Instead, the company hopes that individuals will give doctors, clinics and hospitals permission to directly send into their HealthVault record information like medicines prescribed or, say, test results showing blood pressure and cholesterol level The hell I will! No way, Jose. Fuggeddaboudit!
The last thing I need is an employer or potential employer tracking down my medical records. Or the CIA, NSA, ATF, or cybercriminals or any other organization or individual who wishes to covertly steal my personal data for nefarious purposes.
Do you know what your medical history contains and how it can be used against you? I do.
Anything is solvable with another layer of abstraction. That's it! We'll have virtual cyborg arms! We could try the whole thing a virtualization first, and then....but wait! Why stop there! We'll just make whole virtual cyborg bodies! After that, who needs real bodies! The brain'll be a sort of hypervisor... you could be three people at once!
It's called a 'backdoor'. If you're building backdoors into your disk encryption product, I don't want it. This is just another example of where free / open source software shines: you can know there are no backdoors in the tool because you have the source and can verify it for yourself.
...or is copper wire pretty much copper wire? Aside from things like selecting the appropriate gauge to ensure that the amount of signal you're pumping through is getting through with the most minimal degradation possible, how, exactly, are over-priced cables going to improve sound quality?
And as far as I'm concerned, audiophiles who claim that they can 'hear' differences between this brand and that brand of similar gauge speaker cable are just mental. Literally. The difference is in your head. Normal human hearing range is remarkably narrow.
Personally, I like KDE, I even like Gnome, but I'm a geek. And I'm not denying that desktop environments didn't come a long way towards usability. At the same time, I think it is necessary to refine them relentlessly. Anyone who thinks KDE is ready for their mom or your average office worker is clearly kidding themselves and I invite them to conduct their own study. I have. Neither my computer illiterate wife nor her 86-year-old mother have any problems using GNOME. The only people I've seen who've had problems have been people who are used to Windows. Those people have just as much of a hard time with Mac OS X.
Huge issues for me are multihead configuration and other graphics integration issues. This stuff shouldn't be so hard. Granted, most distros work fine on a standard single-screen system if the hardware isn't too fancy. Again, we've certainly come a long way here. But this needs to go so much further, up to the point where no user has to even touch a configuration text file, ever again. I agree that it needs to improve, but the average user doesn't use a multihead configuration. PCs come with one screen. They don't understand why someone would want or need two.
The only other problem I see is in switching to a graphics card that uses a different driver. This usually involves either A) editing xorg.conf or B) reloading the OS (which avoids editing xorg.conf, but has its own problems).
Both problems can be resolved by the development of a comprehensive xorg.conf editing front-end. I recently considered writing such a front-end using Python and PyGTK, but I'm not sure if others are already doing this work and I don't want to duplicate effort.
is a big problem because there needs to be legacy support for business apps and other expert software that can't be ported but has to be used for some time to come. Just saying "fuck this, you don't need this app" is not really the solution. Legacy support for business apps and other expert software has nothing to do with 'mom' and 'grandma.' The article is about Linux on the desktop. Corporate businesses willing to make the switch to Linux on the desktop will seek to do development or business process improvement to eliminate custom apps. Most large businesses I've seen are already on a rampage to remove in-house developed apps and replace those with COTS anyway and to eliminate vertical market applications and replace them with functional equivalents where possible to reduce costs. And there are plenty of pre-existing solutions for legacy documents, including one setup I've seen that uses a server and some automation to convert Microsoft Office documents to ODF.
And mom and grandma usually don't care much about what program they use to write letters, so long as they have one.
And supporting Windows apps is indeed a problem for Mac OS X, but not a huge one. Why? Because you can install stuff like Parallels even if you are just a mere human. Here's a business proposition for you:
1) join the Microsoft reseller program for Windows XP and/or Vista, 2) start packaging up pre-built QEMU and/or XEN VMs, each tailored for different purposes. 3) Create a custom front-end for auto-building and installing the approrpriate kernel modules 4) Bundle the whole thing together and start selling it. 5) Profit!!!
Er.. how many BSD licensed distros have made it to mainstream press? The simple truth of the matter is that GPL has ensured that users get the most benefit from the Freedoms. Else, the corporate idea-thieves would've long ago taken over Linux, and made colourful, bloated clones.. back to Unix days. GPL is the best thing that ever happened to Linux. You make it sound like there's only GPL and BSD to chose from in free / open source licenses. There are something like 60 different licenses listed on opensource.org. Are you suggesting that if Linux had been distributed under, say, the Artistic License that it wouldn't have been as successful? And the answer to your original question: How many BSD licensed.... is at least three. FreeBSD, Mac OS X and Darwin.
Usability is a nightmare. The UI is cluttered with useless, confusing icons and half of the functions behind them don't even work properly What are you talking about? Have you seen a recent GNOME or KDE desktop? Lots of thought and care were put into uncluttering the desktop and making icons and menus make sense -- on both of the major desktops.
But configuration is the worst problem, why is it so hard to make a system architecture and drivers that don't require constant hand holding regarding even the most basic settings? It's not. I haven't had to compile a custom kernel in gods-knows-how-long. Most common hardware devices are supported out of the box on modern, polished distros like Ubuntu or Fedora. For the four computers in my house, I only ever needed to manually configure ONE piece of hardware -- a USB wireless adapter on my laptop. The other machine with wireless has an Atheros wireless NIC, and I literally had to do nothing other than configure WPA. The digital camera, Web cam, scanner, printer, wired NICs, nVidia video cards, USB storage devices, mice, trackballs, keyboards (some with special keys), etc. were all literally supported out of the box with no manual configuration or driver installation whatsoever.
Second, supporting Windows apps is a huge problem, too. Really? Why is that a problem? Notice no one ever says "supporting Windows apps is a huge problem for Mac OS X". That's because 1) most people don't need Windows apps when there are plenty of nice alternatives, and 2) there are options like Parallels and Boot Camp for Intel Macs. Likewise, there are options like XEN and QEMU on Linux. Ever tried QEMU on Ubuntu Feisty Fawn? Other than the need to compile a custom kernel module for full virtualization (admittedly, a bit hard), there are applications like the QEMU Launcher and the QEMU Control Panel, which make it drop dead simple to setup and run QEMU for someone who knows what he's doing. Not that setting up Parallels is a cakewalk, either, though. It still involves installing a second OS in virtual machine, no matter what. And XEN is very usable.
Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..
on
The Next Leap for Linux
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Itself means Linux has made a good 'Next Leap'. Seriously! Until a few months back, the only Linux news used to be about the SCO case, Microsoft - Novell patents FUD etc. The nature of the GPL has meant that the cat is now well out of the bag, and the mainstream press outlets are compelled to sing the Penguin March. I don't disagree with you that the mainstream press' recent positive attention to Linux is demonstrative of Linux on the desktop becoming a success story of its own, but I don't really see what the GPL has to do with it. The license itself makes no difference as far as 'compelling mainstream outlets to sing the Penguin March.' All that matters in this regard is that Linux can get the job done and is proving itself as a viable desktop operating system. The license may have contributed to that by invigorating the developer base (a matter that's up for debate), but the GPL really has nothing to do with Linux's success -- the success is a result of the hard work of developers, testers, documenters, and community volunteers that help spread the word.
So now, the NYT, Forbes, Gartner, Yankee and the rest must join the Linux bandwagon. Or be left behind. These groups don't have to do anything of the sort. They merely report on trends in technology. If one of those trends is Linux, so be it. They'll report. Gartner and Yankee in particular aren't going to end their Microsoft bias anytime soon though.
As long as the product feedback center is responsive I don't think this is going to be a big deal for most. I take it you've never dealt with Microsoft's Product Feedback Center.
Here's the deal: most real free/open source developers give public access to their project's source code repositories. Microsoft will release source code for 'Open'.Net on a schedule that suits them for strategic or monetary purposes. Maybe you'll get monthly updates. Most likely, you'll get quarterly updates. Maybe not even that many updates.
Microsoft also times code releases to ensure that their developers get first access, and you, as an 'ISV' have to wait until their projects are much further along than yours. Especially if you are building competing technology.
Microsoft doesn't do anything that isn't purely for their own self interest.
This ruling makes this impossible to do the same with a bomb threath send over the internet. Wouldn't this ruling make even the most basic web policing, the blocking of ip adresses, impossible? Not that I see it. The problem is with retaining logs that are unneeded except for accounting. Keeping a few days worth of IP address logs is enough for me. If I see someone doing something malicious, I usually only need to check that days or the previous day's logs. A week would be more than adequate. So, I need to keep a week's worth of Apache access logs for accounting purposes. What's the problem?
What more do you need as proof? Do they have to use a pair of rusty pliers to put Miguel in his place when he mouths off about something inane (as per usual?) Yes, please.
The OOo community, or, that is, both developers not working for Sun;), have been talking about a fork for a while, well before the whole MS/Novell thing. Sun won't take any code from anyone not willing to assign the copyright to them, which pisses a lot of people off. They also won't take code that deviates from the strategic direction Sun wants to follow. Development proceeds at Sun's pace, which as some say -- giant land tortoises move faster. The OOo community needs to fork OOo for the good of the project.
They told him, we don't your code around here Don't wanna see your source, make it disappear The license they don't like, and they made that clear So fork it, Just fork it.
You better take your code, better do what you can Don't wanna see it die, 'cause Sun wanna be da man! You wanna own your code, better do what you can So fork it, but you don't wanna be mad
Just fork it, fork it, fork it, fork it No wants this to get too heated Show 'em the way to free code that's right It doesn't matter how the code comes to light Just fork it, Fork it Just fork it, Fork it Just fork it, Fork it Just fork it, Fork it
They won't take your code, best to leave while you can Don't wanna fight with Sun, you wanna be da man You wau wanna keep the code alive, just do what you can So fork it, Just fork it,
Why has this method been so effective for so long? Example:
What? Are you against protecting children? How could you be against protecting children? What? Do you hate children? You horrible, horrible person! You hate children! God, what a bastard you are! See what I mean?
I've said from the beginning that the reason Apple's iPhone was closed to outside development was due to Apple, and not to AT&T. Apple is obsessive about controlling the end-user experience, so they don't want any third-party development on the iPhone. And what happened? I got accused of starting flamewars by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Mac fanbois.
There's nothing wrong with Apple intent on the iPhone. It's their product and they can market and sell it how they see fit. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.
The real problem is the total lack of communication from anyone on Apple's side to these kinds of problems. This seems to be Apple's MO in recent years at least. Because all of their grass-root marketing efforts revolve around "it just works," they seem reluctant to acknowledge when problems do exist.
Look, Apple, there's nothing shameful about having problems in your product. It happens all the time. The computing industry is relatively young, and the technology that's involved is usually not very mature compared to products in other industries. It's far better to admit there's a problem than to go on pretending it doesn't exist. "We acknowledge there's a problem and we're working on a fix," is far better than "Problem? What problem?"
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, trying to take over the world!! Right, Pinky?
Uh huh. And not to mention Microsoft's 'stellar' track record with regards to security.
The last thing I need is an employer or potential employer tracking down my medical records. Or the CIA, NSA, ATF, or cybercriminals or any other organization or individual who wishes to covertly steal my personal data for nefarious purposes.
Do you know what your medical history contains and how it can be used against you? I do.
What? Why is everyone looking at me like that?
Duhhh... okay, I get it.
Yes, the article is FUD. Nothing to see here, move alone.
Why not just ensure that the IT staff have, or at least have access to, the keys? Why the need for a backdoor?
It's called a 'backdoor'. If you're building backdoors into your disk encryption product, I don't want it. This is just another example of where free / open source software shines: you can know there are no backdoors in the tool because you have the source and can verify it for yourself.
...or is copper wire pretty much copper wire? Aside from things like selecting the appropriate gauge to ensure that the amount of signal you're pumping through is getting through with the most minimal degradation possible, how, exactly, are over-priced cables going to improve sound quality?
And as far as I'm concerned, audiophiles who claim that they can 'hear' differences between this brand and that brand of similar gauge speaker cable are just mental. Literally. The difference is in your head. Normal human hearing range is remarkably narrow.
The only other problem I see is in switching to a graphics card that uses a different driver. This usually involves either A) editing xorg.conf or B) reloading the OS (which avoids editing xorg.conf, but has its own problems).
Both problems can be resolved by the development of a comprehensive xorg.conf editing front-end. I recently considered writing such a front-end using Python and PyGTK, but I'm not sure if others are already doing this work and I don't want to duplicate effort. is a big problem because there needs to be legacy support for business apps and other expert software that can't be ported but has to be used for some time to come. Just saying "fuck this, you don't need this app" is not really the solution. Legacy support for business apps and other expert software has nothing to do with 'mom' and 'grandma.' The article is about Linux on the desktop. Corporate businesses willing to make the switch to Linux on the desktop will seek to do development or business process improvement to eliminate custom apps. Most large businesses I've seen are already on a rampage to remove in-house developed apps and replace those with COTS anyway and to eliminate vertical market applications and replace them with functional equivalents where possible to reduce costs. And there are plenty of pre-existing solutions for legacy documents, including one setup I've seen that uses a server and some automation to convert Microsoft Office documents to ODF.
And mom and grandma usually don't care much about what program they use to write letters, so long as they have one. And supporting Windows apps is indeed a problem for Mac OS X, but not a huge one. Why? Because you can install stuff like Parallels even if you are just a mere human. Here's a business proposition for you:
1) join the Microsoft reseller program for Windows XP and/or Vista,
2) start packaging up pre-built QEMU and/or XEN VMs, each tailored for different purposes.
3) Create a custom front-end for auto-building and installing the approrpriate kernel modules
4) Bundle the whole thing together and start selling it.
5) Profit!!!
See? There's not even a ??? part.
Here's the deal: most real free/open source developers give public access to their project's source code repositories. Microsoft will release source code for 'Open'
Microsoft also times code releases to ensure that their developers get first access, and you, as an 'ISV' have to wait until their projects are much further along than yours. Especially if you are building competing technology.
Microsoft doesn't do anything that isn't purely for their own self interest.
Not at the OS level? More like only at the browser level. Who's being misleading here?
The OOo community, or, that is, both developers not working for Sun ;), have been talking about a fork for a while, well before the whole MS/Novell thing. Sun won't take any code from anyone not willing to assign the copyright to them, which pisses a lot of people off. They also won't take code that deviates from the strategic direction Sun wants to follow. Development proceeds at Sun's pace, which as some say -- giant land tortoises move faster. The OOo community needs to fork OOo for the good of the project.
to Michael Jackson and Weird Al Yankovich:
They told him, we don't your code around here
Don't wanna see your source, make it disappear
The license they don't like, and they made that clear
So fork it, Just fork it.
You better take your code, better do what you can
Don't wanna see it die, 'cause Sun wanna be da man!
You wanna own your code, better do what you can
So fork it, but you don't wanna be mad
Just fork it, fork it, fork it, fork it
No wants this to get too heated
Show 'em the way to free code that's right
It doesn't matter how the code comes to light
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
They won't take your code, best to leave while you can
Don't wanna fight with Sun, you wanna be da man
You wau wanna keep the code alive, just do what you can
So fork it, Just fork it,
I've said from the beginning that the reason Apple's iPhone was closed to outside development was due to Apple, and not to AT&T. Apple is obsessive about controlling the end-user experience, so they don't want any third-party development on the iPhone. And what happened? I got accused of starting flamewars by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Mac fanbois.
There's nothing wrong with Apple intent on the iPhone. It's their product and they can market and sell it how they see fit. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPhone.
Look, Apple, there's nothing shameful about having problems in your product. It happens all the time. The computing industry is relatively young, and the technology that's involved is usually not very mature compared to products in other industries. It's far better to admit there's a problem than to go on pretending it doesn't exist. "We acknowledge there's a problem and we're working on a fix," is far better than "Problem? What problem?"
Apparently, you have to go down to the fiery church to burn a few hours...