They also have a manual for
everyday troubleshooting,
(My emphasis, of course---you're not supposed to notice that they expect you to be troubleshooting everyday).
Besides, after 15 seconds of experimentation, it turns out that Microsoft's Three R's of Troubleshooting (Restart, Reboot, Reinstall) fits quite nicely on a single piece of easily-photocopiable paper.
We bitch about Lucas and all the CGI. We bitch about Lucas and his greed. We bitch about Lucas because he has a monopoly on desktop operation systems (er... got carried away there).
You forgot bitching about the MPAA, bitching about the DVD-CCA, bitching about CSS, bitching about an insufficient number of Natalie Portman nude scenes (Hey, where'd everybody's hands go all of the sudden?), bitching about Jar Jar, yadda yadda yadda, yabba-dabba-doo.
But how many of us are willing to back up our bitching?
ObSelfPromotion: <raises hand> Movie-, VHS-, and DVD-free since the Norwegian arrests. Although I do love going into (um... media outlets? You know, the places we used to call record stores, only they don't sell records anymore, but they do sell movies) wearing my copyleft T-shirts and stringing the DVD salespeople along for hours... (current record: 3 hours, fifteen minutes while wearing the ``DVD-CCA forbidden'' shirt---you may applaud)
I've just added the strings in the above-quoted spam to my procmail filter. The response will be ``550 MSN auto-generated spam rejected. Use a real ISP that doesn't turn you into a spammer.''
Oh, you're no fun anymore. It should return a malformed number (``666 Away with ye, foul beastie!'', perhaps, or ``1060 West Addison''), so that you wedge M$'s servers and trash their clients.:-)
Note: I do not actually recommend this. People who don't return proper error codes PISS ME OFF! If you do this, I will track you down for them.
Ms. Rosen: Sen. Hatch incorrectly (but articulately!) suggests that record companies provide only manufacturing and distribution and are therefore afraid of the non-physical world.
I don't know about you, but telling a Senator he's wrong is usually considered a bad thing where I come from.
The fact is that the true expense and importance of any middlemen between artist and fan is when they create the demand for the artist's work itself. That is what record companies do most of the time.
``Our job is to convince you that you want to listen to $LATEST_INCARNATION_OF_MENUDO, because Eris knows they couldn't get you interested in their music without our help.''
This is necessary in a non-physical world as well -- perhaps even more so. Anyone who doesn't add value won't be in this space though, that is for sure.
And when the cost of creating demand for your work is approximately $50 per annum (domain name + ``Web Sites for Dummies''), where's the ``added value'' in a company the size of Universal?
This is the URL for the parody F
uckedCompany.Com did:
Ooooh, you're in trouble now... you reverse-engineered jamie's incredibly powerful encryption scheme, obviously so that you can illegally copy/. headlines. I smell a DMCA lawsuit...
Why the bloody hell should AOL be forced to allow other firms to use THEIR service resources? Isn't this conflicting with the court's ruling that the meta-auction site (Cannot remember the name.) cannot index eBay's site because it robs eBay of the ability to use it's own resources?
Well, here's my take on the issue: the AIM network is infrastructure, whereas eBay's listings aren't.
If you want to run an auction site that competes with eBay, then you can, and eBay can't stop you.
If you want to provide a competing IM service, on the other hand, you have to use the AIM protocols, because there are already millions of users of the AIM protocols, and they're not likely to switch systems. You're stuck, unless you can access the protocols.
Protocols in specific, and infrastructure in general, must be made public, or you end up with monopolies that can't be unseated, because you can't compete with them. Example: the number of people who can't change operating systems because they have to edit Microsoft Word files.
This continues, and eventually, the fish ends up in your ear as the result of a huge Rube Goldberg-style chain reaction. You never have to know it belongs in your ear; it just ends up there.
Actually, IIRC, if you follow step by step (this happened, block it with this, now this happens, block it with this), the dispenser runs out of fish just before the last one. You have to think ahead a bit.
I know, I know, I shouldn't encourage him... Oh well.:-)
It always makes you think when you see the words "ego-free" and "Eric Raymond" in consecutive paragraphs.
Well, let's try this out... ``Eric Raymond has stated that open-source programming is often an ego-free activity.'' Look! They're in the same sentence! By your logic, that sentence is an even larger load of bollocks than the original article. Pity that it's true. And that the sub-clause (``Open-source programming is often an ego-free activity.''), while not proven, certainly seems to be true in practice. (Yes, there are exceptions. See that word often up there?)
And Brooks' Law doesn't hold because Eric Raymond said so. Better still, he quoted someone else saying so.
He stated that Brook's Law doesn't hold---as originally stated---for debugging---in an open source project. He then provided a justification that holds up under current information theory (there isn't a direct link to the explanation in CatB, but it's on thi s page. Exercise for the reader, I guess. (Anyone know why the comment system keeps sticking a space in ``this''? I'd look it up, but I'm working on my resume, which is slightly more important to me right now.)). And then, he provided an empirical example (Linux). And then, he tested his theory (fetchmail).
The outright lie; Mozilla has been coded "from the ground up".
Agreed. That's a lie. Of course, you're the only person I have ever seen say this. To the best of my knowledge, nobody involved with Mozilla says this. Even the flakiest of news sites never seem to make this mistake. The article this discussion is about doesn't make this mistake.
Particularly interesting is their description of how to simulate color-blindness in order to view your own design efforts.
Okay, hands up everybody who immediately tried the web-based tools to check/. Okay, now everybody who's decided to attach deeper meaning to the fact that Tux is the only thing that still looks ``okay''.
It never ceases to amaze me how lame some people are. A few months ago, I bought some bedside tables from IKEA, and used them a bedside table, a phone table, and a small table for working. Does IKEA get to sue to me for using a bedside table as something else?
Det var jävla dumt sagt. Now IKEA knows you're abusing their IP (IKEA Products). You're in trouble now!:-)
So as a general policy it's pretty dumb, unless exceptions are made for secure sites, and from the announcement it doesn't seem so.
Obviously we're reading the announcement differently then. My take is that ``I want to do IP virtual hosting'' is no longer sufficient justification for getting a block. ``I am running x secure servers, and therefore need x IP addresses'' is still a valid justification (assuming you can demonstrate that you do need x servers, have saturated a possibly non-contiguous/21 in an effective manner, yadda yadda yadda). That seems reasonable to me.
Mac users: In spite of what you may think, the desktop software market is such an insignificantly small portion of the global software market it isn't even funny. You wouldn't use Linux for day-to-day use? Fine. I wouldn't use a Mac to run an SAP R/3 system. Well, okay, I'd never run an SAP R/3 system, but you know what I mean.:-)
Linux users: Some people don't want to notice their operating system. Some people just want to send the occasional email, or write the occasional letter. Some (in fact, I'd wager most) people want a computer that acts like an appliance. You wouldn't buy a Mac for personal use? Fine. I wouldn't expect my grandmother (Eris bless her soul) to run Linux.
Both of you, go read ``In the beginning was the Command Line''. Then, implement some standards (preferably the same ones, I find that works best), put Macs on the desktop, connect them to Linux servers, and play nice.
So despite Mr. planet_hoth's obvious sarcasm, I really am baffled, why not KDE?
Simple. C++ is (currently) so compiler-dependant, it's an inappropriate choice for multiple-platform development. You can't link C++ libraries built with one compiler with code written using another compiler, since they mangle names differently. The standard is so recent that there isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a single compiler that is known to be fully conformant. Et cetera, et cetera.
C++ (the language) is a good choice, but C++ (the reality) isn't there yet. Unless we force everyone to use the same compiler. Forcing everyone to use the same compiler is bad.
Warning: at the end of RFC1437, locations for the authors' matter replicator patterns are provided. Unfortunately, someone has corrupted the files. Do not use the files to attempt to reconstitute the authors. Trust me on this. Now, where's my mop...
Leaving aside the non sequitur involved in comparing spam and source code, what this is saying is: You do not have the right to force information upon me, and you do not have the right to deny me information. Sounds almost... reasonable... that way, doesn't it?
Music is just bits, and should not be afforded any protection,
yet again, source code is a constitutional right.
In other words: Music is just bits, and should not be afforded any protection, Source Code is just bits and should not be afforded any protection. Once again, what exactly is ``confused'' about that?
Not that I agree with the statements above, mind you. Well, except for the one about spam.
On reading the press release, it seems that the Russians still haven't got a clue about generating the power required for a space station.
I think it's more likely that Zvezda isn't supposed to provide power for the entire station. It's the bootstrap module. Once it's up and connected to the frame, they can hook up the big solar panels.
Besides, unless you've kept something in orbit and (mostly) functional for three times its expected lifespan, I don't think you should be talking trash about the Russians.
From starting with `case preserving' but `case insensitive' filenames... ??? WTF???
Excuse me for being overly indoctrinated with Li/*nix -- but something seems wrong with this.
Everyone realises that its a less-than-perfect situation, but the new Mac OS X has to be able to work with the filesystems from Mac OS 9. This is an absolutely essential feature.... As Wilfredo says, in practice its not nearly as large a problem as it would appear at first glance. Which isn't to say its never a problem, of course...
This isn't a problem... in general, `preserving but insensitive' is the correct choice. Most people don't view capitalization as significant to the `name' of the file (IANALinguist, but the linguists I know agree with me on this one). The fact that it is under Un*x is a bad thing, from the user perspective.
``SCO is in a unique position to dominate this [Linux] market,'' says Tony Iams, an analyst with D.H. Brown Associates, a Port Chester, N.Y., consulting firm. ``They own the low-end Intel/Unix market. They know this space like no one. They have a tremendous set of relationships with resellers and OEMs.''
I like the use of the phrase ``own the low-end Intel/Unix market''. Anybody that thinks of the people they sell to as something they can own...
``Low-End Intel/Unix market is people! It's people!'' (with apologies to Charleton Heston, since he's got a gun)
You can't own people.
Even if you could ``own'' this market, it's fairly realistic at this point to say... you don't.
You can't own people.
You published the Lions' Book. How much more ``we don't get the Unix culture'' can you be? Go away, you bother me.
You can't own people.
Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux clustering technology is generally limited to
two or four nodes.
Really? Somebody should warn all those Beowulf site before they suddenly cease to exist. Or did they forget to put the ``hundred'' in?
That's what happens when geeks run a company -- they forget about little technicalities like paying the bills in their insane quest for free "open source" solutions. LinuxOne suffered, pure and simple, from a surfeit of Quake-players and a dearth of those annoying, but often useful individuals, who you call ``suits''. Even though we favour smartly pressed Gap khakis these days.
And now, from the article...
While management gambled big on an IPO that didn't meterialize, a tense civil war seethed below Linuxcare's placid surface, pitting open-source purists against much of the CIO's staff.
So, the CEO gambled on the IPO to cover for poor decisions that were made because he was gambling on the IPO, the CIO alienated the IT people by making obviously poor technology decisions[1], and the problem is with, to use your stereotype, the Quake-players[4]. Interesting logic.
--
With the engineering acumen Linuxcare has/had, outsourcing is ludicrous. Being in the business of open-source services, using a proprietary solution makes about as much sense as Microsoft using Apache to provide MSN homepages[2][5].
D'oh. Umm... Err... Apple running Solaris on their web servers[3].
D'oh. Never mind. I'm going home now.:-)
To hell with Doom, I miss Zork.
Yes, I know Microsoft using Apache to run their web services does make sense (which is presumably why it's happening). I was referring to the proprietary-open axis, not the scalability and/or stability axes.
Slashdot Mirror
I especially like this bit.
(My emphasis, of course---you're not supposed to notice that they expect you to be troubleshooting everyday).
Besides, after 15 seconds of experimentation, it turns out that Microsoft's Three R's of Troubleshooting (Restart, Reboot, Reinstall) fits quite nicely on a single piece of easily-photocopiable paper.
You forgot bitching about the MPAA, bitching about the DVD-CCA, bitching about CSS, bitching about an insufficient number of Natalie Portman nude scenes (Hey, where'd everybody's hands go all of the sudden?), bitching about Jar Jar, yadda yadda yadda, yabba-dabba-doo.
ObSelfPromotion: <raises hand> Movie-, VHS-, and DVD-free since the Norwegian arrests. Although I do love going into (um... media outlets? You know, the places we used to call record stores, only they don't sell records anymore, but they do sell movies) wearing my copyleft T-shirts and stringing the DVD salespeople along for hours... (current record: 3 hours, fifteen minutes while wearing the ``DVD-CCA forbidden'' shirt---you may applaud)
Oh, you're no fun anymore. It should return a malformed number (``666 Away with ye, foul beastie!'', perhaps, or ``1060 West Addison''), so that you wedge M$'s servers and trash their clients. :-)
Note: I do not actually recommend this. People who don't return proper error codes PISS ME OFF! If you do this, I will track you down for them.
I don't know about you, but telling a Senator he's wrong is usually considered a bad thing where I come from.
``Our job is to convince you that you want to listen to $LATEST_INCARNATION_OF_MENUDO, because Eris knows they couldn't get you interested in their music without our help.''
And when the cost of creating demand for your work is approximately $50 per annum (domain name + ``Web Sites for Dummies''), where's the ``added value'' in a company the size of Universal?
Ooooh, you're in trouble now... you reverse-engineered jamie's incredibly powerful encryption scheme, obviously so that you can illegally copy /. headlines. I smell a DMCA lawsuit...
Well, here's my take on the issue: the AIM network is infrastructure, whereas eBay's listings aren't.
If you want to run an auction site that competes with eBay, then you can, and eBay can't stop you.
If you want to provide a competing IM service, on the other hand, you have to use the AIM protocols, because there are already millions of users of the AIM protocols, and they're not likely to switch systems. You're stuck, unless you can access the protocols.
Protocols in specific, and infrastructure in general, must be made public, or you end up with monopolies that can't be unseated, because you can't compete with them. Example: the number of people who can't change operating systems because they have to edit Microsoft Word files.
Personally, I use my palm because I don't want to talk aft... What? Oh. Never mind.
Actually, IIRC, if you follow step by step (this happened, block it with this, now this happens, block it with this), the dispenser runs out of fish just before the last one. You have to think ahead a bit.
I know, I know, I shouldn't encourage him... Oh well. :-)
Well, let's try this out... ``Eric Raymond has stated that open-source programming is often an ego-free activity.'' Look! They're in the same sentence! By your logic, that sentence is an even larger load of bollocks than the original article. Pity that it's true. And that the sub-clause (``Open-source programming is often an ego-free activity.''), while not proven, certainly seems to be true in practice. (Yes, there are exceptions. See that word often up there?)
He stated that Brook's Law doesn't hold---as originally stated---for debugging---in an open source project. He then provided a justification that holds up under current information theory (there isn't a direct link to the explanation in CatB, but it's on thi s page. Exercise for the reader, I guess. (Anyone know why the comment system keeps sticking a space in ``this''? I'd look it up, but I'm working on my resume, which is slightly more important to me right now.)). And then, he provided an empirical example (Linux). And then, he tested his theory (fetchmail).
Agreed. That's a lie. Of course, you're the only person I have ever seen say this. To the best of my knowledge, nobody involved with Mozilla says this. Even the flakiest of news sites never seem to make this mistake. The article this discussion is about doesn't make this mistake.
Okay, hands up everybody who immediately tried the web-based tools to check /. Okay, now everybody who's decided to attach deeper meaning to the fact that Tux is the only thing that still looks ``okay''.
I thought so.
Det var jävla dumt sagt. Now IKEA knows you're abusing their IP (IKEA Products). You're in trouble now! :-)
Obviously we're reading the announcement differently then. My take is that ``I want to do IP virtual hosting'' is no longer sufficient justification for getting a block. ``I am running x secure servers, and therefore need x IP addresses'' is still a valid justification (assuming you can demonstrate that you do need x servers, have saturated a possibly non-contiguous /21 in an effective manner, yadda yadda yadda). That seems reasonable to me.
Mac users: In spite of what you may think, the desktop software market is such an insignificantly small portion of the global software market it isn't even funny. You wouldn't use Linux for day-to-day use? Fine. I wouldn't use a Mac to run an SAP R/3 system. Well, okay, I'd never run an SAP R/3 system, but you know what I mean. :-)
Linux users: Some people don't want to notice their operating system. Some people just want to send the occasional email, or write the occasional letter. Some (in fact, I'd wager most) people want a computer that acts like an appliance. You wouldn't buy a Mac for personal use? Fine. I wouldn't expect my grandmother (Eris bless her soul) to run Linux.
Both of you, go read ``In the beginning was the Command Line''. Then, implement some standards (preferably the same ones, I find that works best), put Macs on the desktop, connect them to Linux servers, and play nice.
Simple. C++ is (currently) so compiler-dependant, it's an inappropriate choice for multiple-platform development. You can't link C++ libraries built with one compiler with code written using another compiler, since they mangle names differently. The standard is so recent that there isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a single compiler that is known to be fully conformant. Et cetera, et cetera.
C++ (the language) is a good choice, but C++ (the reality) isn't there yet. Unless we force everyone to use the same compiler. Forcing everyone to use the same compiler is bad.
Warning: at the end of RFC1437, locations for the authors' matter replicator patterns are provided. Unfortunately, someone has corrupted the files. Do not use the files to attempt to reconstitute the authors. Trust me on this. Now, where's my mop...
Well, let's look at these in a bit more detail:
Leaving aside the non sequitur involved in comparing spam and source code, what this is saying is: You do not have the right to force information upon me, and you do not have the right to deny me information. Sounds almost... reasonable... that way, doesn't it?
In other words: Music is just bits, and should not be afforded any protection, Source Code is just bits and should not be afforded any protection. Once again, what exactly is ``confused'' about that?
Not that I agree with the statements above, mind you. Well, except for the one about spam.
From the FAQ:
Yes, that's right, folks, Hitler lost because someone typed Control-C on an Enigma machine, and there wasn't a signal handler in place.
Makes you wonder what SIGKILL would have done, doesn't it?
Haven't looked at the specifications lately, have you? You are in a little maze of twisty extensions, all different.
ObDSW: Win32 APIs.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the CORBA APIs. IIOP is a (notice: I did not say ``the only'') wire protocol for CORBA.
Better to spout tired old cliches than spit vitriol, methinks.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that X windows is the right idea, but has serious implementation problems that need to be addressed.
Okay, you just drew parallels between Microsoft and McGuyver. I hate you now. Hate hate hate. Nasty thought, nasty thought. Hate hate hate.
I think it's more likely that Zvezda isn't supposed to provide power for the entire station. It's the bootstrap module. Once it's up and connected to the frame, they can hook up the big solar panels.
Besides, unless you've kept something in orbit and (mostly) functional for three times its expected lifespan, I don't think you should be talking trash about the Russians.
This isn't a problem... in general, `preserving but insensitive' is the correct choice. Most people don't view capitalization as significant to the `name' of the file (IANALinguist, but the linguists I know agree with me on this one). The fact that it is under Un*x is a bad thing, from the user perspective.
Personally, I was thinking DJINN: DJINN's Java Is Not eNcumbered. Manages to hit both Java and Jini.
And yes, I know that encumbered doesn't begin with an N. However, the n's justify the means. <gr&d>
I like the use of the phrase ``own the low-end Intel/Unix market''. Anybody that thinks of the people they sell to as something they can own...
Really? Somebody should warn all those Beowulf site before they suddenly cease to exist. Or did they forget to put the ``hundred'' in?
Not bad. Has John Romero contacted you about reviewing Daikatana yet? :-)
And now, from the article...
So, the CEO gambled on the IPO to cover for poor decisions that were made because he was gambling on the IPO, the CIO alienated the IT people by making obviously poor technology decisions[1], and the problem is with, to use your stereotype, the Quake-players[4]. Interesting logic.
--