Why does a post saying "I'm old and don't understand why younger people want to use thems new high-tech thingies" get moderated INSIGHTFUL on SLASHDOT?!?
Yes, there are problems with excessive availability, and yes, it's a bad idea to let one's kids get into debt.
- Yes, typing a message with T9 on a keypad can be tough, but people like it. It is not "better to just call them up". SMS's are silent and can be made discreetly (not discretely kiddies).
Also remember that it is like any other electronic communication, i.e. asynchronous and devoid of emotions, which is fairly useful when you don't have the guts to call someone and say something like "I love you, want to go on a date?".
I, for one, am glad that I don't suffer under your evil telco overlords.:-)
Over here there are provider-locked phones, but the max locking period is six months I think, and buying a locked phone usually only lowers the price for it. You can always buy any phone at full price and then choose any provider and any form of subscription they offer.
I see a market for exporting unlocked triband-phones to the US.:-D
Well, the difference is that your gas and your clothes were pre-paid. The price was visible, and you couldn't consume until you've paid for it.
Yes, parents should teach kids to be responsible and pay for themselves, but it is also kinda seedy of the telcos to allow teenagers to sign up for a subscription with a monthly fee and to a service which charges you after you've consumed the service. They are in effect giving people unlimited credit without the checks and balances that are in place for for example credit cards. (Ok, I'm not from the country that is the glorious home of credit cards, but even you DO have some checks and balances, right?:-) )
I'm not sure why kids need celphones. I never needed one and kept in touch with friends just fine.
It's ok grandpa, don't get agitated now, you know it's not good for your heart. There, there, back to your rocking-chair now.:-)
Seriously, what you are experiencing now is what the generation older than you probably experienced when you started using computers or the internet or instant messaging.
It's always a chock as a geek to realize that other non-geeks are embracing tech faster than you do.
I'm 28. I got my first cellphone 10 years ago, and SMS has always been available for me. I use it occasionally, it has its uses, but the kids today that have always had a cell-phone as teenagers, they use the things very, very, VERY differently compared to me.
The first is that the messages have the same qualities as secret notes, you can share them with friends ("Look at what he wrote!" *phone goes around circle of giggling girls*).
The second thing is that finally teens have access to electronic communication to all of their peers, with all the ways that it is different from face-to-face communication, i.e. being asynchronous and devoid of emotions. It is a helluva lot easier to text someone "I love you", than calling that person and trying to stutter it out over the phone.
I remember an ad from five years ago or so by the national telco here, and it had a picture of a typical high-school class and the following text:
"Everyone in this class has got a cellphone. That's not extraordinary. Everyone in this class is deaf. That's extraordinary."
Technology is a wonderful thing in the way it changes everyone's life. On the other hand, there will always be people going "no, it's bad!" or "no, why are you using the technology like that?" or "I don't understand them's newfangled thingies!"
Personally, as a young geek who has always been comparatively way ahead in tech, I find it very interesting to be obsoleted, to have kids use common tech in ways I could never imagine, and integrating it into their lives in a way I would never do.
It's pretty good, and it explains why OSS outcompetes and outperforms commercial software in the long run. Proprietary, commercial, software will always be around for niche markets or emerging market though.
The OSS development model works because instead of tapping the finite resources of individual companies, it taps the nearly infinite resources of human creativity through the internet. The only thing that could suck the steam out of the OSS movement is if the internet broke down (unlikely) or if humans stopped being creative (haha).
As for economic viability, I know this sounds crazy, but a lot of people do things just for fun, for recognition, for pride, for the love of their work or simply just because the problem was there. Money isn't the only thing that can make people produce excellent software.
You list some neat pieces of syntactic sugar that generally makes C# a lot nicer to program than Java, but to call that "much more" is a gross overstatement. They're both reasonably high-level object-oriented compiled virtual machine-using languages with large class-libraries. The only large difference is that C# is very much geared towards XML in all forms (which didn't exist when Java was made), but other than that the differences are minor.
Imagine that it would have succeeded, that all users would have demanded this single-signon from every webiste. In that case, being the only vendor of the webserver that can allow this, IIS, is pretty close to domination of the net.
Yes, I know, the web is not the entire internet, but still. It would have been yet another monopoly they could abuse.
No, the main idea behind.Net Passport (or the Hailstorm part of it, or whatever name they failed to communicate) was that they wanted to set themselves up as the gatekeeper, to have all authentication go through them, and have all user information go through them. That kind of power in one company is bad news for everyone else.
I would imagine that "all" that's needed is a big database, some public key system, and a client-side tool to fill in the login forms. It's not THAT tricky.
Huh? All modern browsers have a password manager that can auto-fill logins and passwords, and in some cases even registration forms. This is already covered through client-side systems already, why oh why would you want to involve a central database, thereby creating a single point of failure, and a single point of hacking?
I'm sorry, but I think most users actually don't trust any central service to store their passwords, and that is a good thing.
Why bother to sign in to passport when each user will only run windows longhorn, and each user will have their own account, and the current active account can be queried by the website via some new fancy secure API initiative that will be in longhorn... thus forcing everyone to have to run longhorn in order to do so much as use ebay or amazon...
That was actually EXACTLY the goals of Windows XP, it's integration with the.Net Passport, and the.Net development portfolio. Microsofts vision was that every windows XP account was to be tied to a.Net Passport which would require users only to log on to their computer, and then while visiting every other Passport-enabled website they would automatically and transparently be signed in, and all participating websites would automatically have access to aggregated user information about you through the centralized Passport system.
Be happy it failed. Be happy that users saw it for the privacy nightmare it was, and be happy that companies saw it for the information grab it was.
I used to work on a similar system for another major portal business, although only for our own portfolio of websites, and we took this stuff really seriously for a while. When eBay joined, we were starting to get a bit scared, because if the passport thing had taken off, our business would have gone bye-bye.
The worst thing about Passport and the related.Net services was that MS intended not only to store a username and password, but store ALL user information. Participating sites would then have free access to the information they contributed to the system, but would have to pay for anything else. Also, using the entire.Net portfolio would have made it simple for web developers to build a system with a "secure" passport logon and user database, but VERY difficult to obtain control over their own data. Microsoft, on the other hand, would have complete access to all user data regardless of source. They could have become the gatekeeper, the only company with control over user data, and everyone else paying them for data mining rights in their own data. We should be VERY thankful that it didn't take off.
In retrospect, Microsoft made a bunch of mistakes:
1) The whole thing got muddled in the general confusion of.Net.
2) Most other web companies actually valued control of their user data more than ease of development.
3) No user demand for single sign-on, either because users don't care, or because they actually value their privacy and don't want different websites to share user data.
ie. if you distribute a GPL app *on the same CD* as a non-gpl one you break the license.
Yes, of course?
If I make a CD such as you describe, I make derivative works based on MySQL. The copyrights to this derivative belongs to me. Not MySQL AB. Me. This means that I decide how this is to be distributed, and if I choose for example a BSD-style license, it means that someone can take my derivative and use only the embedded MySQL server under the BSD license, and that is something MySQL AB really, really doesn't want you to do.
I could also, to take another example, redistribute my derivative under a commercial license, which means that I'm essentially selling MySQL and receiving all the profits. That's also not acceptable.
It's because of the above reasons the GPL is written the way it is. It ensures that any derivative works is distributed with the same freedoms as the GPL grants and requires.
The simple solution to your problem is to simply not re-distribute MySQL yourself.
Even if you never use/distribute any GPL code, your end users can bind you to the GPL retroactively.
No, read what MySQL writes again. They say that if you distribute a COMMERCIAL (Non-GPL) piece of software that requires MySQL to work, your users must obtain a COMMERCIAL (Non-GPL) license for MySQL.
If your users don't obtain a commercial license for MySQL to use your software, they are committing a license violation. If they only obtain a GPL license for MySQL, they are still in violation while using your software together with MySQL. In no way does that bind you or the user to the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does a post saying "I'm old and don't understand why younger people want to use thems new high-tech thingies" get moderated INSIGHTFUL on SLASHDOT?!?
Yes, there are problems with excessive availability, and yes, it's a bad idea to let one's kids get into debt.
But non-understanding should never be a virtue.
- Yes, typing a message with T9 on a keypad can be tough, but people like it. It is not "better to just call them up". SMS's are silent and can be made discreetly (not discretely kiddies).
Also remember that it is like any other electronic communication, i.e. asynchronous and devoid of emotions, which is fairly useful when you don't have the guts to call someone and say something like "I love you, want to go on a date?".
I, for one, am glad that I don't suffer under your evil telco overlords. :-)
:-D
Over here there are provider-locked phones, but the max locking period is six months I think, and buying a locked phone usually only lowers the price for it. You can always buy any phone at full price and then choose any provider and any form of subscription they offer.
I see a market for exporting unlocked triband-phones to the US.
Well, the difference is that your gas and your clothes were pre-paid. The price was visible, and you couldn't consume until you've paid for it.
:-) )
Yes, parents should teach kids to be responsible and pay for themselves, but it is also kinda seedy of the telcos to allow teenagers to sign up for a subscription with a monthly fee and to a service which charges you after you've consumed the service. They are in effect giving people unlimited credit without the checks and balances that are in place for for example credit cards. (Ok, I'm not from the country that is the glorious home of credit cards, but even you DO have some checks and balances, right?
I'm not sure why kids need celphones. I never needed one and kept in touch with friends just fine.
:-)
It's ok grandpa, don't get agitated now, you know it's not good for your heart. There, there, back to your rocking-chair now.
Seriously, what you are experiencing now is what the generation older than you probably experienced when you started using computers or the internet or instant messaging.
It's always a chock as a geek to realize that other non-geeks are embracing tech faster than you do.
If it's so bad as you say, why is it so popular?
I'm 28. I got my first cellphone 10 years ago, and SMS has always been available for me. I use it occasionally, it has its uses, but the kids today that have always had a cell-phone as teenagers, they use the things very, very, VERY differently compared to me.
The first is that the messages have the same qualities as secret notes, you can share them with friends ("Look at what he wrote!" *phone goes around circle of giggling girls*).
The second thing is that finally teens have access to electronic communication to all of their peers, with all the ways that it is different from face-to-face communication, i.e. being asynchronous and devoid of emotions. It is a helluva lot easier to text someone "I love you", than calling that person and trying to stutter it out over the phone.
I remember an ad from five years ago or so by the national telco here, and it had a picture of a typical high-school class and the following text:
"Everyone in this class has got a cellphone. That's not extraordinary. Everyone in this class is deaf. That's extraordinary."
Technology is a wonderful thing in the way it changes everyone's life. On the other hand, there will always be people going "no, it's bad!" or "no, why are you using the technology like that?" or "I don't understand them's newfangled thingies!"
Personally, as a young geek who has always been comparatively way ahead in tech, I find it very interesting to be obsoleted, to have kids use common tech in ways I could never imagine, and integrating it into their lives in a way I would never do.
Well, a previous Slashdot article linked to this:
_ lifecycle.htm
http://www.moonviewscientific.com/essays/software
It's pretty good, and it explains why OSS outcompetes and outperforms commercial software in the long run. Proprietary, commercial, software will always be around for niche markets or emerging market though.
The OSS development model works because instead of tapping the finite resources of individual companies, it taps the nearly infinite resources of human creativity through the internet. The only thing that could suck the steam out of the OSS movement is if the internet broke down (unlikely) or if humans stopped being creative (haha).
As for economic viability, I know this sounds crazy, but a lot of people do things just for fun, for recognition, for pride, for the love of their work or simply just because the problem was there. Money isn't the only thing that can make people produce excellent software.
You list some neat pieces of syntactic sugar that generally makes C# a lot nicer to program than Java, but to call that "much more" is a gross overstatement. They're both reasonably high-level object-oriented compiled virtual machine-using languages with large class-libraries. The only large difference is that C# is very much geared towards XML in all forms (which didn't exist when Java was made), but other than that the differences are minor.
I'd hire the Spanish Inqusition. NOONE expects the Spanish Inqusition!
Imagine that it would have succeeded, that all users would have demanded this single-signon from every webiste. In that case, being the only vendor of the webserver that can allow this, IIS, is pretty close to domination of the net. Yes, I know, the web is not the entire internet, but still. It would have been yet another monopoly they could abuse.
No, the main idea behind .Net Passport (or the Hailstorm part of it, or whatever name they failed to communicate) was that they wanted to set themselves up as the gatekeeper, to have all authentication go through them, and have all user information go through them. That kind of power in one company is bad news for everyone else.
The word "anthropomorphic" looks at you with its sad eyes and cries a bit because you forgot it. How could you? It's so cute!
I would imagine that "all" that's needed is a big database, some public key system, and a client-side tool to fill in the login forms. It's not THAT tricky.
Huh? All modern browsers have a password manager that can auto-fill logins and passwords, and in some cases even registration forms. This is already covered through client-side systems already, why oh why would you want to involve a central database, thereby creating a single point of failure, and a single point of hacking?
I'm sorry, but I think most users actually don't trust any central service to store their passwords, and that is a good thing.
Why bother to sign in to passport when each user will only run windows longhorn, and each user will have their own account, and the current active account can be queried by the website via some new fancy secure API initiative that will be in longhorn... thus forcing everyone to have to run longhorn in order to do so much as use ebay or amazon...
.Net Passport, and the .Net development portfolio. Microsofts vision was that every windows XP account was to be tied to a .Net Passport which would require users only to log on to their computer, and then while visiting every other Passport-enabled website they would automatically and transparently be signed in, and all participating websites would automatically have access to aggregated user information about you through the centralized Passport system.
That was actually EXACTLY the goals of Windows XP, it's integration with the
Be happy it failed. Be happy that users saw it for the privacy nightmare it was, and be happy that companies saw it for the information grab it was.
I used to work on a similar system for another major portal business, although only for our own portfolio of websites, and we took this stuff really seriously for a while. When eBay joined, we were starting to get a bit scared, because if the passport thing had taken off, our business would have gone bye-bye.
.Net services was that MS intended not only to store a username and password, but store ALL user information. Participating sites would then have free access to the information they contributed to the system, but would have to pay for anything else. Also, using the entire .Net portfolio would have made it simple for web developers to build a system with a "secure" passport logon and user database, but VERY difficult to obtain control over their own data. Microsoft, on the other hand, would have complete access to all user data regardless of source. They could have become the gatekeeper, the only company with control over user data, and everyone else paying them for data mining rights in their own data. We should be VERY thankful that it didn't take off.
.Net.
The worst thing about Passport and the related
In retrospect, Microsoft made a bunch of mistakes:
1) The whole thing got muddled in the general confusion of
2) Most other web companies actually valued control of their user data more than ease of development.
3) No user demand for single sign-on, either because users don't care, or because they actually value their privacy and don't want different websites to share user data.
It's finally gone. Good riddance.
ie. if you distribute a GPL app *on the same CD* as a non-gpl one you break the license.
Yes, of course?
If I make a CD such as you describe, I make derivative works based on MySQL. The copyrights to this derivative belongs to me. Not MySQL AB. Me. This means that I decide how this is to be distributed, and if I choose for example a BSD-style license, it means that someone can take my derivative and use only the embedded MySQL server under the BSD license, and that is something MySQL AB really, really doesn't want you to do.
I could also, to take another example, redistribute my derivative under a commercial license, which means that I'm essentially selling MySQL and receiving all the profits. That's also not acceptable. It's because of the above reasons the GPL is written the way it is. It ensures that any derivative works is distributed with the same freedoms as the GPL grants and requires.
The simple solution to your problem is to simply not re-distribute MySQL yourself.
Even if you never use/distribute any GPL code, your end users can bind you to the GPL retroactively.
No, read what MySQL writes again. They say that if you distribute a COMMERCIAL (Non-GPL) piece of software that requires MySQL to work, your users must obtain a COMMERCIAL (Non-GPL) license for MySQL.
If your users don't obtain a commercial license for MySQL to use your software, they are committing a license violation. If they only obtain a GPL license for MySQL, they are still in violation while using your software together with MySQL. In no way does that bind you or the user to the GPL.