I don't talk about anything very private on an unsecure line. E.g., I refuse to disclose my social security number and other private data over the phone.
Updating the robots.txt is not a security measure. The web servers should never reveal the MMS without authentication in the first place.
Even so, is it a wise idea to be thinking of MMS as 'private'? There's no verification of the recipient. What if you accidentally pick the wrong number from cellphone contacts? What if you put the wrong number in your contacts in the first place?
Plus, these things aren't sent using SSL.
Knowing that MMS are sent using an insecure, public network, you should not be thinking of these things as 'private'. Just like the stupid myspace users who think their 'friends only' profiles are private.
I'm sorry, I think you're underestimating the survival problems imposed by such vast distances...
Assuming the aliens are not capable of exceeding the speed of light, then yes, definitely. No matter what the average lifespan of various alien species might be, I'd have a hard time imagining a species that lives for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, definitely. Even if you consider a multigenerational spacecraft, where its occupants spawn off succeeding generations, the sustainability of something like that in the confines of spaceship, even if it were the size of a football field, just doesn't seem all that likely.
OTOH, science fiction writers have dreamed of things more bizarre, and has someone once said, it seems that life imitates art.
Yeah. Fortunately I just got back from going outside. OTOH, it was just raining, and I saw all the millions and millions of tiny water drops falling from the sky. Which made me think of Interrupt 80 and all those forked off-processes it would spawn with that code...
That's nothing. I heard the next version will automatically go out the Web, sign up for an e-Trade account, and then proceed to buy stocks like GOOG, AAPL, RHAT, etc., and automatically sell them short.
3D video cards AFAIK, there are no sites anymore, but all current cards along with any card AGP, PCI, or PCI Express card made within the last 5-8 years or so that have ATI or NVIDIA chipsets will certainly work on any x86 Linux PC with the appropriate slot available. The support for many on-board video cards that are not NVIDIA or ATI, such as the popular VIA Chrome9 and Unichrome chipsets is available, but the support for it is sketchy at best unless you're willing dive into CVS or SVN repositories and grab in-development drivers. Even then, last I checked (about 6 months ago), these drivers were unstable as hell.
This list is hardly complete. In the next week or so, look for me to compile a more complete resource guide and post it at http://rob.shinn.googlepages.com/ . I'm doing it because I get tired of answering questions like "Where do I go to find out what [printers|scanners|alien mothership interfaces|...] work on Linux?"
Not at all. IANAL, but from personal experience with involvement in such a legal dispute, I wouldn't say that discovery was anymore deep than normal. The only difference is, SCO dragged their feet and dragged their feet as much as possible. But in so much as what was asked for? Not really unusual at all. The way Judge Kimball and his magistrate handled it? Nothing unusual there, either. If anything, Kimball has been one of the most fair judges I've ever seen.
You can't just stop a court trial for no reason. The judge can't just throw the whole thing out. There are rules that have to be followed and Kimball did, in essence, throw out the vast majority of SCO's claims.
In fact, most of what's left is IBM's counterclaims. That's when the hammer will really fall.
And this comment is exactly why linux is still overshadowed by windows OS. Why is it perfectly acceptable for me to go to a store, buy a printer that does what I want, and have it not work for up to a year? I shouldn't have to research which devices that put ink on paper work with my OS- it should just freaking work.
More Steve Jobs/Apple Cult Genuflecting and self-flagellation! Oh, wait...this tries to get in Steve's head? Blasphemy! No one thinks like Great Steve-O!
Let's pray!
Great Steve, founder of the hallowed Apple. Forgive us for our sins! Now and at the hour of our MacBook's death. Amen.
Exactly. People who think Linux has no drivers are probably still running Red Hat 9 or SuSE 8 or something. Get with the program. Driver support has improved by leaps and bounds within the last 2 years.
If I am going to deploy a large business network running on linux desktops, the last thing I want to do is research every bit of hardware going into the systems, when with windows or mac os x, all I have to do is look for the little sticker on the box.
You haven't done any enterprise network deployments, I take it then.
You better believe your patooty with the complexity of today's enterprise networks, every piece of hardware is scrutinized, especially if it's a Windows deploy. One little piece of hardware or software that conflicts with a major app on the network and you've got your helpdesk flooded with complaints in 3,2,1...
You are missing the point. "Lots" is a subjective term, and you need a definition or benchmark to measure by. The benchmark for drivers and device compatibility is Windows, and compared to Windows Linux does not have lots of drivers. Linux supports only a very small percentage of the devices Windows supports.
Just because a device ships with a Windows driver it does not mean that device is supported on Windows. And, furthermore, I would say a 'very small percentage' at all. How is virtually every digital camera, virtually every printer made by Epson, HP and most by Canon and virtually every PostScript and PCL printer ever made, most of the popular webcams, all major PC motherboard/chipset components (and some not-so-major), virtually all PC graphics cards, virtually all wired NICs, a healthy set of wireless NICs, almost every USB HID, virtually all USB memory sticks, etc., all supported out of the box, in true 'just works' fasion, without the need to install a separate driver package, a 'very small subset'?
Windows and its support of the newest and most obscure hardware is the benchmark for the term "lots".
Windows certainly does not support the newest and most obscure hardware. If the driver didn't with Windows, Microsoft does not support it.
I'm a Linux user myself and love FOSS. I really wish things were different in this area, but anyone taking an objective look at the situation has to admit that Linux does not have lots of drivers. The only way you can say it does is to make up your own arbitrary definition of what "lots" means, but then the other 99% of PC users who have agreed on using Windows as the measuring stick are going to call BS on you. Having to list as many caveats as you did and still concluding that Linux has "lots" of drivers smacks of fanboyism.
Maybe, but my main point is that for most mainstream users, drivers are not an issue. Yes, they are an issue for those gamers out there who have to have all the latest hardware and games NOW, but then they should be running Windows. If the community keeps saying "hardware drivers are an issue" then people will believe that, when, for the most part, it's not true.
Yeah, because 20080716-1 is so much easier to deal with than 2.6.26.
I like the Ubuntu numbering system, myself, which is date based, but does it in away that's less confusing.
Hardy Heron was released in 2008, in April, so it's called 8.04. The next release will likely be in October (they release every 6 months), and will be called 8.10.
If they keep on the same schedule, you're looking at: 9.04, 9.10, 10.04, and 10.10 for the next 4 releases after 8.10.
This "no drivers" myth continues to be quite pervasive.
There are lots of drivers, as long as you don't want to install something non-mainstream and you're okay with the binary blob drivers for the NVIDIA and ATI/AMD graphics cards (although, my understanding is that the ATI/AMD front is changing and AMD is pushing the specs out the community now).
There are very good drivers for hardware in just about any class. Scanners, printers, digital cameras, webcams, video capture, bluetooth, USB, you name it.
The trick is that you have to buy hardware that is known to work well and be supported on Linux. You might have to buy stuff that's a bit behind, too. Here's an example: the Epson Stylus C120 has a release date of August 2007. The Gutenprint driver for the C120 just appeared within this last month or so in 5.2 Beta releases (I think it's been available in the CVS for sometime). That means distros that keep up like Ubuntu will probably start supporting it in their next releases.
So you had to a wait a year. Big deal. In that year, the list price dropped from $89.99 to $69.99.
If you're one of those people that just HAS to have the latest hardware NOW, you're probably a gamer and should use Windows anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't talk about anything very private on an unsecure line. E.g., I refuse to disclose my social security number and other private data over the phone.
Updating the robots.txt is not a security measure. The web servers should never reveal the MMS without authentication in the first place.
Even so, is it a wise idea to be thinking of MMS as 'private'? There's no verification of the recipient. What if you accidentally pick the wrong number from cellphone contacts? What if you put the wrong number in your contacts in the first place?
Plus, these things aren't sent using SSL.
Knowing that MMS are sent using an insecure, public network, you should not be thinking of these things as 'private'. Just like the stupid myspace users who think their 'friends only' profiles are private.
You think things have changed much in 12 years?
Yes. They've gotten much worse.
private industry (finally) looks like it might produce some interesting private space trips.
Maybe. So far everything is being done in the interests of space tourism. I'd like to see private industry strive to do something useful.
I'm sorry, I think you're underestimating the survival problems imposed by such vast distances...
Assuming the aliens are not capable of exceeding the speed of light, then yes, definitely. No matter what the average lifespan of various alien species might be, I'd have a hard time imagining a species that lives for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, definitely. Even if you consider a multigenerational spacecraft, where its occupants spawn off succeeding generations, the sustainability of something like that in the confines of spaceship, even if it were the size of a football field, just doesn't seem all that likely.
OTOH, science fiction writers have dreamed of things more bizarre, and has someone once said, it seems that life imitates art.
Yeah. Fortunately I just got back from going outside. OTOH, it was just raining, and I saw all the millions and millions of tiny water drops falling from the sky. Which made me think of Interrupt 80 and all those forked off-processes it would spawn with that code...
echo -e 'global _start \n _start: \n mov eax, 2 \n int 80h \n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a; a
Hmm....I wouldn't do that if you have 'ulimit' set to 'unlimited' number of processes allowed per user.
Wow, that's evil, even for malware authors.
That's nothing. I heard the next version will automatically go out the Web, sign up for an e-Trade account, and then proceed to buy stocks like GOOG, AAPL, RHAT, etc., and automatically sell them short.
Would that be a RAIB?
Redundant Array of Interchangeable Batmen?
or more like a High Available Batcluster?
Scanners
http://www.sane-project.org/sane-supported-devices.html
wireless NICs
http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Devices/USB
digital cameras
http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/support.php Note that any camera that works as a USB storage device (most these days) will work also.
3D video cards
AFAIK, there are no sites anymore, but all current cards along with any card AGP, PCI, or PCI Express card made within the last 5-8 years or so that have ATI or NVIDIA chipsets will certainly work on any x86 Linux PC with the appropriate slot available. The support for many on-board video cards that are not NVIDIA or ATI, such as the popular VIA Chrome9 and Unichrome chipsets is available, but the support for it is sketchy at best unless you're willing dive into CVS or SVN repositories and grab in-development drivers. Even then, last I checked (about 6 months ago), these drivers were unstable as hell.
other hardware
check the forums on http://linuxhardware.org.
This list is hardly complete. In the next week or so, look for me to compile a more complete resource guide and post it at http://rob.shinn.googlepages.com/ . I'm doing it because I get tired of answering questions like "Where do I go to find out what [printers|scanners|alien mothership interfaces|...] work on Linux?"
There was an Internet in 1984. I was there.
Now you kids get off of my lawn!
Bill Gates as Darth Vader: SCO! *I* am your father!
Not at all. IANAL, but from personal experience with involvement in such a legal dispute, I wouldn't say that discovery was anymore deep than normal. The only difference is, SCO dragged their feet and dragged their feet as much as possible. But in so much as what was asked for? Not really unusual at all. The way Judge Kimball and his magistrate handled it? Nothing unusual there, either. If anything, Kimball has been one of the most fair judges I've ever seen.
You can't just stop a court trial for no reason. The judge can't just throw the whole thing out. There are rules that have to be followed and Kimball did, in essence, throw out the vast majority of SCO's claims.
In fact, most of what's left is IBM's counterclaims. That's when the hammer will really fall.
It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?
Who? Microsoft? Sue SCO? Microsoft helped to orchestrate this whole fiaSCO. Not likely, no.
Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.
Nah. They still have to face the music with IBM. Same judge, too.
And this comment is exactly why linux is still overshadowed by windows OS. Why is it perfectly acceptable for me to go to a store, buy a printer that does what I want, and have it not work for up to a year? I shouldn't have to research which devices that put ink on paper work with my OS- it should just freaking work.
Solution. It's been there for years.
and maybe some tips on the best way to throw chairs.
It's all in the wrist! the wrist! the wrist!
-- The Other Steve
From the archives of Slashdot, ca. 1984, story: Apple Releases Macintosh:
More Steve Jobs/Apple Cult Genuflecting and self-flagellation! Oh, wait...this tries to get in Steve's head? Blasphemy! No one thinks like Great Steve-O!
Let's pray!
Great Steve, founder of the hallowed Apple.
Forgive us for our sins!
Now and at the hour of our MacBook's death. Amen.
All Hail the Dark Turtlenecked One!
Exactly. People who think Linux has no drivers are probably still running Red Hat 9 or SuSE 8 or something. Get with the program. Driver support has improved by leaps and bounds within the last 2 years.
Most Wifi network USB dongles will work with ndiswrapper, which is userland.
*ducking*
If I am going to deploy a large business network running on linux desktops, the last thing I want to do is research every bit of hardware going into the systems, when with windows or mac os x, all I have to do is look for the little sticker on the box.
You haven't done any enterprise network deployments, I take it then.
You better believe your patooty with the complexity of today's enterprise networks, every piece of hardware is scrutinized, especially if it's a Windows deploy. One little piece of hardware or software that conflicts with a major app on the network and you've got your helpdesk flooded with complaints in 3,2,1...
You are missing the point. "Lots" is a subjective term, and you need a definition or benchmark to measure by. The benchmark for drivers and device compatibility is Windows, and compared to Windows Linux does not have lots of drivers. Linux supports only a very small percentage of the devices Windows supports.
Just because a device ships with a Windows driver it does not mean that device is supported on Windows. And, furthermore, I would say a 'very small percentage' at all. How is virtually every digital camera, virtually every printer made by Epson, HP and most by Canon and virtually every PostScript and PCL printer ever made, most of the popular webcams, all major PC motherboard/chipset components (and some not-so-major), virtually all PC graphics cards, virtually all wired NICs, a healthy set of wireless NICs, almost every USB HID, virtually all USB memory sticks, etc., all supported out of the box, in true 'just works' fasion, without the need to install a separate driver package, a 'very small subset'?
Windows and its support of the newest and most obscure hardware is the benchmark for the term "lots".
Windows certainly does not support the newest and most obscure hardware. If the driver didn't with Windows, Microsoft does not support it.
I'm a Linux user myself and love FOSS. I really wish things were different in this area, but anyone taking an objective look at the situation has to admit that Linux does not have lots of drivers. The only way you can say it does is to make up your own arbitrary definition of what "lots" means, but then the other 99% of PC users who have agreed on using Windows as the measuring stick are going to call BS on you. Having to list as many caveats as you did and still concluding that Linux has "lots" of drivers smacks of fanboyism.
Maybe, but my main point is that for most mainstream users, drivers are not an issue. Yes, they are an issue for those gamers out there who have to have all the latest hardware and games NOW, but then they should be running Windows. If the community keeps saying "hardware drivers are an issue" then people will believe that, when, for the most part, it's not true.
Mine wasn't "shared", but it still sucked pretty bad.
What is meant by 'shared'? How is any satellite system not a shared medium?
Perhaps I'm just not understanding some sat lingo here.
Yeah, because 20080716-1 is so much easier to deal with than 2.6.26.
I like the Ubuntu numbering system, myself, which is date based, but does it in away that's less confusing.
Hardy Heron was released in 2008, in April, so it's called 8.04. The next release will likely be in October (they release every 6 months), and will be called 8.10.
If they keep on the same schedule, you're looking at: 9.04, 9.10, 10.04, and 10.10 for the next 4 releases after 8.10.
Nice, clean, simple.
This "no drivers" myth continues to be quite pervasive.
There are lots of drivers, as long as you don't want to install something non-mainstream and you're okay with the binary blob drivers for the NVIDIA and ATI/AMD graphics cards (although, my understanding is that the ATI/AMD front is changing and AMD is pushing the specs out the community now).
There are very good drivers for hardware in just about any class. Scanners, printers, digital cameras, webcams, video capture, bluetooth, USB, you name it.
The trick is that you have to buy hardware that is known to work well and be supported on Linux. You might have to buy stuff that's a bit behind, too. Here's an example: the Epson Stylus C120 has a release date of August 2007. The Gutenprint driver for the C120 just appeared within this last month or so in 5.2 Beta releases (I think it's been available in the CVS for sometime). That means distros that keep up like Ubuntu will probably start supporting it in their next releases.
So you had to a wait a year. Big deal. In that year, the list price dropped from $89.99 to $69.99.
If you're one of those people that just HAS to have the latest hardware NOW, you're probably a gamer and should use Windows anyhow.