I see the basis of change happening in a replacement for X windows. A new graphical layer that makes it easy to create a whole new paradigm of graphical computing. The idea that a screen is equal to a hardwood desktop and applications are pieces of paper that are shuffed around the desktop worked well. Linux can be the foundation for a whole new paradigm. Hopefully something that is always in '3d' mode.
Sorry. I like the idea of X being replaced. I like the idea of something new, if it works. But some bullshit 3D thing? Ick. Aside from games, 3D does not work on a 2D surface. I've read a lot of papers about "cones of attention" and "referential alerts". 3D will not work for a full UI. (Insert Ludd quote here)
Something where visual programming is always part of the UI. UIs have always needed a visual scripting language. I think even 'novices' and 'daily users' will be greatly stimulated and entertained by making small functional changes to their apps as they use them.
Any language (idiom combination, macro bunch, what have you) that is useful in an office setting basically has to be Turing complete, in most situations (those that aren't include, perhaps, voice mail trees and employee beverage selection routines).
Sorry, but end users, as a rule, will never be able to faultlessly run a TC machine without serious restrictions placed on them. This is why we have the *cough*windows*cough*X interfaces we do.
At the same time, we need to get behind a distributed object system. You gave some great examples like CORBA and XML RPC. Add to this the 'mobile code' idea. A virtual machine - hopefully Parrot will fill this gap. Then a framework or at least coding standards for distributed objects, like EJB. Then service discovery, like JINI. God, Java does so many things right:).
OK, I know you're a troll now. Parrot. No need to comment on my thoughts on mobile code right now.
When everyone defends this kid, just imagine he was caught "being curious" in the school filing cabinets. Would everyone jump to his defense because he was "just curious" to see if he could break into the filing cabinets and wanted to see what kind of security was on them? Not a chance, we never would have even heard about it, because no one would try and argue that the kid was right. Now, what difference does it make whether the info is in hard copy, or kept electronically?
If a kid commits suicide because they run through filing cabinets, that's boring?
-j
You answered your own problem, I'm afraid - don't use "crappy" software (or hardware, whatever the case is).
And that is exactly the problem. I can do this when we're talking about my personal LAN. Even for nontechnical pals. When you start talking about, say, Windows, for many users, you have a bit of a problem.
Your last line is telling, though. NAT works well if you know what you want to do and how to do it. I am sure in many instances it simply doesn't play well, more than likely because the software doesn't want to communicate in a more standard manner (instead opting for something else for speed reasons, like FPSs). Maybe it isn't for you, but for my purposes I think it will work fine (and is cheaper in the long run).
That's exactly my point. It doesn't play well with many things. It is great when it does - don't get me wrong. NAT has a place. That place just isn't everywhere. And that is why "no nat for workstations" is a (needed, but doomed) policy.
The implications, though, for the future, are interesting.
At the risk of wasting my time, let me try to throw out some major points here. I'll have been a good egg if I didn't tip my hand on where exactly I personally fall on these debates.
Personal information is potentially dangerous when released. Right now, address data, phone numbers, SSN, much credit data, a whole mess of personally compromising data (demographic plus other marketing-worthy, plus children's names, mother's maiden, birthplace, property ownership data, house floor plans, criminal records, in some cases tax data, etc. etc.) is all publically accessible, to varying degrees. Much of it is free or cheap.
There is no question that this data can be used against a person in god knows how many ways, legal or not. It becomes more interesting to ask whether potentially compromising data (and if so which data points) should be legally protected (that is, should restraints on disclosure be legally enforced for various bits), or if something else should be done.
A different option is to force companies doing business to take measures to protect the data. I don't mean basic security, of course, but blinded credidentials, better authentication and authorization for transactions,etc. The assumption here is that disclosure happens only when the individual knows it is happening, and can take care of themself.
A third option is to refuse to pass any laws, encourage insurance against data-based damages/injury, and use market driven measures to encourage people to select companies that protect data, and monitor data leakages. Of course, the government would have to stop leaking data as well as it does currently for there to be any point.
There are not only gradients between these, but several other options, too.
Imagine a world where if you tell me where you live so I can come to a party, I have to sign a contract saying I won't disclose your address to others. Well, what if I accidentally leave my address book open and my partner sees it? OK, what if I leave my cell phone on and the phone company ends up with an automated record of my driving habits while getting there? Crazy stuff, you say. So what happens when the legal system starts enforcing nondisclosure of personal data? To some degree, you can't _not_ disclose things about others. The question is how this works, intentionality of the disclosure, and the mechanisms of enforcement. (Don't answer that the phone company screwed up when an individual found the phone records by breaking the law, if you're an abortion doctor, who cares where the data came from, as far as psychos are concerned. Now think about Freenet for things besides MP3.)
As far as corporate concern about data, let me throw out a little experience that happened today. I am turning over the reins of a largish web site to someone else. I took them over to one of our hosting providers to get them access to the machines. The provider uses a low-paid employee whose main job is somthing besides making badges which allow access to the "secure" facility. Now, the badges are coded with a unique magnetic ID, photograph, name, company, and require a biometric for access to the collocation.
I called in a request the day before. I showed up for my appointment, didn't have the request number. I stated my name, company, and my request that this other person get access to our cabinets. They never looked up my name, asked for my ID or my badge, asked me for a palm scan, verified my company, or even verified that the badge request had been made. I could have gotten access to a lot of different companies' servers today. Big names, at that. We pay them 5 digits a month. Now think about what your credit card interest payment means to the security department at a major bank when they look at potential fraud. More seriously, and on topic, think about the ATT operator when whey get a smooth talker trying to find a phone number.
OK, I probably did tip my hand in that rant. I don't know I'm correct, though. It is an extremely difficult question. I would hope that people would think very, very carefully about implications before they start demanding one solution or another.
Squadboy, go check your facts. You're simply wrong. As in, factually incorrect, mistaken as to reality, spreading falsehood. I think you're just a troll, but just in case, I'm hoping you might notice and check your facts (or at least prove you're a troll and respond) it you get enough atten^H^H^H^H^Hresponses.
Calling in from outside? That is possible under NAT, just give the access to route a specific port to an internal address. I know it is possible, because I am planning on setting up a personal bookmark server behind my NAT firewall, that I want to admin. I looked into what the LRP could do, and what various distros based on it could do, and all of them allowed this. So, in theory, it should be easily possible to route to an internal box with a properly NAT'ed system.
OK, tell me how "calling in" works here:
My mate and I both want a book mark server. Assume we're not competent enough to set up Apache, so we're running some crappy windows based software. On the public side of the net, we're using similar crappy software, with a hardcoded port.
How do you redirect the requests properly with NAT?
NAT simply does not work well for certain applications, such as hiding providers of services to the outside world. Sure, you can work around it sometimes, but the very nature of it breaks a lot of things. The moral of the story is "use NAT wisely, not widely."
Well, what would you call something that serves files via http other than an http server? What we call web servers (such as apache, etc.) serve files via http. That Apache and company do other things, sometimes, like parsing includes or doing content nogotiation, whereas Gnutella does distributed searching instead, reflects a difference in purpose rather than a difference in nature.
I guess my reply boils down to, what sets it apart from other http-based file server applications such that you feel it incorrect to call it an http server?
The reasons why unions prohibit non-members from working somewhere is to make sure that EVERYONE is PROTECTED by the union.
Gee, I'm so glad they want to protect me. They want to protect me so much that they'll even protect me against my will. They want to protect me so much that they'll make sure I can't get a job unless I pay them money.
Anyone Remember the _Mars_ series? The tailrider with a personality disorder (whose father funds the mission) wants to recover a NASA lander and sell it at a public aution. The strong, silent hero objects because that isn't scientific.
So when does the first interplanetary antique go on sale?
So presumably this was a lot of smaller exposures that were summed to total the 15.5 days that would normally take?
I can't hold a camera steady for that long, what with all the crazy spinning going on and all...
Oh, and the earth moving, too.
Seriously, does anyone know how exactly that works? The article just says
The images, known as the Chandra Deep Fields, were obtained during many long exposures over the course of more than a year[...]The group's 500,000-second exposure included the Hubble Deep Field North, allowing scientists the opportunity to combine the power of Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope, two of NASA's Great Observatories. The Penn State team recently acquired an additional 500,000 seconds of data, creating another one-million-second Chandra Deep Field, located in the constellation of Ursa Major.
-j
Re:Invention without Ethics
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
Claims that "the public" will behave any differently than stupidly and foolishly are foolish and hopeful. Look at the last several hundred years. Hell, look at France, which touched the whole idea off. The gave us a pinnicle of reasoning on the matter.
-j
Re:Invention without Ethics
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
Man, given the chance, I'd bean you with my cell phone at you right now. Hell, keep ranting, and I'll take a shot with my laptop. Do I get bonus points for throwing my pager and Pilot at you?
Linux can be whatever a distribution packages it to be. It can be twm, vi, TeX, lynx. It can be KDE2.1 with anti-aliasing built in, Windoze-alike user interface, KWord/Wordperfect/Abiword, KAIM, and Konquerer or Mozilla or Netscape.
Sure. It can also run on palms, cellphones, and PS2s. Who the George Bush cares? I have a cluster of production machines runing Linux (heay email). Cool. Nice.
So Joe Sixpack unpacks the cool box and... what? selects a distribution? Then gets a choice between twm, E, fvwm, etc.? Then gets to pick the scan rate for the monitor? Then gets a prompt for additional users? Then is asked about allowing rsh? Then is troubled about where they happen to live so that a crypto package can pretend to be compliant with random laws?
Compare those questions with "What's your name?" "Do you have kids?" "do you want to hear more about Microsoft products and services?" "Would you like to set up a Hotmail account now?"
I'm probably rambling too long now, but you're missing the entire point. Configuration options is not what people want. People want function. Give them choice and they flail. Give them dancing pigs and they're happy, even if you're charging by the minute.
It will not take a genius to see that distribution sales are NOT made to the end user, but ARE made to the OEM seller. Hardware sales will occur on the basis of the distribution packaging.
Thanks, won't have to push that point.
Dell and Compaq and IBM and whoever will be packaging linux to grandma in a few years. They will do it because that is the way it will sell. They will do it to make money on hardware sales. They will do it because they will be able to sell their hardware CHEAPER than hardware with Windoze BECAUSE the operating system intellectual property is FREE, and the cost of the operating system is a service charge to load and customize it. And whereas Windoze forces them to pay Microsoft to load Microsoft's software on their machines, the linux distros will load and customize the software for the OEMs. As part of a service contract.
Are you a budding MBA looking for a dot com job or something? There's an important bit you missed somewhere along the line, called the consumer. Use all the capitals you want, but they still happen to be the ones buying things. And they will buy Windows, M$ tax or not, until there is a viable alternative.
The market will demand it, and it will come. It will come BECAUSE hardware companies can use it to make money.
I liked my econ classes, too. There's a lesson here: go look at www.hotmail.com, and then www.bigfoot.com. Compare and contrast utility, price, and value. Please predict which will ultimately outperform the other. No bonus points for noting vendor tie-ins, etc.
Because that is the American way.
Ok, now you're the troll.
Call me a troll, but the whole point of the article is that Joe Sixpack will use Linux when IM and a browser and a word processor work at the point in time they unpack the pretty box from Dell or Gateway.
To get to that point, you have to match *client* expectations. Er, that's Joe Sixpack again. Plug it in, it asks annoying questions once, you're done. Pay more money, answer a few more questions, and you get a spreadsheet.
Linux is not there yet.
I want more, you want more, but most of the world doesn't. They want porn and instant messages and letters to mom.
I agree with dear Emily. Removing options, at least in one distro, will do wonders for client adoption, and that's where you start attacking the cost of an operating system. Young's vision won't work until end users see Linux as a viable option.
-j, a rabid FreeBSD user
Actually, it does.
Yes, sure. To self perpetuate. Because all the other governments are playing the same scenarios. Because we happen to let them. Because we all (well, most) came out of the same European monarchist mold, which mutated in an extremely interesting way back about maybe 200 years ago, and had random influences from those damned french people.
If you looked at things, you'd find that all the random geopolitical scenarios for chaos are interesting to maybe about a thousand people worldwide. It is as if kernel hackers took over the world, and were about to kill warring distributions over rpm or apt-get.
Most of the world is more interested in doing business. Too bad we've been rooted by history.
...that this actually works really well. I love Thinkpads. I've been using an old one (600, no E) for a long time. Linux has been wiped off my drive twice due to interconnect failures.
I've also flown > 20K miles with it (I know some readers will laugh, but I'm a tech guy), and it still works. Two years of a laptop doing well for me, and two separate Linux attempts makes me hopefull. Ill at ease, but hopefull. Hell, I like BSD and Solaris, so I know I'm going to be shot down, but laptops are different. People need easy, fast, interoperable [whatever] before they'll even comment. No cares about which layer it acts on, or whether it is proprietary, _people need email_. The rest is cool, too. I'm done.
Sure, modems are dead, or something. Tell me that when I need to get email through via a random hotel.
Slashdot Mirror
Or effort?
What exactly was it you thought? Please, share with the group.
-j
Sorry. I like the idea of X being replaced. I like the idea of something new, if it works. But some bullshit 3D thing? Ick. Aside from games, 3D does not work on a 2D surface. I've read a lot of papers about "cones of attention" and "referential alerts". 3D will not work for a full UI. (Insert Ludd quote here)
Something where visual programming is always part of the UI. UIs have always needed a visual scripting language. I think even 'novices' and 'daily users' will be greatly stimulated and entertained by making small functional changes to their apps as they use them.
Any language (idiom combination, macro bunch, what have you) that is useful in an office setting basically has to be Turing complete, in most situations (those that aren't include, perhaps, voice mail trees and employee beverage selection routines).
Sorry, but end users, as a rule, will never be able to faultlessly run a TC machine without serious restrictions placed on them. This is why we have the *cough*windows*cough*X interfaces we do.
At the same time, we need to get behind a distributed object system. You gave some great examples like CORBA and XML RPC. Add to this the 'mobile code' idea. A virtual machine - hopefully Parrot will fill this gap. Then a framework or at least coding standards for distributed objects, like EJB. Then service discovery, like JINI. God, Java does so many things right
OK, I know you're a troll now. Parrot. No need to comment on my thoughts on mobile code right now.
-j
-j
One wonders if storage manufacturers lobbied for this.
If a kid commits suicide because they run through filing cabinets, that's boring? -j
I see the moderators are on crack again.
And that is exactly the problem. I can do this when we're talking about my personal LAN. Even for nontechnical pals. When you start talking about, say, Windows, for many users, you have a bit of a problem.
Your last line is telling, though. NAT works well if you know what you want to do and how to do it. I am sure in many instances it simply doesn't play well, more than likely because the software doesn't want to communicate in a more standard manner (instead opting for something else for speed reasons, like FPSs). Maybe it isn't for you, but for my purposes I think it will work fine (and is cheaper in the long run). That's exactly my point. It doesn't play well with many things. It is great when it does - don't get me wrong. NAT has a place. That place just isn't everywhere. And that is why "no nat for workstations" is a (needed, but doomed) policy.
The implications, though, for the future, are interesting.
-j
Personal information is potentially dangerous when released. Right now, address data, phone numbers, SSN, much credit data, a whole mess of personally compromising data (demographic plus other marketing-worthy, plus children's names, mother's maiden, birthplace, property ownership data, house floor plans, criminal records, in some cases tax data, etc. etc.) is all publically accessible, to varying degrees. Much of it is free or cheap.
There is no question that this data can be used against a person in god knows how many ways, legal or not. It becomes more interesting to ask whether potentially compromising data (and if so which data points) should be legally protected (that is, should restraints on disclosure be legally enforced for various bits), or if something else should be done.
A different option is to force companies doing business to take measures to protect the data. I don't mean basic security, of course, but blinded credidentials, better authentication and authorization for transactions,etc. The assumption here is that disclosure happens only when the individual knows it is happening, and can take care of themself.
A third option is to refuse to pass any laws, encourage insurance against data-based damages/injury, and use market driven measures to encourage people to select companies that protect data, and monitor data leakages. Of course, the government would have to stop leaking data as well as it does currently for there to be any point.
There are not only gradients between these, but several other options, too.
Imagine a world where if you tell me where you live so I can come to a party, I have to sign a contract saying I won't disclose your address to others. Well, what if I accidentally leave my address book open and my partner sees it? OK, what if I leave my cell phone on and the phone company ends up with an automated record of my driving habits while getting there? Crazy stuff, you say. So what happens when the legal system starts enforcing nondisclosure of personal data? To some degree, you can't _not_ disclose things about others. The question is how this works, intentionality of the disclosure, and the mechanisms of enforcement. (Don't answer that the phone company screwed up when an individual found the phone records by breaking the law, if you're an abortion doctor, who cares where the data came from, as far as psychos are concerned. Now think about Freenet for things besides MP3.)
As far as corporate concern about data, let me throw out a little experience that happened today. I am turning over the reins of a largish web site to someone else. I took them over to one of our hosting providers to get them access to the machines. The provider uses a low-paid employee whose main job is somthing besides making badges which allow access to the "secure" facility. Now, the badges are coded with a unique magnetic ID, photograph, name, company, and require a biometric for access to the collocation.
I called in a request the day before. I showed up for my appointment, didn't have the request number. I stated my name, company, and my request that this other person get access to our cabinets. They never looked up my name, asked for my ID or my badge, asked me for a palm scan, verified my company, or even verified that the badge request had been made. I could have gotten access to a lot of different companies' servers today. Big names, at that. We pay them 5 digits a month. Now think about what your credit card interest payment means to the security department at a major bank when they look at potential fraud. More seriously, and on topic, think about the ATT operator when whey get a smooth talker trying to find a phone number.
OK, I probably did tip my hand in that rant. I don't know I'm correct, though. It is an extremely difficult question. I would hope that people would think very, very carefully about implications before they start demanding one solution or another.
-j
-j
OK, tell me how "calling in" works here:
My mate and I both want a book mark server. Assume we're not competent enough to set up Apache, so we're running some crappy windows based software. On the public side of the net, we're using similar crappy software, with a hardcoded port.
How do you redirect the requests properly with NAT?
NAT simply does not work well for certain applications, such as hiding providers of services to the outside world. Sure, you can work around it sometimes, but the very nature of it breaks a lot of things. The moral of the story is "use NAT wisely, not widely."
-j
I guess my reply boils down to, what sets it apart from other http-based file server applications such that you feel it incorrect to call it an http server?
-j
Gee, I'm so glad they want to protect me. They want to protect me so much that they'll even protect me against my will. They want to protect me so much that they'll make sure I can't get a job unless I pay them money.
Unions sure are great.
-j
So when does the first interplanetary antique go on sale?
-j
Look out, Sol. The Shrike is coming for your baby.
I can't hold a camera steady for that long, what with all the crazy spinning going on and all...
Oh, and the earth moving, too.
Seriously, does anyone know how exactly that works? The article just says
The images, known as the Chandra Deep Fields, were obtained during many long exposures over the course of more than a year[...]The group's 500,000-second exposure included the Hubble Deep Field North, allowing scientists the opportunity to combine the power of Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope, two of NASA's Great Observatories. The Penn State team recently acquired an additional 500,000 seconds of data, creating another one-million-second Chandra Deep Field, located in the constellation of Ursa Major.
-j
-j
Man, given the chance, I'd bean you with my cell phone at you right now. Hell, keep ranting, and I'll take a shot with my laptop. Do I get bonus points for throwing my pager and Pilot at you?
Amen, brother.
Hi.
Linux can be whatever a distribution packages it to be. It can be twm, vi, TeX, lynx. It can be KDE2.1 with anti-aliasing built in, Windoze-alike user interface, KWord/Wordperfect/Abiword, KAIM, and Konquerer or Mozilla or Netscape. Sure. It can also run on palms, cellphones, and PS2s. Who the George Bush cares? I have a cluster of production machines runing Linux (heay email). Cool. Nice.
So Joe Sixpack unpacks the cool box and... what? selects a distribution? Then gets a choice between twm, E, fvwm, etc.? Then gets to pick the scan rate for the monitor? Then gets a prompt for additional users? Then is asked about allowing rsh? Then is troubled about where they happen to live so that a crypto package can pretend to be compliant with random laws?
Compare those questions with "What's your name?" "Do you have kids?" "do you want to hear more about Microsoft products and services?" "Would you like to set up a Hotmail account now?"
I'm probably rambling too long now, but you're missing the entire point. Configuration options is not what people want. People want function. Give them choice and they flail. Give them dancing pigs and they're happy, even if you're charging by the minute.
It will not take a genius to see that distribution sales are NOT made to the end user, but ARE made to the OEM seller. Hardware sales will occur on the basis of the distribution packaging.
Thanks, won't have to push that point.
Dell and Compaq and IBM and whoever will be packaging linux to grandma in a few years. They will do it because that is the way it will sell. They will do it to make money on hardware sales. They will do it because they will be able to sell their hardware CHEAPER than hardware with Windoze BECAUSE the operating system intellectual property is FREE, and the cost of the operating system is a service charge to load and customize it. And whereas Windoze forces them to pay Microsoft to load Microsoft's software on their machines, the linux distros will load and customize the software for the OEMs. As part of a service contract. Are you a budding MBA looking for a dot com job or something? There's an important bit you missed somewhere along the line, called the consumer. Use all the capitals you want, but they still happen to be the ones buying things. And they will buy Windows, M$ tax or not, until there is a viable alternative.
The market will demand it, and it will come. It will come BECAUSE hardware companies can use it to make money. I liked my econ classes, too. There's a lesson here: go look at www.hotmail.com, and then www.bigfoot.com. Compare and contrast utility, price, and value. Please predict which will ultimately outperform the other. No bonus points for noting vendor tie-ins, etc.
Because that is the American way. Ok, now you're the troll.
-j
To get to that point, you have to match *client* expectations. Er, that's Joe Sixpack again. Plug it in, it asks annoying questions once, you're done. Pay more money, answer a few more questions, and you get a spreadsheet.
Linux is not there yet.
I want more, you want more, but most of the world doesn't. They want porn and instant messages and letters to mom.
I agree with dear Emily. Removing options, at least in one distro, will do wonders for client adoption, and that's where you start attacking the cost of an operating system. Young's vision won't work until end users see Linux as a viable option. -j, a rabid FreeBSD user
You do know you don't actually understand latin, right?
Actually, it does. Yes, sure. To self perpetuate. Because all the other governments are playing the same scenarios. Because we happen to let them. Because we all (well, most) came out of the same European monarchist mold, which mutated in an extremely interesting way back about maybe 200 years ago, and had random influences from those damned french people.
If you looked at things, you'd find that all the random geopolitical scenarios for chaos are interesting to maybe about a thousand people worldwide. It is as if kernel hackers took over the world, and were about to kill warring distributions over rpm or apt-get.
Most of the world is more interested in doing business. Too bad we've been rooted by history.
-j
Linux has been wiped off my drive twice due to interconnect failures.
I've also flown > 20K miles with it (I know some readers will laugh, but I'm a tech guy), and it still works. Two years of a laptop doing well for me, and two separate Linux attempts makes me hopefull. Ill at ease, but hopefull. Hell, I like BSD and Solaris, so I know I'm going to be shot down, but laptops are different. People need easy, fast, interoperable [whatever] before they'll even comment. No cares about which layer it acts on, or whether it is proprietary, _people need email_. The rest is cool, too. I'm done.
Sure, modems are dead, or something.
Tell me that when I need to get email through via a random hotel.
-j
Had he harmed you or anyone you know in any way?
I think you'd end up watching a dots move around the subsystems displaying the screen saver, for the most part.