've noticed that the quality of search results from booble has improved recently - coincidence?
;)
At least if /. waits until there's another man on the moon before posting a story, I might get some work done...
;)
Yeah - just look at DARPAnet for how badly governments can screw up when they try and set up networks ... oh, wait ...
(As a side issue, in the UK at the moment there's a particularly annoying British Telecom/Yahoo broadband advertisement in which "Mikey" and "Jimmy", two circa-1970 geeks, talk about their hopes for the "Internetwork". I'm finding it really difficult to think about the Internet historically without calling it the "Internetwork")
1. not my current manager - previous managers, in a number of differnet workplaces. Typically government (UK) where cost and privacy are issues, but also in a small start-up where licensing was a bigger issue.
2. Agreed, but the ability to dictate exactly what hardware you get is a rare luxery - typically, I've used hardware chosen without much thought for what I need - hardware chosen by a procurement system that relies on large deals to get cost savings, and can afford to ignore the increased costs for certain departments or users.
3. I've bought a Panasonic Camcorder. It came with a driver CD, and I couldn't connect it to XP (firewire and USB2) without it. Maybe I just didn't try hard enough. Maybe I was just spoiled by Linux, where I didn't have to try at all.
5. Fair point. I woldn't recommend Linux to a number of my relatives ;) The original point was that Windows applications usually do arcane things to the registry, and that that could cause problems. I accept those problems on Uncle Bob's PC - I just reinstall Windows when the registry becomes clogged up with cruft. But reinstalling an OS isn't an option at many places I've worked at - you need to keep the system running and that requires easy-to-edit config files, not the nightmare that is Windows' registry.
Lessee...
Only programmers care about that shit, and at least 99% of computer users are not programmers.
I've had managers who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they didn't trust them and/or couldn't extend them. I've had non-developer colleagues who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they cost money whilst open-source was a free-download away (and "why pay for something you'll only use once?", and "if it's closed source will people develop plug-ins for it?")
Ah, the joys of being able to choose your own hardward. I told my boss I wanted a beowulf-cluster of SPARC-stations. She laughed at me. Seriously, back in the real-world, some of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. Seriosuly, back in the real-world most of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. If open-source software can be stable on the same hardware as a closed-source BSOD-generator, which should I choose?
I run XP at home on the GF's laptop. I've got numerous driver install CDs. Strangely, I never received the one magic CD you hint at, the one with all the drivers for the hardware I've not bought yet. OK, XP comes with a lot of generic drivers, but every new piece of hardware I buy comes with a driver CD for Windows. Strangely, Linux typically "just works".
A. I assume you're joking. Firstly, MS didn't license (eg. with the GPL) their leaked source code, so no one legit will touch it lest they "contaminate" themselves or open themselves up to prosecution. Secondly, it's only a fraction of the complete source.
B.See statements regarding #1.
I've installed very few apps on XP that didn't edit the registry. Sure, I didn't do it by hand - the installer did it, and I pray that the uninstaller will also do it (I live in hope...) Fixinf Registry foul-ups after botched uninstallers run amok terrifies me because like many Windows users I don't feel comfortable editting the Registry. Firing up vim (or Emacs, I suppose...
Yup, a pretty weak troll attempt. Try harder.
The same could be said about dotnet, despite the existence of mono and dotGNU, maybe because Microsoft has opened-up (ECMA) parts of dotnet.
...but before this becomes a Microsoft love-in, aren't there two branches of Java - Sun's, and that one that lost Microsoft a court-case?!
With dotnet the choice boils down to completely closed-source (Microsoft) or completely open-source (Mono).
Sun's half-arsed approach, cosy-up to open-source but keep Sun Java closed, has resulted in only limited attepmts to produce an open Java; why bother, since Sun seem friendly-enough?
Sun needs to start recognising dotnet as a threat and respond appropriately. Choose sides. Open or closed.
...and, to add to the parent's excellent points, open-source gives you the option to say:
I only trust myself... and then compile the reviewed code yourself.
The impression I formed from the DevX article was that it was aimed at government (and I suppose you could article that that might influence large corporations, too).
In my experience government and corporate IT admins are *not* trusting souls. As an example, I once worked as a contractor for an agency that built software for the UK health service: everything I built was then reviewed and recompiled by in-house staff. The manager told me that they preferred open-source precisely because of the ability to review source code. Cost was only a secondary factor.
The same manager also commented that security-through-obscurity - relying on closed-source to deter evil-doers - was not an acceptable option as it placed to much reliance on third-parties.
Not quite as entertaining, but I spotted this:
0 11-19-01 00:31 win2k/private/windows/shell/accesory/
acce_s_ory? It's late here (GMT) but that looks odd? The whole thing smelt fishy...
But then I noted that it was a "graphic novel"
Noted where? I've just re-read the review in case a graphic novel version had been released, and I'd failed to pick that up in first reading the (excellent - good work, feller!) review. The reviewer says nothing about it being a graphic novel - he compares it with work by a graphic novelist.
Not that I feel it matters; I loved King Rat, and would love to read a graphic novel ("whatever that is") version. The ending in particular, no, some of the more...imaginative deaths... the one with the tube train... hmmm... must dig it out and re-read it.
Then escalate your complaint. You could write direct to the Governors, or, for added fun, write to your MP (if you're UK-based) and ask them to raise the matter with the BBC Board *and* the relevant minister. MPs are obliged to forward correspondence to ministers if requested to by constituents.
FWIW, I'd *start* with just the governors. The BBC have enough trouble with the government at the moment, and I'd rather keep New Labour out of *this* debate as long as possible.
Most blogs have RDF/RSS feeds right now. And just a few days ago there was an article right here on /. about embedding licensing information in web sites - more semantic webbery ;)
Microsoft? Didn't they use to make a browser or something?
There was quite a good post on Mozillazine about this (sorry, no link, the 'zine seems down right now), where a Moz developer basically said theres a limit to how much warning he can give. If people don't read/don't understand the dire warnings Mozilla give, there's not much Mozilla can do. I'm inclined to agree. It's not just the version number; this statement is still up:
I've also got to suggest that people (AOL users or not) who don't know they're using a browser probably won't download and install a new browser: I think the real problem is fanboys like me encouraging our nearest-and-dearest to migrate to Firebird/Firefox. It's understandable, but not necessarily a good idea.
Incidentally, I've just installed Firefox 0.8 and Thunderbird 0.5 at work. I'm rolling back to Firebird 0.7 and Thunderbird 0.4 tomorrow, and submitting bug reports tonight. Is this a complaint? No - it's what "Technology Previews" are for, to gather feedback from interested users. But it sure ain't something I'd recommend subjecting mom & pop to!
Because they're not (yet) replaced the Browser Suite. Firefox is still only (!) at 0.8, and Thunderbird is only at 0.5. Personally, I reckon Thunderbird, great though it is (I use it at work, don't quite trust it for my home mail), is someway off 1.0 status. Until Thunderbird is ready, both it and Firefox will probably remain $WACKY_NAMED_BROWSER and $WACKY_NAMED_MAIL_UA. Once Thunderbird reaches show-time, both it and Firefox will, presumably, make the leap to Mozilla Mail amd Mozilla Browser.
The proverbial mom & pop user shouldn't, repeat shouldn't, be using Firefox. It's a technology preview, which means that it's effectively in Beta at the moment. Sure, it's a great browser, sure I wouldn't switch back to IE or even Mozilla Suite, but it is not ready for Joe Public.
Precisely because the technology is changing, precisely because the name is changing, precisely because they're only now looking at an integrated installer.
Get mom & pop to wait until Firefox 1.0. I trust the good folks at Mozilla to not release 1.0 until it's ready for mom & pop.
C'mon! Give the guys a break! They even label it 0.8 to provide a big red flag to non-geeks!
No, I picked four well known pieces of software, to prove a point (badly - as another poster pointed out, in my haste I chose 2.5 examples that weren't GPL'd)
There are numerous other examples from Freshmeat and Sourceforge that I use daily: Ant, Tomcat, etc (though admitedly they're both Apache-licensed, but humour me...)
OSS is natively better, because if the quality isn't where I'd like it to be I can improve it. The only way I can improve Windows XP is to...wait for it... download a better OS from sourceforge.
Beating up on Sourceforge and Freshmeat because there are, in your opinion, many bad applications there is like dismissing the Internet because of Homer Simpson's webpage. Not all websites are that <blinky>; not all apps on sourceforge and freshmeat suck.
Guilty as charged, M'lud - and I'd like another offense taken into account:
I was thinking of LAMP, and I didn't even get that right. Doh!
FP: For some odd reason GPL software is always of 'better quality'.
Troll: And if you visit SF and FM as suggested, you will quickly lose this thinking.
<sarcasm>Aye, right</sarcasm>:
Linux, Apache, Perl and PHP? <sarcasm>Everyone know they're poor quality, right?</sarcasm>
Yeah, yeah, feeding the troll - but it's Sunday!
Oh damn, the OP said greek, not geek - whoops!