This is completely off-topic, but neverless, I'm going to comment on that.
1) Using a compression number of 10 or more is completely useless (even harmfull) since you're just adding a floatpoint... (this if you're willing to make a base 10 division, as I think you're saying regarding to your post);
2) Turning everything in a binary-stream is cost-expensive: try turning a binary into a binary-stream (a large string of 0's and 1's) and then compare the size!
3) Even if you're trying to compress a binary stream, dividing it by 2 will at most create one decimal algarism, if you try dividing for 4 you'll at most get 2 decimal algarisms, but if you try to do it with a number not multiple of 2 you're doomed...
> Hopefully, if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn this decision, > then at least people will get outraged enough that they will > write to their lawmakers to quickly remedy this problem. It's > not just Slashbots that worry about privacy in email, this is a > clear enough danger that I'm sure the non-IT public would be > shocked if they heard about what was going on.
Unfortunatly I can't have the same optimistic oppinion as you... People care, but they don't care enough: if there are software patents, if there are stupid laws and stupid turn-arounds to not-so-stupid laws, why would this go into a different path?
1) I'm not in USA; 2) I use gpg; 3) I'm wearing that t-shirt.
This is just as wrong as stupid: makes me remember how 2600 lost in court making links to illegal stuff illegal, when, after, others won in the same court prooving linking is just linking, not illegal (good for Google:-))
It's frustrating when we clearly see that the laws are just bendable...
> Rule 1) The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation.
No it's not: that's the purpose of IP, licenses, copyright... The purpose of patents is to grant monopolies to have new ways of getting it's monopoly bigger and stronger.
What's more, unlike other Linux-based solutions, I don't think there have ever been any serious questions raised over its security.
Free/OpenSWAN also interoperates with a wide variety of commercial (soft and hard) VPNs. Authentication can be by RSA secrets or X509 certificates.
Honestly, this project is bloated. FreeS/Wan was allways bad (specially on it's setup, documentation and interoperabillity), but for some time it was less bad sollution. Then Linux Kernel 2.5 and 2.6 came, and with it a good IPSec implementation.
So... Why use FreeS/WAN when we can use in-kernel implementation? The only cenarion when it's better to use it is where we're going to communicate with other FreeS/WAN nodes, since (as I said before) it's interoperabillity sucks.
Not that I never used Openswan so I don't know if the issues pointed out to FreeS/WAN are still there. Anyway, the fact that 2.6 already has an IPSec implementation still exists, and seeing that Openswan uses 2.6's native IPsec stack, wouldn't it be better that they submit their implementation to kernel.org's kernel instead of building their implementation?
Damn, I know what "KISS" is, but in that context I thought he was spaking about a "bulletin system + chat" technology called KISS or something like that...
Although that raises another question... Why the hell should number of lines be more important than number of bytes? After all in C you can type everything on a line and Python makes you have the need to have identation. Is it bad? No! You can have a smaller program (in bytes) on Python, and one a lot bigger written in C but with less lines.
Both are good... Size in bytes can be very important when, for instance, you're programming something to run in, let's say, a printer. With that kind of space limitation, the smaller the better (even if heavier to run).
Consider me #2 then. [...] I can't remember the last time XP crashed, maybe once or twice
Well, maybe this will be moderated again as Flamebait, although notice that I'm not flaming. You just contradicted yourself saying that you're #2 (that windows never crashed on you) and then you say "maybe once or twice". I rest my case on that one.
not the fault of linux but buggy browsers and other programs. I can't stand that instead of there being one awesome program (for browser, word processing, etc), there are like 5 average or crappy ones.
Well, let me disagree on that one.
Mozilla has lot's of more features, is a lot more functional and stable then IE. Of course that shouldn't even bother you since you use Opera... But there's Opera for Linux too! Unless Opera's Linux version is buggy (I don't know) I don't see your point.
On word processing... I don't use word processors, only editors (difference between notpad/M$ word, I guess). I use gvim and when need a formated text I use LaTeX. But even not being a user of that type of software, if you see the previous stories here on/. about OpenOffice vs. M$ Office, you'll see that OO isn't "average" or "crappy". In fact it's preety more stable, but it still lacks some functions you see on M$ Office (specially on the spreadsheet).
About OS X, I'm using it more and more (in two machines, one because It's the only choice, and the other because I only can use that machine or a windoze one: easy choice...). Unfortunatly OS X isn't as stable as Linux.
I genereally agree with your oppinion, tho there are some arguments I just don't catch.
To give one (and only) examples, you talk about word vs. vi (or emacs), but you have to notice that word is a word processor, vi is a word editor (like notepad). I don't use word processors at all (LaTeX is the way to go;-)), but seeing the last reviews (see previous slashdot articles) OpenOffice is the only non-M$ alternative to M$ Offix, and it's not (yet) as good as the former (even if a lot less buggy...)
Either than small stuff like that, nice point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, now the only thing you need is to say your name is Ranzi! :-)
Maybe you should insight us about why is it stupid then...
Or else you're just trolling.
This is completely off-topic, but neverless, I'm going to comment on that.
:-)
1) Using a compression number of 10 or more is completely useless (even harmfull) since you're just adding a floatpoint... (this if you're willing to make a base 10 division, as I think you're saying regarding to your post);
2) Turning everything in a binary-stream is cost-expensive: try turning a binary into a binary-stream (a large string of 0's and 1's) and then compare the size!
3) Even if you're trying to compress a binary stream, dividing it by 2 will at most create one decimal algarism, if you try dividing for 4 you'll at most get 2 decimal algarisms, but if you try to do it with a number not multiple of 2 you're doomed...
4) It's stupid. Deal with it
> Hopefully, if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn this decision,
:-(
> then at least people will get outraged enough that they will
> write to their lawmakers to quickly remedy this problem. It's
> not just Slashbots that worry about privacy in email, this is a
> clear enough danger that I'm sure the non-IT public would be
> shocked if they heard about what was going on.
Unfortunatly I can't have the same optimistic oppinion as you... People care, but they don't care enough: if there are software patents, if there are stupid laws and stupid turn-arounds to not-so-stupid laws, why would this go into a different path?
We saw this happen countless times...
Fortunatly...
:-))
1) I'm not in USA;
2) I use gpg;
3) I'm wearing that t-shirt.
This is just as wrong as stupid: makes me remember how 2600 lost in court making links to illegal stuff illegal, when, after, others won in the same court prooving linking is just linking, not illegal (good for Google
It's frustrating when we clearly see that the laws are just bendable...
> Rule 1) The purpose of patents is to encourage innovation.
No it's not: that's the purpose of IP, licenses, copyright...
The purpose of patents is to grant monopolies to have new ways of getting it's monopoly bigger and stronger.
So... Why use FreeS/WAN when we can use in-kernel implementation? The only cenarion when it's better to use it is where we're going to communicate with other FreeS/WAN nodes, since (as I said before) it's interoperabillity sucks.
Not that I never used Openswan so I don't know if the issues pointed out to FreeS/WAN are still there. Anyway, the fact that 2.6 already has an IPSec implementation still exists, and seeing that Openswan uses 2.6's native IPsec stack, wouldn't it be better that they submit their implementation to kernel.org's kernel instead of building their implementation?
Damn, I know what "KISS" is, but in that context I thought he was spaking about a "bulletin system + chat" technology called KISS or something like that...
There are still LOT's of users (specially on companies) who use 800x600 resollutions, and that will be the standard until nobody uses that...
There are still BBSs like that, but most people who like that kind of communities usually end up in talkers...
Anyway, the best thing I can imagine for this system is not a BBS nor a MUD, but a Talker.
Although that raises another question... Why the hell should number of lines be more important than number of bytes? After all in C you can type everything on a line and Python makes you have the need to have identation. Is it bad? No! You can have a smaller program (in bytes) on Python, and one a lot bigger written in C but with less lines.
Both are good...
Size in bytes can be very important when, for instance, you're programming something to run in, let's say, a printer.
With that kind of space limitation, the smaller the better (even if heavier to run).
Which makes your post just redundant.
Want to see some prior art on the TODO issue? See Delphi.
Not all of us didn't read the patent. But sure, I agree that /. articles shouldn't lead to the mistakes they sometimes do.
Not if Software Patents come to Europe...
Yes, but I browser their CVS repository and that feature was implemented only on 2002. :-(
Too bad it's not prior art, it dates 2002... But there's already Prior Art found (just read the other comments...)
There were (smaller) other companies in the past that didn't sell-out to Microsoft...
Hmmm...
It's quite obvious that Microsoft didn't bought SAP because they couldn't (either because SAP didn't want it or something else).
I just wonder if they're going to try to buy Oracle, PeopleSoft or Siebel...
And a good browser isn't supposed to crash with bad code. If it does, it's buggy.
Mozilla has lot's of more features, is a lot more functional and stable then IE. Of course that shouldn't even bother you since you use Opera... But there's Opera for Linux too! Unless Opera's Linux version is buggy (I don't know) I don't see your point.
On word processing... I don't use word processors, only editors (difference between notpad/M$ word, I guess). I use gvim and when need a formated text I use LaTeX. But even not being a user of that type of software, if you see the previous stories here on
About OS X, I'm using it more and more (in two machines, one because It's the only choice, and the other because I only can use that machine or a windoze one: easy choice...). Unfortunatly OS X isn't as stable as Linux.
Yes, sometimes defrag makes it possible... But, unfortunatly, sometimes it doesn't.
I genereally agree with your oppinion, tho there are some arguments I just don't catch.
;-)), but seeing the last reviews (see previous slashdot articles) OpenOffice is the only non-M$ alternative to M$ Offix, and it's not (yet) as good as the former (even if a lot less buggy...)
To give one (and only) examples, you talk about word vs. vi (or emacs), but you have to notice that word is a word processor, vi is a word editor (like notepad). I don't use word processors at all (LaTeX is the way to go
Either than small stuff like that, nice point of view.