Uhm, if you mean combine the two pipes (on separate subnets) into one, no, that won't work. If you mean take two interfaces and multiplex the gateways, well, that would have so much latency as to not be worth it.
Why is this marked as troll? Cohen goes on about his "SELF-DIAGNOSED" Asperger's in every single fucking interview about him. He's never been diagnosed by someone qualified, like oh, say a doctor.
God it was stupid and pathetic the first time, and each successive mention just compounds the stupidity.
He wrote Bit Torrent, he didn't create the world in 6 days.
First off, go take some fucking grammar and spelling lessons. Even on Slashdot, you'll look like a total tool with the nightmarish version of English you use.
It is obivious that you haven't use the product.
I'm using it right now, dumb ass.
Still I've never had any security or files issues from NSF between Unix flavored machines.
Then you follow under one of the following categories: 1.) Haven't been using NFS long 2.) Are blissfully ignorant 3.) Lying.
NFS is legendary for its security problems and shoddy performance and design. The end.
Really look at the files in the sub system and read the copyright in the flat files and config files. You will see BSD all over the place.
Yes, that's old news. The BSD license allows this specifically, and why should anyone re-invent the wheel when a solid, free solution is available?
And talk about security of sharing files and file systems. Just open up ports 135 to 139 on a Windows machine to the Internet and see how fast you'll get owned!
Ports 135-139 are obsolete. Modern Windows machines use port 445, which is SMB/CIFS over IP. The old Windows shit used 135-139 for (a stupid) SMB over NetBIOS over TCP/IP scheme. Actually it's wasn't entirely stupid, as it was devised back when Microsoft (laughably) thought they might be able to beat this new TCP/IP revolution, similarly to what Novell and IPX had done for a while. Now, SMB runs directly over IP.
Put a network sniffer on the Internet and watch the port scans for SMB ports. Then tell me about the mighty MS.
Oh wow, SMB scans, I'm gonna get hacked!!! Oh wait, what's this? Snort shows some exploit scans for ssh, smtp, rpc/nfs and vnc, too. Oh no! The sky is falling.
PS: I have port 445 open to the world on this box. Do your best.
If that were true, why, after they bought it, did they immediately give Interix out for free to MSDN developers and post MSDN development articles about it?
I'll answer this question for you. To enable developers to port and UNIX apps on their Windows servers. It's been a long-time strategy with mixed success (I could go on and on on why I think it was mixed).
But 'Services For Unix' is not _For_ Unix. It's for defending against Unix.
It's for integrating into UNIX-based (and NIS) infrastructures and providing NFS client/server functionality. It's also for porting UNIX apps for execution on Windows boxes. A pretty good strategy if you ask me.
No, it was a necessary feature thrown in to allow the government to avoid having to throw away all their software once the operating systems they originally developed on were no longer optimal. Games of "catch the moving API" can be fun and profitable for operating system vendors, but they're not so great for third party developers and users
1.) That's funny -- when Microsoft does this, it's called "vendor lock-in". 2.) Microsoft is notorious for backwards compatibility in their APIs. Probably a bit too much, actually. 3.) Microsoft's XENIX was still going strong back then. 4.) Microsoft wasn't a 300lbs gorilla back then, they were the IBM underdogs just over their honeymoon period.
The idea behind having a portable interface was to allow customers to choose different operating systems based on price, features, and performance.
s/different operating systems/UNIX/
The POSIX spec is based off of, and therefore highly prejudice towards UNIX. And since there weren't but a few major versions of UNIX, there wasn't really much choice involved. You picked your OS, and then got locked in via server hardware and maintenance contracts.
Obviously that's not the kind of market that a vendor can siphon tens of billions of dollars of profit from, however - I'm sure Microsoft much prefers the current situation where customers can choose different operating systems based on price, features, performance, and having to rewrite or replace all their unique applications.
Microsoft's monopoly appears to be dwindling, either due to the rise of opponents like Linux, or per the natural cycle of life and death.
What API CAN'T you write for on Windows? We have the shitty POSIX subsystem, SFU, cygwin, win32,.net, qt, gtk, xlib, perl, python, php, java, etc etc etc. So where exactly am I locked in, again?
I believe you're right, but I don't believe they spun off just to be bought by MS. They existed years before that and apparently had some level of success.
Welcome to 1995. I guess you didn't hear that Microsoft bought OpenNT (later known as Interix) back in the mid-1990s and created a product called "Services For UNIX" out of it, and that this component is free, mature and gives you virtually a full UNIX-like environment. So, it's not "in the works", it's already out there. However, it will soon be included in Windows by default, which is what these marketdroids are essentially saying.
That Microsoft created the original POSIX subsystem for government compliance is NO secret at all, as it's been openly "admitted" at several official MS events throughout history. It was basically a stupid little feature thrown in to meet a stupid little government requirement thrown in by some UNIX zealots to try and keep UNIX around.
I don't need to back up shit. No one else on this site does, including the story editors. Here's a hint, go search for any story about bugs in Microsoft software on Slashdot and then read the comments.
Seriously, if this story mentioned Microsoft as the target, people would be all for it and that scares me. In fact, there have been stories in the past that show this.
Alternatively, we can keep things in perspective, do our best, manage risk, and not involve the government in yet another facet of our lives...
We do, sometimes, when we're forced to, but Java IS slow (don't bother quoting any BS benchmarks.
Why play second class citizen in some one elses world. Java was designed to be cross platform from day one and is really supported on all platforms.
Uhm,.NET and Mono were designed to be cross-platform from day one, too. MS didn't decide to use MSIL for the hell of it. It was designed for portability.
Mono is also supported on just about every relevant platform, except maybe in the mobile and embedded spaces. But don't kid yourself, Java isn't exactly "good" in these spaces, either.
And I'm not too sure Mono/Microsoft are exactly second-class citizens in Java's world. They're kind of carving their own niche.
Office 2003 seems much snappier than O2000/OXP, do others not share this same experience?
Unfortunately, while 2003 is much snappier to me, the interface is absolutely horrid (the default Outlook mail view, Personalized Menus, Autocomplete shit, needless skinning, etc), by default. I usually spend a good 20 minutes turning off all the crap to make it look/feel simple, like 2000.
And to avoid the inevitable "just doing her job" response, I point to the Nazis, and their "just doing their job" bullshit. Not to compare her to the Nazis.
MS Office is slow? In relation to what? Certainly not the pieces of bloatware that are StarOffice and OpenOffice. And your dumb flamebait gets moderated as "Informative", classic.
Slashdot Mirror
I went from the various early computing OSes to AmigaOS to Minix on the Amiga to Soft Landing Linux on the PC, to Solaris/* Linux/*BSD and Mac OS X.
At some point later, I started using DOS and Windows 3.1, but still feel the most at home on UNIX (despite all my sticking up for Microsoft here).
Not to be an ass, but virtual identity is so 1999. Where were you during that period and why weren't you paying attention?
The experience you had is almost cliched in the blogging world where countless "injustices" such as this are enumerated.
You know we're fucked when the White House doesn't even understand the first amendment or parody exemptions.
It took Slashdot like 8 years to finally move to CSS, don't expect this any time soon.
Uhm, if you mean combine the two pipes (on separate subnets) into one, no, that won't work. If you mean take two interfaces and multiplex the gateways, well, that would have so much latency as to not be worth it.
Uhm, where did I say Asperger's syndrome didn't exist? Hint: fucking NOWHERE.
I seem ignorant because I don't trust his _unqualified_, _undiagnosed_, _self-diagnosis_?
And then you go on to cracked-out analogies about killing Negros. You're mentally stable.
Uh. Ok.
Why is this marked as troll? Cohen goes on about his "SELF-DIAGNOSED" Asperger's in every single fucking interview about him. He's never been diagnosed by someone qualified, like oh, say a doctor.
God it was stupid and pathetic the first time, and each successive mention just compounds the stupidity.
He wrote Bit Torrent, he didn't create the world in 6 days.
First off, go take some fucking grammar and spelling lessons. Even on Slashdot, you'll look like a total tool with the nightmarish version of English you use.
It is obivious that you haven't use the product.
I'm using it right now, dumb ass.
Still I've never had any security or files issues from NSF between Unix flavored machines.
Then you follow under one of the following categories:
1.) Haven't been using NFS long
2.) Are blissfully ignorant
3.) Lying.
NFS is legendary for its security problems and shoddy performance and design. The end.
Really look at the files in the sub system and read the copyright in the flat files and config files. You will see BSD all over the place.
Yes, that's old news. The BSD license allows this specifically, and why should anyone re-invent the wheel when a solid, free solution is available?
And talk about security of sharing files and file systems. Just open up ports 135 to 139 on a Windows machine to the Internet and see how fast you'll get owned!
Ports 135-139 are obsolete. Modern Windows machines use port 445, which is SMB/CIFS over IP. The old Windows shit used 135-139 for (a stupid) SMB over NetBIOS over TCP/IP scheme. Actually it's wasn't entirely stupid, as it was devised back when Microsoft (laughably) thought they might be able to beat this new TCP/IP revolution, similarly to what Novell and IPX had done for a while. Now, SMB runs directly over IP.
Put a network sniffer on the Internet and watch the port scans for SMB ports. Then tell me about the mighty MS.
Oh wow, SMB scans, I'm gonna get hacked!!! Oh wait, what's this? Snort shows some exploit scans for ssh, smtp, rpc/nfs and vnc, too. Oh no! The sky is falling.
PS: I have port 445 open to the world on this box. Do your best.
Anyone's NFS (yes, even Sun's) is so badly broken that I may not mention it. NFS itself is a kludgey pile of dung.
If that were true, why, after they bought it, did they immediately give Interix out for free to MSDN developers and post MSDN development articles about it?
I'll answer this question for you. To enable developers to port and UNIX apps on their Windows servers. It's been a long-time strategy with mixed success (I could go on and on on why I think it was mixed).
But 'Services For Unix' is not _For_ Unix. It's for defending against Unix.
It's for integrating into UNIX-based (and NIS) infrastructures and providing NFS client/server functionality. It's also for porting UNIX apps for execution on Windows boxes. A pretty good strategy if you ask me.
No, it was a necessary feature thrown in to allow the government to avoid having to throw away all their software once the operating systems they originally developed on were no longer optimal. Games of "catch the moving API" can be fun and profitable for operating system vendors, but they're not so great for third party developers and users
.net, qt, gtk, xlib, perl, python, php, java, etc etc etc. So where exactly am I locked in, again?
1.) That's funny -- when Microsoft does this, it's called "vendor lock-in".
2.) Microsoft is notorious for backwards compatibility in their APIs. Probably a bit too much, actually.
3.) Microsoft's XENIX was still going strong back then.
4.) Microsoft wasn't a 300lbs gorilla back then, they were the IBM underdogs just over their honeymoon period.
The idea behind having a portable interface was to allow customers to choose different operating systems based on price, features, and performance.
s/different operating systems/UNIX/
The POSIX spec is based off of, and therefore highly prejudice towards UNIX. And since there weren't but a few major versions of UNIX, there wasn't really much choice involved. You picked your OS, and then got locked in via server hardware and maintenance contracts.
Obviously that's not the kind of market that a vendor can siphon tens of billions of dollars of profit from, however - I'm sure Microsoft much prefers the current situation where customers can choose different operating systems based on price, features, performance, and having to rewrite or replace all their unique applications.
Microsoft's monopoly appears to be dwindling, either due to the rise of opponents like Linux, or per the natural cycle of life and death.
What API CAN'T you write for on Windows? We have the shitty POSIX subsystem, SFU, cygwin, win32,
I believe you're right, but I don't believe they spun off just to be bought by MS. They existed years before that and apparently had some level of success.
Welcome to 1995. I guess you didn't hear that Microsoft bought OpenNT (later known as Interix) back in the mid-1990s and created a product called "Services For UNIX" out of it, and that this component is free, mature and gives you virtually a full UNIX-like environment. So, it's not "in the works", it's already out there. However, it will soon be included in Windows by default, which is what these marketdroids are essentially saying.
That Microsoft created the original POSIX subsystem for government compliance is NO secret at all, as it's been openly "admitted" at several official MS events throughout history. It was basically a stupid little feature thrown in to meet a stupid little government requirement thrown in by some UNIX zealots to try and keep UNIX around.
Did you not bother to read the Google URL I pasted? Evidently not, or you would have seen a plethora of these actual stories and comments, such as:
1 2246&tid=109&tid=123&tid=4
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/28/2
Pay attention.
I don't need to back up shit. No one else on this site does, including the story editors. Here's a hint, go search for any story about bugs in Microsoft software on Slashdot and then read the comments.
b le+site%3Aslashdot.org
Here, I'll do it for you:
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+bugs+lia
Replace "liable" with other creative legal words and you'll find even more links.
Seriously, if this story mentioned Microsoft as the target, people would be all for it and that scares me. In fact, there have been stories in the past that show this.
Alternatively, we can keep things in perspective, do our best, manage risk, and not involve the government in yet another facet of our lives...
Uhm Window Maker isn't related to, derived from, or created by NeXT. It vaguely resembles NeXT's look (note I didn't say feel) and that's about it.
Using Window Maker does not make you clued about NeXT's OS, sorry. Completely different user experiences.
Uhm, it's been announced, not released. Do the editors even read the stories they're posting anymore, or is it just a copy-paste-submit job?
Dunno why this was moderated as a troll, it loosely pertains to the story. I never knew this, thanks for posting the links.
But just use Java.
.NET and Mono were designed to be cross-platform from day one, too. MS didn't decide to use MSIL for the hell of it. It was designed for portability.
We do, sometimes, when we're forced to, but Java IS slow (don't bother quoting any BS benchmarks.
Why play second class citizen in some one elses world. Java was designed to be cross platform from day one and is really supported on all platforms.
Uhm,
Mono is also supported on just about every relevant platform, except maybe in the mobile and embedded spaces. But don't kid yourself, Java isn't exactly "good" in these spaces, either.
And I'm not too sure Mono/Microsoft are exactly second-class citizens in Java's world. They're kind of carving their own niche.
Great analogy. Too bad it doesn't apply to her case, and too bad it STILL wasn't ethical of her.
Perhaps you should just accept that it wasn't ethical of her, even if lawyers are a necessary evil.
Office 2003 seems much snappier than O2000/OXP, do others not share this same experience?
Unfortunately, while 2003 is much snappier to me, the interface is absolutely horrid (the default Outlook mail view, Personalized Menus, Autocomplete shit, needless skinning, etc), by default. I usually spend a good 20 minutes turning off all the crap to make it look/feel simple, like 2000.
We're certainly going to fault her ethics, sure.
And to avoid the inevitable "just doing her job" response, I point to the Nazis, and their "just doing their job" bullshit. Not to compare her to the Nazis.
MS Office is slow? In relation to what? Certainly not the pieces of bloatware that are StarOffice and OpenOffice. And your dumb flamebait gets moderated as "Informative", classic.
Yes, because the reasons MS cited (cost and expectations) are completely laughable and bogus.