The goofy thing is that Lindows users do in fact run as root. Go figure.
Bad code? No one does that, either.
I sincerely believe that the next version will be better, but XP was swiss cheese. Can you learn a lesson that big in six years? Sorry for being rhetorical.
Longhorn Server, a/k/a Windows 2007 Server Editions (seven that I count) are not due until at least six months from the release of Vista. My take is that means roughly May for gold code, and the SP2 is by Microsoft's formula, a year behind that, so 2008.
But worry? Is there something hot in Windows 2007 Server that I'm missing?
Lots of testers and researchers give VERY LOW SCORES when passwords aren't treated like they ought to be. What with machines that can do 100,000+ dictionary attacks per second, busting weak passwords is comparative childs play.
So it's a bit specious to lob this at Microsoft, when the operating system isn't even due to be at RC for as much as a year. If you use this in production environments, you're not very wise.
Not that I particularly like Microsoft, but fair is fair-- this is far from release code.
After spending the GNP of numerous countries on Vista/Windows Server 2007, it's an illusion to think that Ray Ozzie is going shift it all to a dubious "web 2.0" model, and find revenues sufficient to continue to propel Microsoft's stock price. Microsoft would love to rent stuff, but there are companies that do browser based 'office' apps that are literally a decate ahead of Microsoft, and these still suck. The browser is a lousy lay when it comes to doing real user interfaces consistent with multiple OS environments.
Nothing Wired, or Ray Ozzie says is going to change that. The mere fact that Vista has been so delayed that it's become meaningless and nearly nihilistic (if it weren't a laughable clone of things other OSes do correctly) should give you an idea of Ozzie's effectiveness. Short Microsoft stock: that will get their attention where nothing else will.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious thing that people forget. Let me go further and say:
1) Skype is closed and a single metamodel that's been implemented nicely and virally (not that it matters)
2) SIP (and ENUM) are perilously prone, not because they're protocols, but how the protocols are implemented, to shenanigans. SIP is natively text, and ENUM is a DNS method that's prone to spoofing and other problems. For now, Skype wins only because few people know how it works at its deepest levels.
3) Skype isn't as extensible as the SIP/ENUM combination, and it makes one dependent on a single (if diverse and highly peered) network.
4) SIP and ENUM don't care about the service and are largely service neutral (some coming problems, here, though, as it doesn't do nice things like embue codec choices, encryption/authentication means, and other security niceties).
5) Skype is one closed vendor, very few business partners, while SIP is a technological infrastructure that invites whomever to do whatever.
Vulture capitalists make money by stock multiplications through N series of investment rounds. All have an exit strategy that includes selling the stock that's been multiplied N number of times via Y number of rounds to someone else, either the public or a well-healed company via stock, cash, and maybe warrants or debt sale.
You don't need this. At your stage, you're in what's called your cash cow era, or, sometimes known as the oil-well-in-the-basement phase. This means that you're actually making nice money steadily, but are probably in comparative growth stagnation. You'll need either higher profits (e.g. more to spend or dividend-out), start new products or add product lines, buy somebody to augment the aforementioned, or find a nice graceful exit strategy because YOUR COMPANY IS FINANCIALLY BORING. Sorry to shout, but VCs aren't interested in your measly growth. They want big return, and they want to syndicate the risk out as far as is possible.
Yes, you've done the right thing. Yes, you can continue to pump oil in your basement by doing the right things. If you're interested in taking considerable risk for considerable growth, the VCs will hunt you down like a dog.
You need some marketing, something that eludes most coders, unfortunately.
A logo for OSS with a catchy saying is needed, like OSS-Read The Code, or No Smoke and Mirrors: OSS, or OSS- Tastes Good, Too! etc.
Use a color code to denote whether the code runs on Linux, BSD, MacOS, Windows, etc.
Use the logo on every OSS site, including the freaking owners of this one! Put the OSS logo on every home page run by OSS code. Stickers, bumper stickers, window stickers, whatever stickers. Promote because no one will search you out and love your code because it's just too cool. Really. You don't have to boast, or not be humble. You have to get the idea across that OSS transparency works, costs less not only in capital costs but also in ongoing service costs, and drive the point with humility-- but DRIVE THE POINT.
Otherwise, only one in a hundred people know the difference between OSS and a live hand grenade. Sad, but I'm sure it's true.
Anyone can lose groundswell. MySpace and others were the first in their 'space' and therefore are much tougher to unseat unless they don't sway with the times. And this very site is subject to the same public whimsy. The public is fickle. Unless your value is easily demonstrable, you can be flickred off easily.
And look at Ford, look at Sony, look at a lot of other 'solid' brands that could seemingly do no wrong.... now battling survival.
It's a dream for many to create a market and dominate it. For now, YouTube has it. Others have tried (Veoh as an example) and failed. The formula isn't quite perfect, but with a little bit of tooling, YT could make a ton of entertainment revenue, as well as dominating perceived VoD. Already Warner has done a deal to legitimatize their videos on YT, and others will follow. It's an enviable position to be in.
for about $2B, then it's not so much. And Broadcast.com (Mark Cuban's "invention") didn't really work yet. And I'll bet he's grousing that his current HD venture can't get that figure because it's not as evolved, and certainly not as popular as YouTube.
The price is huge, but it's not out of line with web-based social properties. Not that it's fair.... but the future revenues if it's managed well could be very big.
You've become addicted to your computer's screen. It's crappy.
The chominance in an analog NTSC monitor far exceeds the raster produced by their codec. You're accepting far lower quality than your NTSC system provides. HD would be even nicer. Then you could sit in your living room, share it with others, too.
It's not television. It's video. Nice to watch, don't get me wrong. And your bandwidth seems to allow solo viewing. Also a good thing.
Take the five people that share the cable modem in my place. One person gets to dominate it, because QoS protocols suck. That's ok. We share. We get VoD from Comcast. It's ok. It feeds our HDTV nicely. Two people can also Skype concurrently, and download MP3s for real-time play concurrently. But the DSL connection next door from AT&T can't walk and chew gum. That's what I'm talking about: bandwidth droughts that put a real crimp on people's ability to watch AND do other things, too.
It's a great idea to put pressure on ISPs to deliver. But what of Net Neutrality? Will Verizon's or Comcast's videos get better data rates than say, Apple's?
The showdown is yet to come.
Add that to the consumption problems when you have three teens in the house and two adults. Planning, codecs, all sorts of things come into the equation. Nonetheless, most people will be disappointed... it's just not fast enough yet.
Go on and try to get all of this great content. Do the abnormal and even think ahead to have things ready when you want them.
This isn't video on demand, it's video-after-drumming-your-fingers. I wish it weren't true, but even with faster DOCSIS 3.0 modems, you'll wait for a long time for teeny little rasters that hardly suit a cell phone.
I truly wish we had distributed networking/cached infrastructure that could do this. But to everyone's surprise, we don't.
and this has a chance. Sure, we'd all like TV without the commercials (get TiVo) or watch movies at a theatre without commercials (good luck, try art films) or other means where content can be free. It can be free. But let's say you control a huge asset-returning portfolio of investments and need a method to spread content but not rob investors or artists. This is one (albeit rudimentary and immature) model.
And it's a bold first step. More will come. Then it'll get better. Music can be free. But the brittle methods that have been used to sign, control, and distribute artist's content is due for a revamp. This is a step over the line. A big step, and that's why it's a good one. More will come as everyone tries to outdo each other.
At some point, content models start to change. This is one domino in a long chain that need to fall. I'll take the one.
It's almost like a Creative Commons license with a catch. For Warner to agree to this will cause the rest of the media robber barrons to either follow suit or have their catalogs decimated by compared lack of popularity.
It's not a perfect deal. But it's a huge start. Bravo to the brains that figured this one out. It's a huge first step.
First, it's pre-announced. Then there's a lag between the neat idea exposure and mass-market reality. It took about ten years for HDTV of the dull 1080i type to become affordable (if you consider just under a $1K affordable-- and it will drop further soon).
Digital photography was pre-announced. Looked great, even at megapixel rates. Kodak scoffed, so did Fuji. Both hedged their bets and it's a great thing they did or they'd be in Chapter 7. It took about the same time from pre-announcement to mass market approval. Now you can go to Brookstone and get a 640x320 matchbox-sized camera for $50, and digital 'disposibles' are arriving.
Cool-it is anti-consumption. Do we need television AT ALL? That's a question still to be answered. I'm all in favor for advancing technology, especially if it feeds the poor and gives quality of life a boost. While an UltraHD TV might have only speculative value, it pushes the boundary, and that's what humanity is all about.
So fie on your 'fringe' technology PCs were 'fringe' when I was soldering together and wire-wrapping motherboards in the pre-IBM and pre-Kaypro days. What we did, goofy as it sounds, is the reason you can post on/. to begin with.
Here's why: even with spread-spectrum, high bit/hertz counts, it's not going to get close to what's already available, today, with fibre. And the cost/drop is lower than is quoted for fibre distribution to the home-- when it's done with symmetrical IDFs along the way.
If you put fibre in 20 years ago, you can still use the latest gear to get the fastest available connection, whereas each wireless technology has had about a six-year life, thus rendering capital asset deployments poorly in the case of wireless. Add in security goofyness, incompatible standards, and broadband over gas pipes looks like a pretty poor value proposition both in terms of capital cost as well as product life.
It also means that their supporting tort wasn't very strong, and might set precedent to require greater revelation in the tort to support their accusation before messing with both the court and the defendent(s).
It's a smelly, scummy sort of ambulance chaser that doesn't have his/her ducks in a row before they baste some poor person in oil and fry them before the bench.
This bodes badly for whatever hacks the RIAA has employed to enforce their ex-foreclosure bar-bells. I doubt they're embarrassed, as it is impossible to embarrass sociopaths.
Now mod me down for troll-- or be enlightened and understand that the poster actually got some most interesting and relevant information: the RIAA's enforcers are starting to sputter.
It just takes time and known bugs. Look at the pre-release of 802.11g stuff, and how awful it was. It took about a yr AFTER the approved draft for things to settle down. Now you can use a b/g chipset from about anybody about anywhere.
MIMO is silly, and an interim patch until someone figures out decent and legal channel bonding, etc.
Next summer, the first standards-compliant firmware will arrive. A year later, that firmware will have been debugged and protected.
By then, WPA-PSK will have been handily cracked.
So buy now, if you need the speed, and hang on to your 802.11a/b/g card just in case you have to leave your 802.11n captive-vendor AP behind for a while.
And remember: gross payload might be 108mb, but actual max next-hop throughput is on the order of about 3.2megabytes/sec., using bsd ftp's number as a guide with puts and gets, on a clean GBE switch with no other users or interference or other obstructions.
Please see, as an example, http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=13426&ch=infotech which was featured here at/., in early 2004.
What you also didn't know is that I was building computers with discrete transistors forty-three years ago; I suspect you might have been in diapers at that time. And at least we agree about Ontrack, the greatest destroyer (IMHO) of data ever to grow in Minnesota.
IPV6 allows highly discrete addressing. IN fact, unbelievable and untenable discrete addressing. No-UNFATHOMABLE addressing.
Apologists think that we just have to swallow it. TFA implies that Vista will cause problems; nay I say to that. IPV6 is the tragedy here; Vista is small potatoes by comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
The goofy thing is that Lindows users do in fact run as root. Go figure.
Bad code? No one does that, either.
I sincerely believe that the next version will be better, but XP was swiss cheese. Can you learn a lesson that big in six years? Sorry for being rhetorical.
Longhorn Server, a/k/a Windows 2007 Server Editions (seven that I count) are not due until at least six months from the release of Vista. My take is that means roughly May for gold code, and the SP2 is by Microsoft's formula, a year behind that, so 2008.
But worry? Is there something hot in Windows 2007 Server that I'm missing?
Lots of testers and researchers give VERY LOW SCORES when passwords aren't treated like they ought to be. What with machines that can do 100,000+ dictionary attacks per second, busting weak passwords is comparative childs play.
So it's a bit specious to lob this at Microsoft, when the operating system isn't even due to be at RC for as much as a year. If you use this in production environments, you're not very wise.
Not that I particularly like Microsoft, but fair is fair-- this is far from release code.
They want to test all of this in court, where they're already battling the madness of IP on many fronts.
And they have the initial graces of Warner Bros. and likely subsequent candidates for viral videos. Let the lawyers get rich.
After spending the GNP of numerous countries on Vista/Windows Server 2007, it's an illusion to think that Ray Ozzie is going shift it all to a dubious "web 2.0" model, and find revenues sufficient to continue to propel Microsoft's stock price. Microsoft would love to rent stuff, but there are companies that do browser based 'office' apps that are literally a decate ahead of Microsoft, and these still suck. The browser is a lousy lay when it comes to doing real user interfaces consistent with multiple OS environments.
Nothing Wired, or Ray Ozzie says is going to change that. The mere fact that Vista has been so delayed that it's become meaningless and nearly nihilistic (if it weren't a laughable clone of things other OSes do correctly) should give you an idea of Ozzie's effectiveness. Short Microsoft stock: that will get their attention where nothing else will.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious thing that people forget. Let me go further and say:
1) Skype is closed and a single metamodel that's been implemented nicely and virally (not that it matters)
2) SIP (and ENUM) are perilously prone, not because they're protocols, but how the protocols are implemented, to shenanigans. SIP is natively text, and ENUM is a DNS method that's prone to spoofing and other problems. For now, Skype wins only because few people know how it works at its deepest levels.
3) Skype isn't as extensible as the SIP/ENUM combination, and it makes one dependent on a single (if diverse and highly peered) network.
4) SIP and ENUM don't care about the service and are largely service neutral (some coming problems, here, though, as it doesn't do nice things like embue codec choices, encryption/authentication means, and other security niceties).
5) Skype is one closed vendor, very few business partners, while SIP is a technological infrastructure that invites whomever to do whatever.
Vulture capitalists make money by stock multiplications through N series of investment rounds. All have an exit strategy that includes selling the stock that's been multiplied N number of times via Y number of rounds to someone else, either the public or a well-healed company via stock, cash, and maybe warrants or debt sale.
You don't need this. At your stage, you're in what's called your cash cow era, or, sometimes known as the oil-well-in-the-basement phase. This means that you're actually making nice money steadily, but are probably in comparative growth stagnation. You'll need either higher profits (e.g. more to spend or dividend-out), start new products or add product lines, buy somebody to augment the aforementioned, or find a nice graceful exit strategy because YOUR COMPANY IS FINANCIALLY BORING. Sorry to shout, but VCs aren't interested in your measly growth. They want big return, and they want to syndicate the risk out as far as is possible.
Yes, you've done the right thing. Yes, you can continue to pump oil in your basement by doing the right things. If you're interested in taking considerable risk for considerable growth, the VCs will hunt you down like a dog.
Whining, however, will get you nowhere.
You need some marketing, something that eludes most coders, unfortunately.
A logo for OSS with a catchy saying is needed, like OSS-Read The Code, or No Smoke and Mirrors: OSS, or OSS- Tastes Good, Too! etc.
Use a color code to denote whether the code runs on Linux, BSD, MacOS, Windows, etc.
Use the logo on every OSS site, including the freaking owners of this one! Put the OSS logo on every home page run by OSS code. Stickers, bumper stickers, window stickers, whatever stickers. Promote because no one will search you out and love your code because it's just too cool. Really. You don't have to boast, or not be humble. You have to get the idea across that OSS transparency works, costs less not only in capital costs but also in ongoing service costs, and drive the point with humility-- but DRIVE THE POINT.
Otherwise, only one in a hundred people know the difference between OSS and a live hand grenade. Sad, but I'm sure it's true.
Anyone can lose groundswell. MySpace and others were the first in their 'space' and therefore are much tougher to unseat unless they don't sway with the times. And this very site is subject to the same public whimsy. The public is fickle. Unless your value is easily demonstrable, you can be flickred off easily.
And look at Ford, look at Sony, look at a lot of other 'solid' brands that could seemingly do no wrong.... now battling survival.
It's a dream for many to create a market and dominate it. For now, YouTube has it. Others have tried (Veoh as an example) and failed. The formula isn't quite perfect, but with a little bit of tooling, YT could make a ton of entertainment revenue, as well as dominating perceived VoD. Already Warner has done a deal to legitimatize their videos on YT, and others will follow. It's an enviable position to be in.
for about $2B, then it's not so much. And Broadcast.com (Mark Cuban's "invention") didn't really work yet. And I'll bet he's grousing that his current HD venture can't get that figure because it's not as evolved, and certainly not as popular as YouTube.
The price is huge, but it's not out of line with web-based social properties. Not that it's fair.... but the future revenues if it's managed well could be very big.
What a crock!
Motorola and Corning have Verizon as a huge customer. Of course they don't want Net Neutrality if Verizon doesn't!!!
You've become addicted to your computer's screen. It's crappy.
The chominance in an analog NTSC monitor far exceeds the raster produced by their codec. You're accepting far lower quality than your NTSC system provides. HD would be even nicer. Then you could sit in your living room, share it with others, too.
It's not television. It's video. Nice to watch, don't get me wrong. And your bandwidth seems to allow solo viewing. Also a good thing.
Take the five people that share the cable modem in my place. One person gets to dominate it, because QoS protocols suck. That's ok. We share. We get VoD from Comcast. It's ok. It feeds our HDTV nicely. Two people can also Skype concurrently, and download MP3s for real-time play concurrently. But the DSL connection next door from AT&T can't walk and chew gum. That's what I'm talking about: bandwidth droughts that put a real crimp on people's ability to watch AND do other things, too.
It's a great idea to put pressure on ISPs to deliver. But what of Net Neutrality? Will Verizon's or Comcast's videos get better data rates than say, Apple's?
The showdown is yet to come.
Add that to the consumption problems when you have three teens in the house and two adults. Planning, codecs, all sorts of things come into the equation. Nonetheless, most people will be disappointed... it's just not fast enough yet.
It's so nice that you're pleased with such a small raster. Frame rate? Spectra? 5.1?
No fades, pixellation, or sound sync issues?
And you're using binoculars, right?
Go on and try to get all of this great content. Do the abnormal and even think ahead to have things ready when you want them.
This isn't video on demand, it's video-after-drumming-your-fingers. I wish it weren't true, but even with faster DOCSIS 3.0 modems, you'll wait for a long time for teeny little rasters that hardly suit a cell phone.
I truly wish we had distributed networking/cached infrastructure that could do this. But to everyone's surprise, we don't.
https://youramazingbank.amalgamatedservices.com/7j 2jcd_30smdkdfor*usersget/gimmethefarkingsocialsand 4427snow.jsp??/
Nah. Couldn't be.
and this has a chance. Sure, we'd all like TV without the commercials (get TiVo) or watch movies at a theatre without commercials (good luck, try art films) or other means where content can be free. It can be free. But let's say you control a huge asset-returning portfolio of investments and need a method to spread content but not rob investors or artists. This is one (albeit rudimentary and immature) model. And it's a bold first step. More will come. Then it'll get better. Music can be free. But the brittle methods that have been used to sign, control, and distribute artist's content is due for a revamp. This is a step over the line. A big step, and that's why it's a good one. More will come as everyone tries to outdo each other. At some point, content models start to change. This is one domino in a long chain that need to fall. I'll take the one.
It's almost like a Creative Commons license with a catch. For Warner to agree to this will cause the rest of the media robber barrons to either follow suit or have their catalogs decimated by compared lack of popularity.
It's not a perfect deal. But it's a huge start. Bravo to the brains that figured this one out. It's a huge first step.
First, it's pre-announced. Then there's a lag between the neat idea exposure and mass-market reality. It took about ten years for HDTV of the dull 1080i type to become affordable (if you consider just under a $1K affordable-- and it will drop further soon).
/. to begin with.
Digital photography was pre-announced. Looked great, even at megapixel rates. Kodak scoffed, so did Fuji. Both hedged their bets and it's a great thing they did or they'd be in Chapter 7. It took about the same time from pre-announcement to mass market approval. Now you can go to Brookstone and get a 640x320 matchbox-sized camera for $50, and digital 'disposibles' are arriving.
Cool-it is anti-consumption. Do we need television AT ALL? That's a question still to be answered. I'm all in favor for advancing technology, especially if it feeds the poor and gives quality of life a boost. While an UltraHD TV might have only speculative value, it pushes the boundary, and that's what humanity is all about.
So fie on your 'fringe' technology PCs were 'fringe' when I was soldering together and wire-wrapping motherboards in the pre-IBM and pre-Kaypro days. What we did, goofy as it sounds, is the reason you can post on
Here's why: even with spread-spectrum, high bit/hertz counts, it's not going to get close to what's already available, today, with fibre. And the cost/drop is lower than is quoted for fibre distribution to the home-- when it's done with symmetrical IDFs along the way.
If you put fibre in 20 years ago, you can still use the latest gear to get the fastest available connection, whereas each wireless technology has had about a six-year life, thus rendering capital asset deployments poorly in the case of wireless. Add in security goofyness, incompatible standards, and broadband over gas pipes looks like a pretty poor value proposition both in terms of capital cost as well as product life.
Next?
It also means that their supporting tort wasn't very strong, and might set precedent to require greater revelation in the tort to support their accusation before messing with both the court and the defendent(s).
It's a smelly, scummy sort of ambulance chaser that doesn't have his/her ducks in a row before they baste some poor person in oil and fry them before the bench.
This bodes badly for whatever hacks the RIAA has employed to enforce their ex-foreclosure bar-bells. I doubt they're embarrassed, as it is impossible to embarrass sociopaths.
Now mod me down for troll-- or be enlightened and understand that the poster actually got some most interesting and relevant information: the RIAA's enforcers are starting to sputter.
I haven't found any FOSS or other tools for WPA-PSK cracking. I must be looking in the wrong places.
Proxy authentication with temporal keys might be good this week. I wonder what's good next week.
It just takes time and known bugs. Look at the pre-release of 802.11g stuff, and how awful it was. It took about a yr AFTER the approved draft for things to settle down. Now you can use a b/g chipset from about anybody about anywhere.
MIMO is silly, and an interim patch until someone figures out decent and legal channel bonding, etc.
Next summer, the first standards-compliant firmware will arrive. A year later, that firmware will have been debugged and protected.
By then, WPA-PSK will have been handily cracked.
So buy now, if you need the speed, and hang on to your 802.11a/b/g card just in case you have to leave your 802.11n captive-vendor AP behind for a while.
And remember: gross payload might be 108mb, but actual max next-hop throughput is on the order of about 3.2megabytes/sec., using bsd ftp's number as a guide with puts and gets, on a clean GBE switch with no other users or interference or other obstructions.
Please see, as an example, http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx? id=13426&ch=infotech which was featured here at /., in early 2004.
What you also didn't know is that I was building computers with discrete transistors forty-three years ago; I suspect you might have been in diapers at that time. And at least we agree about Ontrack, the greatest destroyer (IMHO) of data ever to grow in Minnesota.
IPV6 allows highly discrete addressing. IN fact, unbelievable and untenable discrete addressing. No-UNFATHOMABLE addressing.
Apologists think that we just have to swallow it. TFA implies that Vista will cause problems; nay I say to that. IPV6 is the tragedy here; Vista is small potatoes by comparison.