Let me tell you a little story. Last year, my appartment was broken into and my computers stolen. Of two Windows copies, the insurance company agreed to reimburse only one. Apparently they have problem with paying for software...
Since I keep all my CD keys seperately, I ended up calling MS to get a new key because the old one refused to install on the new computer.
Guess what, they refused to cancel the old one and give me a new one because the license is tied to the stolen hard drive. Great.
In 1984, Steve Jobs invented the concept of homo-computing which basically was Apple directing the development of personal computers with other companies complementing the centric homogenious platform in very limited and controlled ways.
Apple was succesful for a while because of the belief at the time that proprietary computing was the way forward. However, Apple eventually lost steam as Microsoft built the Windows operating system based on the concept of hetero-computing which brought together all the members of the computer industry.
Microsoft's idea was that if everybody worked together to make a bigger pie, the rewards for each individual company would far surpass those under Apple's feudal system. The following golden decade for the computer industry made Microsoft the richest company in the world with the majority of its employes becoming millionaires or even billionaires.
During this period, however, Apple suffered greatly from the lack of innovation and interaction with the rest of the industry. They never really recovered as even today they merely offer enhanced technologies from the 80s (notably the user interface: hand input device and window menu location). Today, homo-computing accounts for less than 2% of the entire computer market.
On the rise is a new concept, mono-computing. A number of indivuals, working separately in free underground locations, are building the Linux operating system. It is expected that the computer industry will suffer as the lack of financial rewards, other than paying support for fixing a multitude of problems, discourages intellectual property research and technological development in general. Operating system level innovation will probably nearly disapear once the Linux developers have finished pillaging the intellectual property of existing Unix systems.
The paper tissue and adult content delivery industries are currently experiencing a peak, a possible side-effect of the growth of mono-computing development.
Because one side is the US army and the US likes to BS the world about freedom, democracy, what's right etc. And the other side is terrorists.
So if people were as outraged about the terrorists as they are about US troops committing torture and so on, would that mean that we expect the terrorist organisations and the US military to be on the same level of morality?
Please note that crime committing US soldiers don't sully the Chritian name as terrorists do to Islam.
US soldiers can pretty much go freely to any country in the world, with a few exceptions. Terrorists on the other hand are hunted down by pretty much all (if not all) countries in the world. As a matter of fact, they tend to be treated with extreme prejudice in Arab coutries.
How many people in the US think the prison abuse in Iraq is no big deal? 30-40%? How many people in Arab countries think it's ok to decapitate a person? Probably much less. Perhaps Muslims don't need be told every minute what's rigt and what's wrong. How about Christian "flocks"?
PS2's run Linux perfectly well and you can of course cluster them. But in my opinion, you'd be better off just getting a brand new PC with 1GB and an AhtlonXP 2500+. Faster in every way, a usable amount of RAM (unlike a PS2), easier maintenance, etc. Almost certainly cheaper too, especially if you add a hard drive to each PS2...
True. But the more you lower the threshold for freedom, the more the level of freedom goes down. If getting assassinated for some comments is the threshold now, that's what the level of freedom might be eventually indeed.
I don't think it would be practical but probably interesting as an academic exercise.
It would be too slow compared to a big cluster setup like google. I think that there are going to be enough private organizations with plenty of cash to build those setups for a very long time (unless of course one becomes a monopoly). Anyway, in the case of google, I doubt that there is much load involved per query.
I think that what would be better for quicker refreshes would be to shift the responsability of updating the search engines away from the search engines, to the web sites or an intermediate peer. Similar in way to the P2P that you talked about. But then again, just for the simplicity, it's even better for google to just run multiple update bots in different regions of the world similtaneously with a preset acceptable refresh rate.
Just for the record, child poverty in the US is close to 25%. Yet the government does other things than just fight porverty.
Not every resource on Earth is spent trying to cure cancer and solve poverty. Lots of resources are spent making designer clothes, perfums, etc. Humanity does lots of things and it's the sum (or actually the process) that's good.
Besides, out of hundreds of thousands (or more) of people wordwide helping Ethiopia, 2 are trying to bring Linux and related computer skills. So it seems to be acceptable to me and about where it should be.
Apart from the fact that SCO seems to have any case at all, the SCO situation brings up a potential situation where IP infringement really occured. Perhaps it even occured in their case as well but we'll never know for sure because of all the BS they created.
What would happen if a company that doesn't release its code in the open source domain, gets parts of its source added to an open source project. For example, by an open source oriented employee? A number of reactions from the company would be possible, mostly to try to limit the damages to its business model.
Such reactions could include: -Getting the infringing code removed and hope it hasn't spread everywhere; and/or -Suing the project, the employee, any user for damages; and/or -Taking it and moving on
I imagine that option 2 would attract a lot of ire from the slashdot crowd.
With pretty much anything that goes wrong (including 9-11), post-incident audits always seem to find a pile of organizational problems. It's interesting to see how often organizations evolve almost exclusively because of such findings. Perhaps a lot of governmental programs would benefit from regular audits that would look not just at things like how much cash is spent and where, but rather at the procedures themselves.
"How long until the masses catch up and stop being screwed?"
Probably never, sadly. That, in my opinion, is the problem with democracy as we know it in general. People can vote to express their opnions etc, but what if they don't care enough to know anything?
That sort of reminds me of something I don't like about a number of posts here. There seems to be a desire to make linux and open source "mainstream" and "ready for the desktop". Although I agree that a lot things in Linux could be easier and nicer, is taking market share from UNIX and MS the goal of open source, or should it just be a natural side effect? I hope it doesn't happen too quickly that Linux becomes driven by time to market (which obviously it is not right now) as opposed to driven by other values.
It seems to me as though DRM methods are always sort of obscure and hidden. If you happen to stumble onto how they work (example by reverse engineering) you are going against the DMCA. So how is that going to work with free distributions like Debian? Implemented with an onboard hardware chip?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me tell you a little story. Last year, my appartment was broken into and my computers stolen. Of two Windows copies, the insurance company agreed to reimburse only one. Apparently they have problem with paying for software...
Since I keep all my CD keys seperately, I ended up calling MS to get a new key because the old one refused to install on the new computer.
Guess what, they refused to cancel the old one and give me a new one because the license is tied to the stolen hard drive. Great.
In 1984, Steve Jobs invented the concept of homo-computing which basically was Apple directing the development of personal computers with other companies complementing the centric homogenious platform in very limited and controlled ways. Apple was succesful for a while because of the belief at the time that proprietary computing was the way forward. However, Apple eventually lost steam as Microsoft built the Windows operating system based on the concept of hetero-computing which brought together all the members of the computer industry. Microsoft's idea was that if everybody worked together to make a bigger pie, the rewards for each individual company would far surpass those under Apple's feudal system. The following golden decade for the computer industry made Microsoft the richest company in the world with the majority of its employes becoming millionaires or even billionaires. During this period, however, Apple suffered greatly from the lack of innovation and interaction with the rest of the industry. They never really recovered as even today they merely offer enhanced technologies from the 80s (notably the user interface: hand input device and window menu location). Today, homo-computing accounts for less than 2% of the entire computer market. On the rise is a new concept, mono-computing. A number of indivuals, working separately in free underground locations, are building the Linux operating system. It is expected that the computer industry will suffer as the lack of financial rewards, other than paying support for fixing a multitude of problems, discourages intellectual property research and technological development in general. Operating system level innovation will probably nearly disapear once the Linux developers have finished pillaging the intellectual property of existing Unix systems. The paper tissue and adult content delivery industries are currently experiencing a peak, a possible side-effect of the growth of mono-computing development.
Because one side is the US army and the US likes to BS the world about freedom, democracy, what's right etc. And the other side is terrorists.
So if people were as outraged about the terrorists as they are about US troops committing torture and so on, would that mean that we expect the terrorist organisations and the US military to be on the same level of morality?
Please note that crime committing US soldiers don't sully the Chritian name as terrorists do to Islam.
US soldiers can pretty much go freely to any country in the world, with a few exceptions. Terrorists on the other hand are hunted down by pretty much all (if not all) countries in the world. As a matter of fact, they tend to be treated with extreme prejudice in Arab coutries.
How many people in the US think the prison abuse in Iraq is no big deal? 30-40%? How many people in Arab countries think it's ok to decapitate a person? Probably much less. Perhaps Muslims don't need be told every minute what's rigt and what's wrong. How about Christian "flocks"?
PS2's run Linux perfectly well and you can of course cluster them. But in my opinion, you'd be better off just getting a brand new PC with 1GB and an AhtlonXP 2500+. Faster in every way, a usable amount of RAM (unlike a PS2), easier maintenance, etc. Almost certainly cheaper too, especially if you add a hard drive to each PS2...
mmmm. The other pictures I saw before gave a different impression about the size. Maybe it's a Personal Space Vehicle.
True. But the more you lower the threshold for freedom, the more the level of freedom goes down. If getting assassinated for some comments is the threshold now, that's what the level of freedom might be eventually indeed.
I don't think it would be practical but probably interesting as an academic exercise.
It would be too slow compared to a big cluster setup like google. I think that there are going to be enough private organizations with plenty of cash to build those setups for a very long time (unless of course one becomes a monopoly). Anyway, in the case of google, I doubt that there is much load involved per query.
I think that what would be better for quicker refreshes would be to shift the responsability of updating the search engines away from the search engines, to the web sites or an intermediate peer. Similar in way to the P2P that you talked about. But then again, just for the simplicity, it's even better for google to just run multiple update bots in different regions of the world similtaneously with a preset acceptable refresh rate.
Just for the record, child poverty in the US is close to 25%. Yet the government does other things than just fight porverty.
Not every resource on Earth is spent trying to cure cancer and solve poverty. Lots of resources are spent making designer clothes, perfums, etc. Humanity does lots of things and it's the sum (or actually the process) that's good.
Besides, out of hundreds of thousands (or more) of people wordwide helping Ethiopia, 2 are trying to bring Linux and related computer skills. So it seems to be acceptable to me and about where it should be.
I wonder if Sun computers are now going to be able to file and printer share directly with Windows boxes without the help of Samba.
I have a dollar that says C is going to outlast C#. Right next to my other dollar that says UNIX (or derivative) is going to outlast Windows.
Good day,
Apart from the fact that SCO seems to have any case at all, the SCO situation brings up a potential situation where IP infringement really occured. Perhaps it even occured in their case as well but we'll never know for sure because of all the BS they created.
What would happen if a company that doesn't release its code in the open source domain, gets parts of its source added to an open source project. For example, by an open source oriented employee? A number of reactions from the company would be possible, mostly to try to limit the damages to its business model.
Such reactions could include:
-Getting the infringing code removed and hope it hasn't spread everywhere; and/or
-Suing the project, the employee, any user for damages; and/or
-Taking it and moving on
I imagine that option 2 would attract a lot of ire from the slashdot crowd.
With pretty much anything that goes wrong (including 9-11), post-incident audits always seem to find a pile of organizational problems. It's interesting to see how often organizations evolve almost exclusively because of such findings. Perhaps a lot of governmental programs would benefit from regular audits that would look not just at things like how much cash is spent and where, but rather at the procedures themselves.
"How long until the masses catch up and stop being screwed?"
Probably never, sadly. That, in my opinion, is the problem with democracy as we know it in general. People can vote to express their opnions etc, but what if they don't care enough to know anything?
That sort of reminds me of something I don't like about a number of posts here. There seems to be a desire to make linux and open source "mainstream" and "ready for the desktop". Although I agree that a lot things in Linux could be easier and nicer, is taking market share from UNIX and MS the goal of open source, or should it just be a natural side effect? I hope it doesn't happen too quickly that Linux becomes driven by time to market (which obviously it is not right now) as opposed to driven by other values.
It seems to me as though DRM methods are always sort of obscure and hidden. If you happen to stumble onto how they work (example by reverse engineering) you are going against the DMCA. So how is that going to work with free distributions like Debian? Implemented with an onboard hardware chip?