Parent has a point. It is a hell of a lot easier to write applications, especially business apps, in a managed language like c# or java. And this is of course where such languages excel. Business and in house apps never really need the efficiency and level of detail that c++ can offer. Mostly they just need to read and write databases and display formatted records. managed languages offer easier coding, and most importantly, standardised APIs to help developers do this. They are the way to go for most business apps.
Having said that, such languages should not be used for apps expecting a heavy load and/or many users. c/c++ is still a much better way to go for major backend applications, games, and for restricted platforms(for now). These apps will always need to squeeze every last drop from the CPU, and since Moores law seems to have subsided for the moment, maybe we'll need that sooner than you think?
Yes c/c++ gives you enough rope to hang yourself, but a lot of people still need that rope.
You do have a point. As yet there is really no linux equivilent for Windows media player. It would be nice not to have to go through ultra confusing menus when I want to play a DVD.(xine) No I don't know why dvd:// isn't working. I don't care. It would be nice to have a GUI at all in some cases(mplayer). xmms seems to work and work well. Rhythmbox isn't half bad either. But as yet no-one has developed the difinitive Linux dvd solution.
I wish these guys a lot of luck. Free (as in freedom) distros are important. If FOSS ever gets big enough that the big shots will take shots at it, via copyright issues, patents etc, then distros like GNU-Darwin may provide a refuge. Or at least won't stop working when private companies recall all their linux binaries. This is kind of what Redhat fear I suppose. Hence no DVD or MP3 support in fedora.
Unlikely? People would have said a situation like the SCO debauckle was unlikely. If companies supplying Linux binaries and tools are threated with cross licensing fees from a big company like MicroSoft, Oracle, Adobe or others, do you think they'll stand up for FOSS?
Actually is there an all free Linux distro? What's the linux equivilent of GNU-Darwin?
Lokitorrent never once directly involved itself in the transfer of (possibly) copyrighted material. Lokitorrent was just a server with a bunch of scripts that went out to the web and searched for torrents that other people were posting.
Is Lokitorrent at fault if there are people out there who post movies? Is Google fault if they post a link to Lokitorrent, or to sites with infringing files?
Just what was copyright infringing about the torrent files anyway? The torrent files were mearly links to the infringing files. What we have here is a supreme case of guilt by association. Lokitorrent know where movies can be found. They tell you, but only if you ask. I'll bet that not a byte, not one single bit, of copyright infringing material ever passed through Lokitorrents server. So what crime exactly are they guilty of?
People seem to feel that the MPAA claiming copyright on movies is a good argument. It isn't. Why the hell should movies be copyrighted? A movie is(was) just an audio visual represenation of a play. The play is covered by copyright, but why should a performance of the play be copyrighted. Copyright was developed to prevent plagarism of books and maps. Why should it apply to audio-visual media. Because Hollywood wouldn't make a lot of money if it didn't? Well, what if I want to make money from my maths equations? Why can't I claim copyright over them and get a lot of patents? What makes maths less copyrightable than a sound? A sound for christs sake!??!
Hollywood and the music industry want to keep copyrighting acoustic and electrical waveforms. The logical conclusion of this, is that the industries will eventually charge you money for keeping the memory of these waveforms in your head. Why shouldn't they? You are keeping a "copy" aren't you?
If the unthinkable happened and Steve Jobs started working for Redhat and brought Linux to the desktop, would Microsoft use its patent portfolio to reduce the threat?
So what your saying, in very obtrusive formatting style, is that Valve is fighting the man by becoming the man!! Very ironic. I guess your right. Let's all praise Valve for saving our rights... by taking them away!
I for one welcome our new anti-game-publisher overlords.
I think we can all safely say that no matter how successful, or not, microsoft will be in the years ahead, the millions of users trained from birth to believe that windows id the worlds only operating system are unlikely to move en masse to the alternatives.
Re:I appreciate the effort but...
on
EFF's Logfinder
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Most MCSE trained, NT sysadms don't really have a complete understanding of their servers and how they work. Most are just part time admins, doubling up as postmasters, network support and helldesk frontliners. A great many Windows server administrators are simply in fact, the company management accountant, who may never have recieved any computer training whatsoever! Many will not know where to begin looking for files without googling for the answer. This issue stems from the poor quality of the MCSE courses about, rather than from organisational difficulties with the NT servers themselves.
Admittedly NT logfiles are slightly more organised than *nix logfiles. Most will at least be under c:\Windows\system rather than spread over/etc/var/usr/root/usr/X11 and even (I kid you not)/bin. The rather haphazard way different programs save their files about *nix systems can be a headache sometimes. It would be nice if someone would standardise the process. However, such a thing has been tried with disasterous results, i.e. the windows registry, so I guess I should be careful what I wish for!
In short, competant *nix admins will know most of the many location where their important daemons are storing logfiles. NT admins on the other hand, many not even know what daemons are running on the machine anymore, let alone where they store their log files!
P.S. Hey wait! This is a python app. I guess NT admins will just have to keep on googling.
RSA patented the unpatentable. They patented a mathematical method, and then with the blessing of the USPTO they proceeded to set back the course of internet commerce for years! If it wasn't for RSA, 1024 bit encryption would have been standard years ago and we'd all be living with more secure communications. Web browsers have only recently been able to support higher level encryption, and most apps don't usually support secure communication and transportation of data. Why? Because RSA were granted one of the most obnoxious and unethical monopolies in recent history.
Their monopoly gave them breathing room, yes. Is this required to nurture a growing software industry? NO! One (hyphanated) word. IBM-Compatable. If it weren't for reverse engineering, IBM-compatables would never have been so cheap. Apple would have dominated. But there was so much competition, the PC industry flourished. Take a look at early word processors, spreadsheets, etc. There was huge comptetition in the early days. Mostly gone now. Why? rippling Software patents might have something to do with it?
I say again. The RSA patent was invalid. It was a mathematical algoritm. By granting their patent, the USPTO stifiled encryption innnovation in computer products by two decades. We are all years behind where we should be. Sure RSA made a lot of money licensing their mathematics, but the rest of us suffered. I still don't have secure email. I mean Jesus, it's only the worlds most important communication method! An yet it's still a pain in the ass to get even 128bit encryption emails as the recipient usually can't decrypt your mail. Here's one perfect example of how patents have set back all our standards of living.
I can see that you are in favour of software patents. Admittedly they butter your bread, but they do precious little for anyone else. I believe in the free market and competition. And I know that software patents are anti-free market, anti-competative and ultimately a destructive force on our economy.
Am I against ALL patents? No. But software patents are just ridiculous. With any other patent, if I change the internal design of my product, just enough, so that it works differently than described by patent XYZ, then I'm not infringing. This encourages innovation. Products just keep getting better and better. However with software patents, no matter how I change my internal design and metrics, if the end result products does the same thing, then I have infringed on the patent. This is it. This is the crux. Under the current regieme the quickest, most buggy, and most inferior product is the one which is granted the monopoly. And the patent protects it from all comeers, no matter how innovative. Consumers suffer, competition suffers, the government suffers, even the patent holder willl eventually suffer as their company loes it competative edge.
If the current farce within the USPTO continues, then the entire patent system will come into question. Joe jobs will not distinguish between a bad software patent and a bad patent. If the general public ever get wind of the amount of idiotic software patents that have been granted then they will lose faith in the system as a whole. That's just another of the dangers that software patents hold for us. Just look around you. Look at all the bright young slashdotters. if they had gone into engineering or sciences, then they would be great supporters of the patent system. But they, largely, went into the computer industry, and many are now openly hostile to the patent system.
Software patents must end. They must all, without exception, be completely invalidated if the patent system is to have a shread of respectability left.
but using the time it takes to delete spam as the basis for determing its economic impact is ridiculous
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You say spam only takes 5 seconds to realise and delete. The spammer is only taking five seconds of your time. What's the big deal? He shouldn't have to pay for doing this to tens of thousands of people because it only wastes a few seconds of their time, right?
Wrong.
Lets take TV ads. A nice short five second TV ad. It only takes up five seconds of everyones time. Maybe millions of people are looking at it, but what's the big deal eh? So how come then advertisers pay millions of dollars every year in order that these five second ads be shown to viewers? Same goes for ads on billboards, radio magazines, blimps, football stadia, buses, T-shirts, people's foreheads and on web banners. They should all be free right?
But spam is even worse than all these other forms of advertising because you cannot ignore spam. You must take the time to recognise it and delete it. If someone sends you spam you cannot look away. With all other forms of advertising, bar junk mail, it costs you the same amount of effort and time to look at the ad as it does not to. That's yet another reason why spam is so evil.
Spam is profitable. That's a fundamental fact. You need to make it either illegal or unprofitable or both. But how to do this without killing regular email? See the ant-spam response sheet for more info on that one.
Yet more hijinks from the Intellectual property mafia. I mean, here is a group of people, providing translation services for free, and what does the company do? It sues them!
Any half way wise business person would have made some kind of partnership with fansubbing groups already. Selling digital content is also an obvious step for a niche market such as this, where it is too expensive to sell physical media to a relatively small audience(ref iTunes). However, instead of taking the sane and profitable alternative, these companies instead waste, possibly thousands of dollars, filing cease and desist letter and doing legal research and other such bull. It's getting to the point where if someone who hasn't paid for your product has seen, even a segement of it, then some form of copyright theft has taken place. Companies seem to treat their intellectual property as sacrosant these days, with absolutely no consideration whatsoever for any distrobution method that isn't single physical copy.
Are the fansubbers infringing copyright? By subtitling, no. By releasing the video on the net? Probobly yes. Are they performing a service for which there is a demand? Yes! So here we have at least one example of copyright law retarding economic development. Not that this makes it fully OK. Just an example of how the IP Nazis may not be as good for the economy as previously thought.
This is yet another case that seriously shakes my faith in the entire intellectual property argument. Linking is illegal? Linking to what? What exactly did he link to? Ones and Zeros, that's what! Oh well these ones and zeros represent a song! Big whup!
Copyright should not apply to music. Think about it! What the hell is a song anyway? Words, lyrics, musical notation? Sure copyright can apply to all these things. But the act of someone singing the song itself? Who the hell decided that should be the subject of copyright?!
If Mettalica sing a song, at a concert, and I'm at the concert, or even outside it!, and I record the song on my handy gizmo, am I libel for copyright theft? What the hell did I steal? The changes in pressure in the air? Why the hell is an acoustic waveform the subject of copyright?! The written word yes. The spoken word?
OK Mettalica walk down the street and out loud say XYZ. I take down and print what they have said XYZ in as many ways as I like. I can record them doing so and show it to as many as I like, tabloids do this all he time. Am I liable? Mettalica walk down the street and out loud sing, or hum, ABC(which is one of their songs). I record them doing so and broadcast it? Am I Liable? Yes?! Why! Why their singing is copyrighted of course! Ridiculous.
I take the view that if you keep material in solid definite form, i.e. paper or digital storage, then copyright is still a sane idea. However, if you broadcast it in any way, singing, radio or TV transmission etc, I have essentially copied it an infinite, or more realistically, the maximum number of time it can possibly be copied. By broadcasting music over TV and radio, a copyright owner has already copied their material enough so that in theory everyone on earth sees that copy. At this point, trying to hold onto copyright of any sort is ludacrous. You just gave out as many copys as you possibly can. How can you still claim that you are a reasonable custodian of the material.
Anyway, at this point, I'm driven to come to this conclusion. Copyright cannot be applied to nondefinite, unwritten material. Bad this happen if this is the case.
Some people say that the linux desktop will never happen. And to be honest, sometimes, when the latest version of Gnome or KDE comes about and screws everything up, I almost agree with them.
But just take a look at OSX. Unix, that Mac users can use!? Surely you're joking Mr Jobs. But he's not.
What's the difference here? Why is apple able to make a usable gui interface for unix, and yet, after years of development Gnome and KDE have not? Which is not to say that advances haven't been made. Far from it. Linux is more usable now than ever. But it still isn't as usable as it could be. Linus is not yet at the stage where developers can sit back and say "Ahhh! Now there's a usable system". Dispite all efforts Aunt Tillie still cannot use Linux! Why is this? What is the reason for Linux's failure and OSx's success. This question needs to be addressed.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's that Microsoft and Apple take a wholistic view of the OS and Gui, changing fundamental configurations in the OS layer to better facilitate GUI use and administration. Whereas linux window managers are just that. They must change themselves to fit the linux OS paradigms, which may not fit so well to the GUI paradigm. Gnome and KDE cannot change fundamental aspects of the OS and so must work around them, where as Microsoft and Apple can change one to fit the other. Well, that's my best guess anyway.
This discussion is pretty interesting. Speaking from personal expierience I can safely say I've never really used a version control system until yesterday when I started downloading the cvs version of vegastrike(it's still going). I am ashamed of this fact, in case you think I'm not. i really wish I'd "discovered" them sooner.
I've worked in two programming jobs. One, didn't have any VCS at all. Files were copied one by one. The only "version" was the zipped folder that got emailed to everyone. The second job had a VCS, visual source safe to be exact, but people only used that for the companies legal documents. None of the programmers used it except to check in their code after six months solo work.
Never once in almost four years of university education have I been exposed to any sort of version control system. Then again, in my university, none of the the programmers can use Linux, of any flavour. Most can't use visual studio either... Hmmm. Yup, all our programming lecturers are pretty much incompetant. In any case, such courses exist, so don't be too surprised by coders that can only compile one source file, static programs on windows platforms only. But I digress.
I always wanted to get into some kind of cvs/subversion type VCS, but I never had the oppertunity(or the training). Hopefully by participating in a sourceforge project I will.
P.S. cvs rocks for downloading apps. Forget cutouts when downloading some 20MB tarball. Just get the cvs download and you'll get the files one by one with download resuming built in. Yes, yes that's not the point of cvs, but I'm on a dialup that drops connections all over the place.
Parent is absolutely right. Studies comparing and contrasting large groups are not very difinitive statements.
Why should a woman be penalised when applying for a maths job because the average of womens performance in maths tests is less than the average of mens performance in maths tests. I would wager the reasons for this is outliers in the male and female populations as a result of social conditions. How convienient that these figure always leave out the standard deviation, without which, the mean is a virtually useless number. But the same can be said for most studies.
A woman applying for a mathematics job should be compared only with others competing for that job. Male and female groups who actually apply for these jobs will no doubt have a close to +/-3%(avg margin of error) difference in average scores in aptitute tests. Because they are mathematicians.
Lets take another example, (on the other foot). Only a minority of drivers drive dangerously. However a majority of this minority is male. Therefore men pay more than women for car insurance. Is this valid? What are the reasons for the majority of the minority being men? Is it genetics(the new buzzword for eugenics) or is it social? Why do some men drive dangerously? Is it because of their genes, or is it because hollywood and magazines (and car companies) encourage them to? Why should I be penalised for this? I don't watch such films or read such magazines. A paticular woman might, and may drive dangerously. Yet she enjoys the benifits of the lower average of her group score, while I am penalised, through no fault of my own. Why can't subscribers to sports car magazines be charged more? Or people who buy movies with gratuitous car chase scenes. They chose to do these things. I couldn't choose. I was simply born the "wrong" way, and am thus penalised. But hey? The statistics "prove" I'm a worse driver right?
Car insurance costs might get the goat of some, but what happens if your passed over by employers, passed over for promotion and discriminated against because a study says "Hey! On average, women score less in math exams.". Completely irrelevent are your personal results, which seem to be reduced by a factor whenever compared to the opposing genders. Is this fair? Should your entire life be dictated by how the outliers of your gender/race/creed/age group behave? By combining results into misrepresenational averages and then passing these averages off as fact, researchers do disservice to everyone. People need to be compared to their peers for relevent data, not to the population as a whole.
I think all of us should pause for a moment and thank the Gods for XP SP2's security center's automatic download and installation over BITS feature. At least know we know that these updates stand slightly more chance than a snowball in hell of being installed on a friend/neighbours/relatives machine that's been seen to by helpful slashdotters over christmas.
SP2, well yeah, hardly perfect I know. But you've got to love the fact that (l)users are now forefully made aware of possible(read inevitable) security problems as they arise.
That's what's missing from all these articles discussing the effect of video games on children( read teenagers). Obviously the perpetually outraged and frantic will say OF COURSE playing GTA will turn my child into a monster. OF COURSE games are profoundly effecting my child more than TV advertising and church. OF COURSE my precious doughnut's failing are due only to [INSERT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE HERE] and are in no way a reflection of my own shortcomings.
Can anyone actually prove such statements? Can anyone show me one single study undertaken to show that playing (violent) video games will seriously damage a childs mental state and/or development to the same extent or greater than TV, advertising, movies, church and/or copying their parents. I mean, is there a single shred of verifiable scientific evidence out there that shows that teenagers playing video games are in fact scarred for life.
Here's a blatently unsubstanciated statement for you. I personally think that people who have played RPG's like Final Fantasy VII, become better people because of it. Do I have evidence? No. Should you believe me? You can if you like. Should the government pass laws requiring everyone to play Final Fantasy VII based only on my unsupported hearsay? Why yes! OF COURSE they should! Think of the children!!
It IS the limit! Games on all consoles are 60 euros everywhere on the continent. It's ridiculous. I cite it as the primary reason why I have stopped buying games as much as I used to. I hate getting burned by a meriocre title for so much money.
This situation is paticluarly inexcusable as games are only ~$50 in the states, which is now close to 40 euros! In fact the exchange rate is so favourable, I'm getting my console chipped and will be importing US games from now on.
Re:Hardware resources and software design
on
Where's My 10 Ghz PC?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No, you cannot retrofit quality and performance into a software project.
Quality does not nessessarily mean optimised code. For many customers it is more important to get code that works, doesn't crash and gets there yesterday. And if it's slow they'll either wait for an update or their next 10GHz PC!:E
Efficient code is a part of quality, but how important it is depends greatly on the customer. For video games and email servers, very important, for kernels... well we'd all rather a secure kernel that doesn't crash over an dodgy uber effient one. At least.... I would anyway.
Like all things it depends on what you want and what the programmer can realistically deliver.
It is worth noting, that for a desktop OS to survive in the long term, it needs games!
The reason for this is simple. Just as a country's most important asset is its children, so too an OSes most important asset is its new users. Without new users, any OS would quickly crumble. And what's the best way of getting newbies to flock to your OS? Good question, but games would be my first answer.
Everyone begins life as a clueless newbie. Yes everyone! From Anonymous Cowards to Stallmanesque gurus. We all learn our skills bit by bit, and computer games play their part. Through playing and using computer games and other "lesiure" applications, like instant messengers, P2P apps and browsing "kewl" internet sites, the clueless newbie slowly learns new skills and gradually evolves to a script kiddie and onto the 311t h4ck0r!!11 and then onto regular tech head status. Those that don't, simply become more proficient and comfortable with their OS, and hence the OSes future is secured.
I think that games play a vital role in the lifecycle of a mainstream OS. I can safely say that because of games, I learned the basics of computing years before I would otherwise have. As a simple example, consider solitare and minesweeper. Sure they cost the economy millions in lost time, but without them millions more would be wasted training people how to use the mouse. Give anyone solitare to play and they will be a wizard with the mouse in half an hour. Aunt Tillies included!
A trivial example perhaps, but give a teenager Doom III or Command and Conquer, and they'll soon grasp extremely basic concepts like, "You need to save your progress", "Your files go here", "Computers (AI) are not smart. Computer needs to be told what to do" and "You need to install a program to get it to work". Seem absurd? Ask any Helldesk frontliners if they'd like their users to know this. Simple basics, but many may go on to download patches and updates (users familiar with updates!!), expierience crashes (computer isn't "broken") , fiddle with ini files, or even mess with the ingame console commands, if they exist. The social aspect of computer gaming is also helpful, as young people will learn quickly if some 311t is scoffing at them because they cannot zip a file (many teenagers can't you know). And so they learn. The regular PC gamer considers him/herself a regular whiz at the computer, is much more comfortable with their OS, and will need far less training in later life. Neat eh?
But there's a downside to eight year olds being able to email and browse the net. They learn on one OS, and guess what OS they'll gravitate towards in later life? Windows will be dominant for the next 30 years! At least! Why? Because an entire generation has grown up on windows games, windows messangers, windows emails and windows apps! A whole generation! These users view Linux as a scary, dark place filled will danger and elite hackers, just as new windows users view ALL computers as scary, dark places filled will danger and elite hackers. I fear that the generation that grew up on winamp, kazaa and half-life is lost to Linux. They have grown up on Windows! Grown up on the windows paradigms and concepts. They understand C:\ not / , 'Program Files' not 'usr', installshield not rpm. I doubt if these people will ever leave the Microsoft fold en masse. Some might, but the majority will stick to what they know.
Linux needs to be newbie friendly! It must have games! Killer app games, big hulking 3D extravaganzas, with all the driver support FOSS can offer. Plug and play needs to be standard. We need distros like gaming Knoppix now! If Linux doesn't get game, then it will lose another generation of potential penguins to the bitter chill of a OS devoid of gaming richness. Standardise Linux Gaming Now! Get P2P on the penguin!
I don't get it? Maybe its the online social thing or maybe the machoism? I don't know. I have Halo 2, finshed it on hard(but not legendary obviously). Played through it a good few times. It's probobly the best game on Xbox of 2004. You could argue for Fable as well, I won't disagree.
But to look me right in the eye, to my face, in all seriousness and tell me that GTA: San Andreas was not the best game of 2004 is quite plainly either outright lying or fanboyism gone mad!
Now, I'm no fanboy. I gave up the console patriotism thing years ago. But in all fairness, San Andreas is an absolutely mind blowing game. I understand that many might not have had the chance to play it, but anyone who has, just has to admit freely that it is completely unrivalled by any game that has come out in the last year. Completely unrivalled I say! Halo 2 was the more hyped game( actually most hyped game ever), and is the best FPS this year, but that will not disguise the fact that it simply not a better game than San Andreas. Not better. No way. This isn't fanboyism. Play San Andreas. See the size! The scope for christs sake.
Now I understand the whole, Halo/Xbox is American, Oh-rah, Master Chief rocks!, phenomeon. And that's OK! Halo 2 is awesome. Fantastic even. But I'm afraid that only the deprived, deluded, overzealous and bribed will hold it over San Andreas.
Happily the board seems to be clear of moaning about the security risk of root. I mean let's be realistic. If anyone can actually get there hands on any sysadms password if said super user had more than three brain cells, then they could probobly comprimise the entire system anyway no matter what security measures were in place.
Occassionally people do fret, "Is root to powerful? Did we make it too powerful?" Root's nothing an NT domain controller isn't anyway, and they never complain about that. On top of that, what other solutions are there? Multiple system controllers responsible for various critical systems? If even one fails the system will. No. Somehow, someway, someday, someone will need all seeing all knowing access to the system. The kernel has it anyway, so realistically some human being should have access.
Seriously, we have chroot jails, 5 second password delays, random password generators etc. The unix chaps even introduced su which they would never have done if they considered root to much of a security risk. That said, needing such awesome capabilities just to install minor programs, libraries and plug and play devices might give justification to calls for greater grainularity. However, most sysadms are tyrants anyway, and would probobly revoke such privilages on sight!
Gratis Inc can burn in hell!! They are slobbering data hungry bastards who resort to tactics usually in the domain of spammers and child pornographers to get their greasy hands on peoples demographic data. At least "demographic data" is how they euphamise private, and personal data mining, with blatant disregard for the privacy and dignity of their victims. And offering illegal pyramid schemes to idiots who put money above their friends disgusts me even more. If I found out that someone I knew was selling off my details to such scum as Gratis, I tell everyone I knew that that person was an untrustworthy snake, and I would personally never have any business with them ever again. Idiot slashdotters with such sigs should be modded down, ASAP!
Personal data is on a need to know basis, and these filty data rapers do not need to know. They know my name, address, salary, habit, likes, dislikes and then squeal to lawmakers when honest people try to stop all this unethical behaviour. But if I was to try to find out their companies address, revenue, business contacts etc... I would be a criminal trespassers and would promptly be burned at the stake for my libertarian heresy against the corpratocracy.
I will not believe, and noone will persuade me, that this is all OK. So much personal data in the hands of private companies cannot lead to anything good. At best we can hope for a deluge of offers and junk mail, at worst we can hope for blackmail, surveillance and authoritatrianism. Extreme I grant you, but made ever more possible by the dispicable actions of the likes of Gratis Inc.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to see one concrete example of run-time optimisation being used in the real world.
Please, enlighten me.
Parent has a point. It is a hell of a lot easier to write applications, especially business apps, in a managed language like c# or java. And this is of course where such languages excel. Business and in house apps never really need the efficiency and level of detail that c++ can offer. Mostly they just need to read and write databases and display formatted records. managed languages offer easier coding, and most importantly, standardised APIs to help developers do this. They are the way to go for most business apps.
Having said that, such languages should not be used for apps expecting a heavy load and/or many users. c/c++ is still a much better way to go for major backend applications, games, and for restricted platforms(for now). These apps will always need to squeeze every last drop from the CPU, and since Moores law seems to have subsided for the moment, maybe we'll need that sooner than you think?
Yes c/c++ gives you enough rope to hang yourself, but a lot of people still need that rope.
You do have a point.
As yet there is really no linux equivilent for Windows media player. It would be nice not to have to go through ultra confusing menus when I want to play a DVD.(xine) No I don't know why dvd:// isn't working. I don't care. It would be nice to have a GUI at all in some cases(mplayer).
xmms seems to work and work well. Rhythmbox isn't half bad either. But as yet no-one has developed the difinitive Linux dvd solution.
I wish these guys a lot of luck. Free (as in freedom) distros are important. If FOSS ever gets big enough that the big shots will take shots at it, via copyright issues, patents etc, then distros like GNU-Darwin may provide a refuge. Or at least won't stop working when private companies recall all their linux binaries. This is kind of what Redhat fear I suppose. Hence no DVD or MP3 support in fedora.
Unlikely? People would have said a situation like the SCO debauckle was unlikely. If companies supplying Linux binaries and tools are threated with cross licensing fees from a big company like MicroSoft, Oracle, Adobe or others, do you think they'll stand up for FOSS?
Actually is there an all free Linux distro? What's the linux equivilent of GNU-Darwin?
Lokitorrent never once directly involved itself in the transfer of (possibly) copyrighted material. Lokitorrent was just a server with a bunch of scripts that went out to the web and searched for torrents that other people were posting.
Is Lokitorrent at fault if there are people out there who post movies?
Is Google fault if they post a link to Lokitorrent, or to sites with infringing files?
Just what was copyright infringing about the torrent files anyway? The torrent files were mearly links to the infringing files. What we have here is a supreme case of guilt by association. Lokitorrent know where movies can be found. They tell you, but only if you ask. I'll bet that not a byte, not one single bit, of copyright infringing material ever passed through Lokitorrents server. So what crime exactly are they guilty of?
People seem to feel that the MPAA claiming copyright on movies is a good argument. It isn't. Why the hell should movies be copyrighted? A movie is(was) just an audio visual represenation of a play. The play is covered by copyright, but why should a performance of the play be copyrighted. Copyright was developed to prevent plagarism of books and maps. Why should it apply to audio-visual media. Because Hollywood wouldn't make a lot of money if it didn't? Well, what if I want to make money from my maths equations? Why can't I claim copyright over them and get a lot of patents? What makes maths less copyrightable than a sound? A sound for christs sake!??!
Hollywood and the music industry want to keep copyrighting acoustic and electrical waveforms. The logical conclusion of this, is that the industries will eventually charge you money for keeping the memory of these waveforms in your head. Why shouldn't they? You are keeping a "copy" aren't you?
Hopefully all this FUD from MicroSoft will spur FOSS developers into adopting more security measures.
If the unthinkable happened and Steve Jobs started working for Redhat and brought Linux to the desktop, would Microsoft use its patent portfolio to reduce the threat?
So what your saying, in very obtrusive formatting style, is that Valve is fighting the man by becoming the man!! Very ironic. I guess your right. Let's all praise Valve for saving our rights... by taking them away!
I for one welcome our new anti-game-publisher overlords.
I think we can all safely say that no matter how successful, or not, microsoft will be in the years ahead, the millions of users trained from birth to believe that windows id the worlds only operating system are unlikely to move en masse to the alternatives.
Most MCSE trained, NT sysadms don't really have a complete understanding of their servers and how they work. Most are just part time admins, doubling up as postmasters, network support and helldesk frontliners. A great many Windows server administrators are simply in fact, the company management accountant, who may never have recieved any computer training whatsoever! Many will not know where to begin looking for files without googling for the answer. This issue stems from the poor quality of the MCSE courses about, rather than from organisational difficulties with the NT servers themselves.
/etc /var /usr /root /usr/X11 and even (I kid you not) /bin. The rather haphazard way different programs save their files about *nix systems can be a headache sometimes. It would be nice if someone would standardise the process. However, such a thing has been tried with disasterous results, i.e. the windows registry, so I guess I should be careful what I wish for!
Admittedly NT logfiles are slightly more organised than *nix logfiles. Most will at least be under c:\Windows\system rather than spread over
In short, competant *nix admins will know most of the many location where their important daemons are storing logfiles. NT admins on the other hand, many not even know what daemons are running on the machine anymore, let alone where they store their log files!
P.S.
Hey wait! This is a python app. I guess NT admins will just have to keep on googling.
Rubbish!
RSA patented the unpatentable. They patented a mathematical method, and then with the blessing of the USPTO they proceeded to set back the course of internet commerce for years! If it wasn't for RSA, 1024 bit encryption would have been standard years ago and we'd all be living with more secure communications. Web browsers have only recently been able to support higher level encryption, and most apps don't usually support secure communication and transportation of data. Why? Because RSA were granted one of the most obnoxious and unethical monopolies in recent history.
Their monopoly gave them breathing room, yes. Is this required to nurture a growing software industry? NO! One (hyphanated) word. IBM-Compatable. If it weren't for reverse engineering, IBM-compatables would never have been so cheap. Apple would have dominated. But there was so much competition, the PC industry flourished. Take a look at early word processors, spreadsheets, etc. There was huge comptetition in the early days. Mostly gone now. Why? rippling Software patents might have something to do with it?
I say again. The RSA patent was invalid. It was a mathematical algoritm. By granting their patent, the USPTO stifiled encryption innnovation in computer products by two decades. We are all years behind where we should be. Sure RSA made a lot of money licensing their mathematics, but the rest of us suffered. I still don't have secure email. I mean Jesus, it's only the worlds most important communication method! An yet it's still a pain in the ass to get even 128bit encryption emails as the recipient usually can't decrypt your mail. Here's one perfect example of how patents have set back all our standards of living.
I can see that you are in favour of software patents. Admittedly they butter your bread, but they do precious little for anyone else. I believe in the free market and competition. And I know that software patents are anti-free market, anti-competative and ultimately a destructive force on our economy.
Am I against ALL patents? No. But software patents are just ridiculous. With any other patent, if I change the internal design of my product, just enough, so that it works differently than described by patent XYZ, then I'm not infringing. This encourages innovation. Products just keep getting better and better. However with software patents, no matter how I change my internal design and metrics, if the end result products does the same thing, then I have infringed on the patent. This is it. This is the crux. Under the current regieme the quickest, most buggy, and most inferior product is the one which is granted the monopoly. And the patent protects it from all comeers, no matter how innovative. Consumers suffer, competition suffers, the government suffers, even the patent holder willl eventually suffer as their company loes it competative edge.
If the current farce within the USPTO continues, then the entire patent system will come into question. Joe jobs will not distinguish between a bad software patent and a bad patent. If the general public ever get wind of the amount of idiotic software patents that have been granted then they will lose faith in the system as a whole. That's just another of the dangers that software patents hold for us. Just look around you. Look at all the bright young slashdotters. if they had gone into engineering or sciences, then they would be great supporters of the patent system. But they, largely, went into the computer industry, and many are now openly hostile to the patent system.
Software patents must end. They must all, without exception, be completely invalidated if the patent system is to have a shread of respectability left.
but using the time it takes to delete spam as the basis for determing its economic impact is ridiculous
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You say spam only takes 5 seconds to realise and delete. The spammer is only taking five seconds of your time. What's the big deal? He shouldn't have to pay for doing this to tens of thousands of people because it only wastes a few seconds of their time, right?
Wrong.
Lets take TV ads. A nice short five second TV ad. It only takes up five seconds of everyones time. Maybe millions of people are looking at it, but what's the big deal eh? So how come then advertisers pay millions of dollars every year in order that these five second ads be shown to viewers? Same goes for ads on billboards, radio magazines, blimps, football stadia, buses, T-shirts, people's foreheads and on web banners. They should all be free right?
But spam is even worse than all these other forms of advertising because you cannot ignore spam. You must take the time to recognise it and delete it. If someone sends you spam you cannot look away. With all other forms of advertising, bar junk mail, it costs you the same amount of effort and time to look at the ad as it does not to. That's yet another reason why spam is so evil.
Spam is profitable. That's a fundamental fact. You need to make it either illegal or unprofitable or both. But how to do this without killing regular email? See the ant-spam response sheet for more info on that one.
Yet more hijinks from the Intellectual property mafia. I mean, here is a group of people, providing translation services for free, and what does the company do? It sues them!
Any half way wise business person would have made some kind of partnership with fansubbing groups already. Selling digital content is also an obvious step for a niche market such as this, where it is too expensive to sell physical media to a relatively small audience(ref iTunes). However, instead of taking the sane and profitable alternative, these companies instead waste, possibly thousands of dollars, filing cease and desist letter and doing legal research and other such bull. It's getting to the point where if someone who hasn't paid for your product has seen, even a segement of it, then some form of copyright theft has taken place. Companies seem to treat their intellectual property as sacrosant these days, with absolutely no consideration whatsoever for any distrobution method that isn't single physical copy.
Are the fansubbers infringing copyright? By subtitling, no. By releasing the video on the net? Probobly yes. Are they performing a service for which there is a demand? Yes! So here we have at least one example of copyright law retarding economic development. Not that this makes it fully OK. Just an example of how the IP Nazis may not be as good for the economy as previously thought.
This is yet another case that seriously shakes my faith in the entire intellectual property argument. Linking is illegal? Linking to what? What exactly did he link to? Ones and Zeros, that's what! Oh well these ones and zeros represent a song! Big whup!
Copyright should not apply to music. Think about it! What the hell is a song anyway? Words, lyrics, musical notation? Sure copyright can apply to all these things. But the act of someone singing the song itself? Who the hell decided that should be the subject of copyright?!
If Mettalica sing a song, at a concert, and I'm at the concert, or even outside it!, and I record the song on my handy gizmo, am I libel for copyright theft? What the hell did I steal? The changes in pressure in the air? Why the hell is an acoustic waveform the subject of copyright?! The written word yes. The spoken word?
OK Mettalica walk down the street and out loud say XYZ. I take down and print what they have said XYZ in as many ways as I like. I can record them doing so and show it to as many as I like, tabloids do this all he time. Am I liable? Mettalica walk down the street and out loud sing, or hum, ABC(which is one of their songs). I record them doing so and broadcast it? Am I Liable? Yes?! Why! Why their singing is copyrighted of course! Ridiculous.
I take the view that if you keep material in solid definite form, i.e. paper or digital storage, then copyright is still a sane idea. However, if you broadcast it in any way, singing, radio or TV transmission etc, I have essentially copied it an infinite, or more realistically, the maximum number of time it can possibly be copied. By broadcasting music over TV and radio, a copyright owner has already copied their material enough so that in theory everyone on earth sees that copy. At this point, trying to hold onto copyright of any sort is ludacrous. You just gave out as many copys as you possibly can. How can you still claim that you are a reasonable custodian of the material.
Anyway, at this point, I'm driven to come to this conclusion. Copyright cannot be applied to nondefinite, unwritten material. Bad this happen if this is the case.
Some people say that the linux desktop will never happen. And to be honest, sometimes, when the latest version of Gnome or KDE comes about and screws everything up, I almost agree with them.
But just take a look at OSX. Unix, that Mac users can use!? Surely you're joking Mr Jobs. But he's not.
What's the difference here? Why is apple able to make a usable gui interface for unix, and yet, after years of development Gnome and KDE have not? Which is not to say that advances haven't been made. Far from it. Linux is more usable now than ever. But it still isn't as usable as it could be. Linus is not yet at the stage where developers can sit back and say "Ahhh! Now there's a usable system". Dispite all efforts Aunt Tillie still cannot use Linux! Why is this? What is the reason for Linux's failure and OSx's success. This question needs to be addressed.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's that Microsoft and Apple take a wholistic view of the OS and Gui, changing fundamental configurations in the OS layer to better facilitate GUI use and administration. Whereas linux window managers are just that. They must change themselves to fit the linux OS paradigms, which may not fit so well to the GUI paradigm. Gnome and KDE cannot change fundamental aspects of the OS and so must work around them, where as Microsoft and Apple can change one to fit the other. Well, that's my best guess anyway.
This discussion is pretty interesting. Speaking from personal expierience I can safely say I've never really used a version control system until yesterday when I started downloading the cvs version of vegastrike(it's still going). I am ashamed of this fact, in case you think I'm not. i really wish I'd "discovered" them sooner.
I've worked in two programming jobs. One, didn't have any VCS at all. Files were copied one by one. The only "version" was the zipped folder that got emailed to everyone. The second job had a VCS, visual source safe to be exact, but people only used that for the companies legal documents. None of the programmers used it except to check in their code after six months solo work.
Never once in almost four years of university education have I been exposed to any sort of version control system. Then again, in my university, none of the the programmers can use Linux, of any flavour. Most can't use visual studio either... Hmmm. Yup, all our programming lecturers are pretty much incompetant. In any case, such courses exist, so don't be too surprised by coders that can only compile one source file, static programs on windows platforms only. But I digress.
I always wanted to get into some kind of cvs/subversion type VCS, but I never had the oppertunity(or the training). Hopefully by participating in a sourceforge project I will.
P.S.
cvs rocks for downloading apps. Forget cutouts when downloading some 20MB tarball. Just get the cvs download and you'll get the files one by one with download resuming built in. Yes, yes that's not the point of cvs, but I'm on a dialup that drops connections all over the place.
Parent is absolutely right. Studies comparing and contrasting large groups are not very difinitive statements.
Why should a woman be penalised when applying for a maths job because the average of womens performance in maths tests is less than the average of mens performance in maths tests. I would wager the reasons for this is outliers in the male and female populations as a result of social conditions. How convienient that these figure always leave out the standard deviation, without which, the mean is a virtually useless number. But the same can be said for most studies.
A woman applying for a mathematics job should be compared only with others competing for that job. Male and female groups who actually apply for these jobs will no doubt have a close to +/-3%(avg margin of error) difference in average scores in aptitute tests. Because they are mathematicians.
Lets take another example, (on the other foot). Only a minority of drivers drive dangerously. However a majority of this minority is male. Therefore men pay more than women for car insurance. Is this valid? What are the reasons for the majority of the minority being men? Is it genetics(the new buzzword for eugenics) or is it social? Why do some men drive dangerously? Is it because of their genes, or is it because hollywood and magazines (and car companies) encourage them to? Why should I be penalised for this? I don't watch such films or read such magazines. A paticular woman might, and may drive dangerously. Yet she enjoys the benifits of the lower average of her group score, while I am penalised, through no fault of my own. Why can't subscribers to sports car magazines be charged more? Or people who buy movies with gratuitous car chase scenes. They chose to do these things. I couldn't choose. I was simply born the "wrong" way, and am thus penalised. But hey? The statistics "prove" I'm a worse driver right?
Car insurance costs might get the goat of some, but what happens if your passed over by employers, passed over for promotion and discriminated against because a study says "Hey! On average, women score less in math exams.". Completely irrelevent are your personal results, which seem to be reduced by a factor whenever compared to the opposing genders. Is this fair? Should your entire life be dictated by how the outliers of your gender/race/creed/age group behave? By combining results into misrepresenational averages and then passing these averages off as fact, researchers do disservice to everyone. People need to be compared to their peers for relevent data, not to the population as a whole.
I think all of us should pause for a moment and thank the Gods for XP SP2's security center's automatic download and installation over BITS feature. At least know we know that these updates stand slightly more chance than a snowball in hell of being installed on a friend/neighbours/relatives machine that's been seen to by helpful slashdotters over christmas.
SP2, well yeah, hardly perfect I know. But you've got to love the fact that (l)users are now forefully made aware of possible(read inevitable) security problems as they arise.
Data, data, data.
That's what's missing from all these articles discussing the effect of video games on children( read teenagers). Obviously the perpetually outraged and frantic will say OF COURSE playing GTA will turn my child into a monster. OF COURSE games are profoundly effecting my child more than TV advertising and church. OF COURSE my precious doughnut's failing are due only to [INSERT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE HERE] and are in no way a reflection of my own shortcomings.
Can anyone actually prove such statements? Can anyone show me one single study undertaken to show that playing (violent) video games will seriously damage a childs mental state and/or development to the same extent or greater than TV, advertising, movies, church and/or copying their parents. I mean, is there a single shred of verifiable scientific evidence out there that shows that teenagers playing video games are in fact scarred for life.
Here's a blatently unsubstanciated statement for you. I personally think that people who have played RPG's like Final Fantasy VII, become better people because of it. Do I have evidence? No. Should you believe me? You can if you like. Should the government pass laws requiring everyone to play Final Fantasy VII based only on my unsupported hearsay? Why yes! OF COURSE they should! Think of the children!!
It IS the limit! Games on all consoles are 60 euros everywhere on the continent. It's ridiculous. I cite it as the primary reason why I have stopped buying games as much as I used to. I hate getting burned by a meriocre title for so much money.
This situation is paticluarly inexcusable as games are only ~$50 in the states, which is now close to 40 euros! In fact the exchange rate is so favourable, I'm getting my console chipped and will be importing US games from now on.
No, you cannot retrofit quality and performance into a software project.
:E
Quality does not nessessarily mean optimised code. For many customers it is more important to get code that works, doesn't crash and gets there yesterday. And if it's slow they'll either wait for an update or their next 10GHz PC!
Efficient code is a part of quality, but how important it is depends greatly on the customer. For video games and email servers, very important, for kernels... well we'd all rather a secure kernel that doesn't crash over an dodgy uber effient one. At least.... I would anyway.
Like all things it depends on what you want and what the programmer can realistically deliver.
It is worth noting, that for a desktop OS to survive in the long term, it needs games!
The reason for this is simple. Just as a country's most important asset is its children, so too an OSes most important asset is its new users. Without new users, any OS would quickly crumble. And what's the best way of getting newbies to flock to your OS? Good question, but games would be my first answer.
Everyone begins life as a clueless newbie. Yes everyone! From Anonymous Cowards to Stallmanesque gurus. We all learn our skills bit by bit, and computer games play their part. Through playing and using computer games and other "lesiure" applications, like instant messengers, P2P apps and browsing "kewl" internet sites, the clueless newbie slowly learns new skills and gradually evolves to a script kiddie and onto the 311t h4ck0r!!11 and then onto regular tech head status. Those that don't, simply become more proficient and comfortable with their OS, and hence the OSes future is secured.
I think that games play a vital role in the lifecycle of a mainstream OS. I can safely say that because of games, I learned the basics of computing years before I would otherwise have. As a simple example, consider solitare and minesweeper. Sure they cost the economy millions in lost time, but without them millions more would be wasted training people how to use the mouse. Give anyone solitare to play and they will be a wizard with the mouse in half an hour. Aunt Tillies included!
A trivial example perhaps, but give a teenager Doom III or Command and Conquer, and they'll soon grasp extremely basic concepts like, "You need to save your progress", "Your files go here", "Computers (AI) are not smart. Computer needs to be told what to do" and "You need to install a program to get it to work". Seem absurd? Ask any Helldesk frontliners if they'd like their users to know this. Simple basics, but many may go on to download patches and updates (users familiar with updates!!), expierience crashes (computer isn't "broken") , fiddle with ini files, or even mess with the ingame console commands, if they exist. The social aspect of computer gaming is also helpful, as young people will learn quickly if some 311t is scoffing at them because they cannot zip a file (many teenagers can't you know). And so they learn. The regular PC gamer considers him/herself a regular whiz at the computer, is much more comfortable with their OS, and will need far less training in later life. Neat eh?
But there's a downside to eight year olds being able to email and browse the net. They learn on one OS, and guess what OS they'll gravitate towards in later life? Windows will be dominant for the next 30 years! At least! Why? Because an entire generation has grown up on windows games, windows messangers, windows emails and windows apps! A whole generation! These users view Linux as a scary, dark place filled will danger and elite hackers, just as new windows users view ALL computers as scary, dark places filled will danger and elite hackers. I fear that the generation that grew up on winamp, kazaa and half-life is lost to Linux. They have grown up on Windows! Grown up on the windows paradigms and concepts. They understand C:\ not / , 'Program Files' not 'usr', installshield not rpm. I doubt if these people will ever leave the Microsoft fold en masse. Some might, but the majority will stick to what they know.
Linux needs to be newbie friendly! It must have games! Killer app games, big hulking 3D extravaganzas, with all the driver support FOSS can offer. Plug and play needs to be standard. We need distros like gaming Knoppix now! If Linux doesn't get game, then it will lose another generation of potential penguins to the bitter chill of a OS devoid of gaming richness. Standardise Linux Gaming Now! Get P2P on the penguin!
People have to be able to have fun in Linux!!
I don't get it? Maybe its the online social thing or maybe the machoism? I don't know. I have Halo 2, finshed it on hard(but not legendary obviously). Played through it a good few times. It's probobly the best game on Xbox of 2004. You could argue for Fable as well, I won't disagree.
But to look me right in the eye, to my face, in all seriousness and tell me that GTA: San Andreas was not the best game of 2004 is quite plainly either outright lying or fanboyism gone mad!
Now, I'm no fanboy. I gave up the console patriotism thing years ago. But in all fairness, San Andreas is an absolutely mind blowing game. I understand that many might not have had the chance to play it, but anyone who has, just has to admit freely that it is completely unrivalled by any game that has come out in the last year. Completely unrivalled I say! Halo 2 was the more hyped game( actually most hyped game ever), and is the best FPS this year, but that will not disguise the fact that it simply not a better game than San Andreas. Not better. No way. This isn't fanboyism. Play San Andreas. See the size! The scope for christs sake.
Now I understand the whole, Halo/Xbox is American, Oh-rah, Master Chief rocks!, phenomeon. And that's OK! Halo 2 is awesome. Fantastic even. But I'm afraid that only the deprived, deluded, overzealous and bribed will hold it over San Andreas.
root
Happily the board seems to be clear of moaning about the security risk of root. I mean let's be realistic. If anyone can actually get there hands on any sysadms password if said super user had more than three brain cells, then they could probobly comprimise the entire system anyway no matter what security measures were in place.
Occassionally people do fret, "Is root to powerful? Did we make it too powerful?" Root's nothing an NT domain controller isn't anyway, and they never complain about that. On top of that, what other solutions are there? Multiple system controllers responsible for various critical systems? If even one fails the system will. No. Somehow, someway, someday, someone will need all seeing all knowing access to the system. The kernel has it anyway, so realistically some human being should have access.
Seriously, we have chroot jails, 5 second password delays, random password generators etc. The unix chaps even introduced su which they would never have done if they considered root to much of a security risk. That said, needing such awesome capabilities just to install minor programs, libraries and plug and play devices might give justification to calls for greater grainularity. However, most sysadms are tyrants anyway, and would probobly revoke such privilages on sight!
root's not broken. Don't fix it.
Gratis Inc can burn in hell!! They are slobbering data hungry bastards who resort to tactics usually in the domain of spammers and child pornographers to get their greasy hands on peoples demographic data. At least "demographic data" is how they euphamise private, and personal data mining, with blatant disregard for the privacy and dignity of their victims. And offering illegal pyramid schemes to idiots who put money above their friends disgusts me even more. If I found out that someone I knew was selling off my details to such scum as Gratis, I tell everyone I knew that that person was an untrustworthy snake, and I would personally never have any business with them ever again. Idiot slashdotters with such sigs should be modded down, ASAP!
Personal data is on a need to know basis, and these filty data rapers do not need to know. They know my name, address, salary, habit, likes, dislikes and then squeal to lawmakers when honest people try to stop all this unethical behaviour. But if I was to try to find out their companies address, revenue, business contacts etc... I would be a criminal trespassers and would promptly be burned at the stake for my libertarian heresy against the corpratocracy.
I will not believe, and noone will persuade me, that this is all OK. So much personal data in the hands of private companies cannot lead to anything good. At best we can hope for a deluge of offers and junk mail, at worst we can hope for blackmail, surveillance and authoritatrianism. Extreme I grant you, but made ever more possible by the dispicable actions of the likes of Gratis Inc.