> but I do believe that the truth is more important than anything else, wether we like it or not.
Definitely true.
THe question still stands however. Given the imporance of this source code, and their idea that it should be protected strongly, why was it on an internet connected machine?
Ballmar is a complete idiot, and it seems slashdot is good at missing out on news...
So why is this?
Well, last time I checked, most of Europe is in the WTO.
Now, as you can read on Groklaw also, Poland just decided on not supporting the EU software patent proposal, thereby removing the majority that was there, so it seems that patents are a logn way off in the EU for now.
MS can (and should imho) engorce copyright, but to claim that they can enforce their patents in any country that becomes a WTO member ? From what is happening in EUrope it seems they are more then a bit off there.
This is a typical case of what can properly be called FUD.
> There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
There is nothing that inherently prevents creating a system for handling this. Except for filenames, there is nothing that facilitates managing versions either.
> I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
Which helps a bit, and is how this was done in Unix like systems traditionally. elf (and as a result systems that use it, like Linux) has this information as part of the dynamically linked library, and keeps a lot better track of which libraries are where.
Hence the conclusion is still that Windows simply doesn't handle it at all (eventho you can create a workaround) whereas Linux and similar systems have a real system for supporting this.
> Encrypting data on a CD to keep it from being pirated hardly amounts to violating one's civil libertys. How is requiring CD keys any different? Both are methods of copy protection, one just required more time and effort.
Actually... encryption doesn't help copy protection at all. I can still copy the cds without any trouble whatsoever.
What this does is prevent access to the data on the medium.
The goal of both CD keys and copy protection is not to prevent copying itself, but to make copies useless unless the publisher can verify that you are a legitimate user. That is access control, not copy protection so much.
Both methods have failed many times in the last decades, but hey, why not try again, if adding 'over the internet' works for patents, maybe it works here as well;P
> In other words, I want users of yum/apt/portage to tell me they've never encountered dependency problems if they've been using them for more than a couple of years. (No, seriously. I would really like to hear, because then I would know which dist to choose)
If you read my post actually, you'd see that I never claimed them to be perfect to begin with.
That said, despite my relatively low use of windows, I have had more then a fair share of dll hell. It just shows itself in a different way (random crashes, apps just no longer starting etc) instead of by complainign about missing libraries.
At any rate, the issue you describe is a problem of Linux distributions, not of Linux itself. Sadly enough it affects the usability of Linux for many people. Sad because it is quite solvable, unlike on Windows.
Your claim was that Windows handles.dll hell better then Linux handles dependency hell
Well, Windows has no clue whatsoever about which version of which library it has and where, and as a result does not handle.dll hell at all.
Dependency hell is a distribution issue, not a Linux issue, so Linux does not handle dependencies at all.
However, some Linux distributions do handle dependency hell, and even if they don't, at least itgives information on what is wrong that could be dealt with by a knowledgable enough user.
> Why yes, I know that! It's exactly my point! Windows handles it better. Sorry, but it's true. Have a nice day.
Very convincing argument, care to explain why you think its true?
Matter of fact is that.so files actually have internal version numbers and a proper scheme to bump them without breaking everything. Given a proper package manager, dependencies in Linux (or any other Unix like system that uses elf) should not happen. That said, good package management is stil a bit of a holy grail it seems (yeah I know apt, and it is decent, but manages to mess up as well, so it is not perfect, and dependency hell still happens)
Windows and its coff based executables and.dll files don't have those things. If you had less problems with it on Windows then either you happen to only use products from vendors that are extremely carefull, or simply had a lot of luck.
> If the entire TV industry is predicated on advertising, and the idea of advertising is predicating on paying to have as many people see your ads as possible (and the payment is proportional to proven amounts of people who may be watching), if an increasing number of people (many in educated and financially stable demographics) have the capability to avoid ever seeing any advertising, what, exactly, makes it worthwhile for advertisers to continue paying for it, at least at the same levels?
Advertisers could start askign themselves why people avoid their advertisements maybe?
A very good start would be to make sure they stop annoying the hell out of people, and they might even (gasp) try makign something that is sortof worth watching (because it is beautiful, funny, educative or whatever)
> You are choosing to watch content whose creation and delivery is funded in large part by advertising revenues. What funds it if that model is completely broken?
THen a new model has to be found? It is really not the first time in human history that a model that worked for a while stops workign ebcause technology catches up with it.
> Sure, your cable/satellite bill can, but only to a point. There are billions of dollars that come from advertising. Is there not that side to this story as well?
They have no right on this income. If they can't make it then they can't make it, big deal.
If people are not going to get their soap and other TV junk adn they really want it, they may be prepared to pay for it directly.
> Additionally, I've seen people here and elsewhere say they actually wouldn't mind "advertising" for products and services they're actually interested in - but at the same time, people argue against giving anyone the data needed to do exactly that kind of targeted advertising as a violation of privacy.
Oh?
Its not so difficult really.
How about... advertise tech products on a tech website or around a tech related tv program for example? Or in other words, ensure advertisements that are presented around/before/after certain content fit in with that content?
No need for tracking, no need for privacy invasion, and you do get targetted advertisement.
This may not be true where you live, but overhere (the Netherlands) you can stick a small sign to your door forbiddign delivery of comemrcial and/or unaddressed (surface) mail. Ignoring this sign can and at times will get the sender into quite a bit of trouble.
So, I don't get huge piles of paper junk, actually, I get evry little of it, and it is no issue for me at all. Spam mail on the internet is an issue.
> What's my conclusion? SPF and caller ID does two things, which I would do if I were writing spam software:
Now, while that line is correct, it also shows quite clearly what is behind Bob's statement (see below)
> 1. Encourages spammers to publish SPF records (and they have).
> If I were a spammer, I would publish SPF records for my throwaway domains to allow the places I'm spamming from. There's a nice site about SPF that tells me how to do it:) The biggest SPF adopters I see on my site (from No. 2 above) are spammers.
Yes, they can do that for sure.
> 2. Encourages spammers not to spam from SPF-publishing addresses.
> (And don't forget, this is what AOL and MSN *really* care abo
ANd it also happens to be what I as a small business and private user care about.
WHen I get an email from a site that publishes SPF records, I can have a reasonable level of confidence int hat it really comes from that site (ie, my bank, ebay etc etc).
It will also help reducing the flood of failure messages that result from anti virus software and mail viruses.
It will also help create an environment where we can held peopel responsible for what they send out since we have a reasonable assurance they indeed did send it.
Together this makes for an environment that also discourages spam, but that is not the primary goal of it, and it wont stop spam by itself.
It seems from reading the interview that Bob has a bit of an issue with SPF and similar for emotional rather then technical reasons. The way he says things (is this the interview?) is suggesting he believes SPF makes the situation worse. It appears to me however that 1. that is not the case, and 2. that opinion is mostly motivated by his support for the RBLs and not wantign alternative solutions.
RBLs are a bad solution because they create a bigger problem then the one they try to solve.
- It creates small groups of people with an insane amount of influence on email delivery, thereby putting power in the hands of people who can not be held accountable for their actions, but can disrupt things quite seriously.
- In order to be usable, an RBL has to be both very fast and very accurate. Those two are managable as long as there are few incidents only.
We do not need dictatorships or burocraciies to manage the flow of email, and they are more serious issues then spam in the end.
> If most don't implement what we have already, we should anyone expect widespread implementation (key to success) of a new system?
The problem is that quite a few people have a very strong dislike of RBLs, and will not use them as a matter of principe. Others feel less strongly, but believe that the drawback of the RBL solution is bigger then what it gets us. (you can argue a lot about this, but there are people who feel that way, accept it as a fact for the sake of the discussion about domainkeys)
So, that people don't implement what is there has its reasons, and will not directly affect if peopel will implement things like domain keys or spf really.
Yes, or maybe even more accurate, he wanted to prevent MS from owning the desktop,, anythign else woudl be better. This however was the motivation for wanting OS/2 to win that battle.
> but he wasn't under any illusion that OS/2 would become more popular than Windows.
It is what he wanted and hoped for according to his own account, if he really believed it woudl happen is another thing.
> Either way WP/PM sucked worse than the Windows version.
Definitely. While I was quite involved in OS/2 (from version 1.1 upto version 4.0), I have not bothered with WP/PM for more then half an hour, it wasn't worth my time (and even Amipro beat it with ease)
> Never assume a security update can solve already existing errors within the operating system. SP2 is not to blame here, refusal to solve the problems before upgrading the system is on your side.
Well, SP2 is also a service pack, which generally points at also including fixes.
If the problem is the result of a bug in Windows (which is definitely not the only option, but one of the more likely options) then installing fixes is the only way to solve that problem, and the past decade has tought people that usually when they have problems and call support for it, the first thing they'll be told to do is install the latest updates, so people have been pre-conditioned to try this option first.
If this is intended to be installed by the average Windows XP end-user also, then it is a huge mistake to count on people being able to diagnose the cause of the problem they have and then judge if SP2 might be a solution.
If SP2 not only doesn't fix the problem, but actually messes up the install in cases where Windows XP has been damaged by spayware or such, then it would have been an extremely good idea to have the SP2 installer do an integrity check on the system before installing, and produce a warning or error on such a condition before installing. Its not like a malware infected Windows machine is exceptional or such.
On 10.20 you need a big pile of patches, and there was somethign with header files which I dont remember (scrapped the last hppa systems here some 2 years ago)
But indeed, the compiler is not much good if only because it doesn't support ANSI C. Good luck finding K&R C sources.
You have been able to register as developer at sun and basicly get them for the cost of the media, handling and postage. I used to get them to keep uptodate on what Solaris is doing.
You want to use it for production? that was another story.
> True, but to be fair, no other enterprise UNIX comes bundled with the corresponding proprietary compiler, either.
HPUX used to come with a K&R C compiler... barel usable, but enough to do a local build of gcc or equivalent and get a real compiler. Not anything usable for serious development of anything tho. No idea what they included past version 10.2.
Yes, it is an exponential thing. It is also a thing that tends to get lost as a result of catastrophic events or even something as simple as the collapse of an empire.
Seeing how this has actually happened repeatedly throughout history, there is enough reason to not dismiss the possibility of this having happened before the stretch of history we happen to know a bit about, and some might argue that it is good enough reason to assume it more likely that coivilisation existed before the end of the last iceage then that it didn't.
The thing is that it is rather unlogical that of approx 100000 years that modern humans have been around, only the last 6% was used for more advanced things then gathering/hunting.
Heh, I still have two of those machines around (and a 90 XP and some other models.. collected them for a while)
Its cpu can get warm but it should not be running that hot, unless - the sidepanel is removed - the fan integrated in the sidepanel is broken - Airflow in the case is disturbed, for example by improper cabling or improper closing of the case (including missing brackets that should be in place for slots that have no card in them)
An important detail with PS/2 machines in general is that the airflow in the case was an explicit part of the design, and you should do your best to not disturb or change it if you want the machine to run well. With older models predating the 486dx50 and dx2 cpus, that was usually not a real issue, but in later machines it easily becomes an issue.
Of course, when airflow is disturbed or the sidepanel fan is broken, the cpu gets to rely on its small passive cooler, and that will make a p60 run pretty hot I guess.
Ah well, I liked that machine a lot when it appeared.. built like a tank and (given you have access to mca hardware easily, which I had while working at IBM) very flexible and upgradable.
> An open mind is nice, except it lets a lot of garbage in
Maybe. a closed mind will not let anything in. I do not know about you, but I regard myself as a sentient being with capability of thought. I rather filter the usable bits out of the garbage then not having them at all.
Not trying to say if what you suggest about Troy and Atlantis is true or not, but poinying at the fact that the ONLY way to learn to understand things is keeping your mind open.
Slashdot Mirror
> but I do believe that the truth is more important than anything else, wether we like it or not.
Definitely true.
THe question still stands however. Given the imporance of this source code, and their idea that it should be protected strongly, why was it on an internet connected machine?
Ballmar is a complete idiot, and it seems slashdot is good at missing out on news...
So why is this?
Well, last time I checked, most of Europe is in the WTO.
Now, as you can read on Groklaw also, Poland just decided on not supporting the EU software patent proposal, thereby removing the majority that was there, so it seems that patents are a logn way off in the EU for now.
MS can (and should imho) engorce copyright, but to claim that they can enforce their patents in any country that becomes a WTO member ? From what is happening in EUrope it seems they are more then a bit off there.
This is a typical case of what can properly be called FUD.
> There is nothing inherent in Windows that prevents solving DLL hell. The problem is the same as with Linux: finding compatible capabilities independent of filename or version. DotNET, for example, provides a vastly improved system for dynamically managing versions.
There is nothing that inherently prevents creating a system for handling this. Except for filenames, there is nothing that facilitates managing versions either.
> I have spent much time on Windows and DLL hell has become rare because programmers avoid it by linking to DLLs with the version in the filename. Sometimes they even keep all the necessary DLLs in their program's directory, so the application is basically self-contained. This often destroys the principle of reuse, but stability is much more important, and a lot of the libraries that are important to share are standardized by Microsoft and backwards compatible.
Which helps a bit, and is how this was done in Unix like systems traditionally. elf (and as a result systems that use it, like Linux) has this information as part of the dynamically linked library, and keeps a lot better track of which libraries are where.
Hence the conclusion is still that Windows simply doesn't handle it at all (eventho you can create a workaround) whereas Linux and similar systems have a real system for supporting this.
> Encrypting data on a CD to keep it from being pirated hardly amounts to violating one's civil libertys. How is requiring CD keys any different? Both are methods of copy protection, one just required more time and effort.
;P
Actually... encryption doesn't help copy protection at all. I can still copy the cds without any trouble whatsoever.
What this does is prevent access to the data on the medium.
The goal of both CD keys and copy protection is not to prevent copying itself, but to make copies useless unless the publisher can verify that you are a legitimate user. That is access control, not copy protection so much.
Both methods have failed many times in the last decades, but hey, why not try again, if adding 'over the internet' works for patents, maybe it works here as well
Just wondering why their source code was on an internet connected network..
> In other words, I want users of yum/apt/portage to tell me they've never encountered dependency problems if they've been using them for more than a couple of years. (No, seriously. I would really like to hear, because then I would know which dist to choose)
.dll hell better then Linux handles dependency hell
.dll hell at all.
If you read my post actually, you'd see that I never claimed them to be perfect to begin with.
That said, despite my relatively low use of windows, I have had more then a fair share of dll hell. It just shows itself in a different way (random crashes, apps just no longer starting etc) instead of by complainign about missing libraries.
At any rate, the issue you describe is a problem of Linux distributions, not of Linux itself. Sadly enough it affects the usability of Linux for many people. Sad because it is quite solvable, unlike on Windows.
Your claim was that Windows handles
Well, Windows has no clue whatsoever about which version of which library it has and where, and as a result does not handle
Dependency hell is a distribution issue, not a Linux issue, so Linux does not handle dependencies at all.
However, some Linux distributions do handle dependency hell, and even if they don't, at least itgives information on what is wrong that could be dealt with by a knowledgable enough user.
> Why yes, I know that! It's exactly my point! Windows handles it better. Sorry, but it's true. Have a nice day.
.so files actually have internal version numbers and a proper scheme to bump them without breaking everything. Given a proper package manager, dependencies in Linux (or any other Unix like system that uses elf) should not happen. That said, good package management is stil a bit of a holy grail it seems (yeah I know apt, and it is decent, but manages to mess up as well, so it is not perfect, and dependency hell still happens)
.dll files don't have those things. If you had less problems with it on Windows then either you happen to only use products from vendors that are extremely carefull, or simply had a lot of luck.
Very convincing argument, care to explain why you think its true?
Matter of fact is that
Windows and its coff based executables and
> If the entire TV industry is predicated on advertising, and the idea of advertising is predicating on paying to have as many people see your ads as possible (and the payment is proportional to proven amounts of people who may be watching), if an increasing number of people (many in educated and financially stable demographics) have the capability to avoid ever seeing any advertising, what, exactly, makes it worthwhile for advertisers to continue paying for it, at least at the same levels?
Advertisers could start askign themselves why people avoid their advertisements maybe?
A very good start would be to make sure they stop annoying the hell out of people, and they might even (gasp) try makign something that is sortof worth watching (because it is beautiful, funny, educative or whatever)
> You are choosing to watch content whose creation and delivery is funded in large part by advertising revenues. What funds it if that model is completely broken?
THen a new model has to be found? It is really not the first time in human history that a model that worked for a while stops workign ebcause technology catches up with it.
> Sure, your cable/satellite bill can, but only to a point. There are billions of dollars that come from advertising. Is there not that side to this story as well?
They have no right on this income. If they can't make it then they can't make it, big deal.
If people are not going to get their soap and other TV junk adn they really want it, they may be prepared to pay for it directly.
> Additionally, I've seen people here and elsewhere say they actually wouldn't mind "advertising" for products and services they're actually interested in - but at the same time, people argue against giving anyone the data needed to do exactly that kind of targeted advertising as a violation of privacy.
Oh?
Its not so difficult really.
How about... advertise tech products on a tech website or around a tech related tv program for example? Or in other words, ensure advertisements that are presented around/before/after certain content fit in with that content?
No need for tracking, no need for privacy invasion, and you do get targetted advertisement.
> Can you build one for less than a hundred bucks?
Not likely
> Can you keep it running for less than 60 bucks a year?
Maybe.
What a self built solution will do is ensure you don't depend on the whim of whatever company.
This may not be true where you live, but overhere (the Netherlands) you can stick a small sign to your door forbiddign delivery of comemrcial and/or unaddressed (surface) mail. Ignoring this sign can and at times will get the sender into quite a bit of trouble.
So, I don't get huge piles of paper junk, actually, I get evry little of it, and it is no issue for me at all. Spam mail on the internet is an issue.
> What's my conclusion? SPF and caller ID does two things, which I would do if I were writing spam software:
:) The biggest SPF adopters I see on my site (from No. 2 above) are spammers.
Now, while that line is correct, it also shows quite clearly what is behind Bob's statement (see below)
> 1. Encourages spammers to publish SPF records (and they have).
> If I were a spammer, I would publish SPF records for my throwaway domains to allow the places I'm spamming from. There's a nice site about SPF that tells me how to do it
Yes, they can do that for sure.
> 2. Encourages spammers not to spam from SPF-publishing addresses.
> (And don't forget, this is what AOL and MSN *really* care abo
ANd it also happens to be what I as a small business and private user care about.
WHen I get an email from a site that publishes SPF records, I can have a reasonable level of confidence int hat it really comes from that site (ie, my bank, ebay etc etc).
It will also help reducing the flood of failure messages that result from anti virus software and mail viruses.
It will also help create an environment where we can held peopel responsible for what they send out since we have a reasonable assurance they indeed did send it.
Together this makes for an environment that also discourages spam, but that is not the primary goal of it, and it wont stop spam by itself.
It seems from reading the interview that Bob has a bit of an issue with SPF and similar for emotional rather then technical reasons. The way he says things (is this the interview?) is suggesting he believes SPF makes the situation worse. It appears to me however that 1. that is not the case, and 2. that opinion is mostly motivated by his support for the RBLs and not wantign alternative solutions.
RBLs are a bad solution because they create a bigger problem then the one they try to solve.
- It creates small groups of people with an insane amount of influence on email delivery, thereby putting power in the hands of people who can not be held accountable for their actions, but can disrupt things quite seriously.
- In order to be usable, an RBL has to be both very fast and very accurate. Those two are managable as long as there are few incidents only.
We do not need dictatorships or burocraciies to manage the flow of email, and they are more serious issues then spam in the end.
Please read the patent license (link is in the writeup).
> If most don't implement what we have already, we should anyone expect widespread implementation (key to success) of a new system?
The problem is that quite a few people have a very strong dislike of RBLs, and will not use them as a matter of principe. Others feel less strongly, but believe that the drawback of the RBL solution is bigger then what it gets us. (you can argue a lot about this, but there are people who feel that way, accept it as a fact for the sake of the discussion about domainkeys)
So, that people don't implement what is there has its reasons, and will not directly affect if peopel will implement things like domain keys or spf really.
All the things you mention are already 'regulated', ie, are already illegal. No need for the FCC to step into that.
This is supposedly why checks and balances exist. The president may forget the long term issues maybe, but congress shouldn't.
> IIRC, he wanted IBM to win over Microsoft,
Yes, or maybe even more accurate, he wanted to prevent MS from owning the desktop,, anythign else woudl be better. This however was the motivation for wanting OS/2 to win that battle.
> but he wasn't under any illusion that OS/2 would become more popular than Windows.
It is what he wanted and hoped for according to his own account, if he really believed it woudl happen is another thing.
> Either way WP/PM sucked worse than the Windows version.
Definitely. While I was quite involved in OS/2 (from version 1.1 upto version 4.0), I have not bothered with WP/PM for more then half an hour, it wasn't worth my time (and even Amipro beat it with ease)
> Never assume a security update can solve already existing errors within the operating system. SP2 is not to blame here, refusal to solve the problems before upgrading the system is on your side.
Well, SP2 is also a service pack, which generally points at also including fixes.
If the problem is the result of a bug in Windows (which is definitely not the only option, but one of the more likely options) then installing fixes is the only way to solve that problem, and the past decade has tought people that usually when they have problems and call support for it, the first thing they'll be told to do is install the latest updates, so people have been pre-conditioned to try this option first.
If this is intended to be installed by the average Windows XP end-user also, then it is a huge mistake to count on people being able to diagnose the cause of the problem they have and then judge if SP2 might be a solution.
If SP2 not only doesn't fix the problem, but actually messes up the install in cases where Windows XP has been damaged by spayware or such, then it would have been an extremely good idea to have the SP2 installer do an integrity check on the system before installing, and produce a warning or error on such a condition before installing. Its not like a malware infected Windows machine is exceptional or such.
On 10.20 you need a big pile of patches, and there was somethign with header files which I dont remember (scrapped the last hppa systems here some 2 years ago)
But indeed, the compiler is not much good if only because it doesn't support ANSI C. Good luck finding K&R C sources.
You have been able to register as developer at sun and basicly get them for the cost of the media, handling and postage. I used to get them to keep uptodate on what Solaris is doing.
You want to use it for production? that was another story.
> True, but to be fair, no other enterprise UNIX comes bundled with the corresponding proprietary compiler, either.
HPUX used to come with a K&R C compiler... barel usable, but enough to do a local build of gcc or equivalent and get a real compiler. Not anything usable for serious development of anything tho. No idea what they included past version 10.2.
> I forget if using adduser prompts you with a default shell
Yes it does, and it can remember the answer as well for the enxt time you invoke it.
Yes, it is an exponential thing. It is also a thing that tends to get lost as a result of catastrophic events or even something as simple as the collapse of an empire.
Seeing how this has actually happened repeatedly throughout history, there is enough reason to not dismiss the possibility of this having happened before the stretch of history we happen to know a bit about, and some might argue that it is good enough reason to assume it more likely that coivilisation existed before the end of the last iceage then that it didn't.
The thing is that it is rather unlogical that of approx 100000 years that modern humans have been around, only the last 6% was used for more advanced things then gathering/hunting.
Heh, I still have two of those machines around (and a 90 XP and some other models.. collected them for a while)
Its cpu can get warm but it should not be running that hot, unless
- the sidepanel is removed
- the fan integrated in the sidepanel is broken
- Airflow in the case is disturbed, for example by improper cabling or improper closing of the case (including missing brackets that should be in place for slots that have no card in them)
An important detail with PS/2 machines in general is that the airflow in the case was an explicit part of the design, and you should do your best to not disturb or change it if you want the machine to run well. With older models predating the 486dx50 and dx2 cpus, that was usually not a real issue, but in later machines it easily becomes an issue.
Of course, when airflow is disturbed or the sidepanel fan is broken, the cpu gets to rely on its small passive cooler, and that will make a p60 run pretty hot I guess.
Ah well, I liked that machine a lot when it appeared.. built like a tank and (given you have access to mca hardware easily, which I had while working at IBM) very flexible and upgradable.
> An open mind is nice, except it lets a lot of garbage in
Maybe. a closed mind will not let anything in. I do not know about you, but I regard myself as a sentient being with capability of thought. I rather filter the usable bits out of the garbage then not having them at all.
Not trying to say if what you suggest about Troy and Atlantis is true or not, but poinying at the fact that the ONLY way to learn to understand things is keeping your mind open.