I am writing this off of a laptop with Ubuntu on it. I am also running three other desktops, two with Debian and one with Ubuntu. All of them have the Mozilla version of Firefox, and not the Debian version.
As much as I like Debian, I hate the Debian Firefox package. It gets updated infrequently compared to the Mozilla updates, etc.
I am not at all familiar with the actual logistics and rules of that particular game. I am just saying that if anyone were to punish him, it would be the game developers in-game.
As many readers pointed out, his crime was only inside the game, and had nothing to do with real life. I expect the game developers can suspend his account, seeing as it is almost certainly in their Terms of Service.
Yes. I typed "emerge googleearth" as root, and then "googleearth" as my normal account. It does not use Wine, it is a native Linux port.
Huh. Nice.
ALSA wouldn't do it?
Doom 3 and Quake 4 use ALSA natively, I think. I know ut2004, last I checked, used OpenAL, which can be configured to use SDL or ALSA directly as a backend, probably even ESD if you don't have a lot of channels -- on my system, it defaults to ALSA with two speakers, and is trivial to configure for surround.
I know Linux has a reputation for requiring massive tweaking to get anything working, but this is 2006, and most things just work. And I'm on a 64-bit Gentoo, for crying out loud -- it should logically take me the most tweaking of anyone to get it working. There are still things I tweak a lot, like gigabit networking, but they aren't things your average desktop user is going to run into, and for the most part, it seems like Windows would need just as much tweaking.
Well, which one should the Google Malware use? Would it be ALSA or what?
I use GNU/Linux also (as well as ALSA also), but I do not think that such tweaking will need to happen in Windows.
We'll just be able to block it more easily. Simply run all Google-related apps as a user who's not in the audio group.
Also true. But even if we don't, there are easy ways to disable such things in GNU/Linux, that are hidden very well from Windows users (/etc/hosts comes to mind).
I doubt they'll have porting issues at all, by the way. Google Earth works flawlessly for me.
Ah, but is it out of the box? Did you have to do no tweaking at all? If they use WINE, I doubt that they will have much success due to WINE being known for not being very reliable with audio. If they use native drivers, the diversity of GNU/Linux setups is going to prevent widespread use, IMHO.
I know many of the geeks out there have forsaken Perl, but it is still, in my opinion, an indisposable tool. I am currently fixing up a website similar to the one you described, especially in terms of the HTML problems. Write a Perl script to fix capitalization, closing of tags, etc. But understand that if code is not written well to begin with, than in many cases, it is impossible to automate the process of fixing it. You are going to have to do some things by hand.
Depending on how bad it is, consider rewriting the HTML and CSS part of the website from scratch. It may be easier than fixing old code.
True, but the main, overarching idea sort of made sense in an indirect sort of way. Almost everyone affected by this will be Windows and Mac users, I guarantee you. Either problems porting the program to GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux users just noticing it much quicker will prevent it from being much of an issue there.
This is a good solution except for one thing: the reason that big companies are filtering spam emails completely is that it greatly reduces storage and resources. As someone else mentioned, if you have a ration of 4:1 (spam:legitimate), and you process mail in the millions daily, it is going to be very annoying having to store all of that spam for so long.
Gmail handles the issue pretty well -- everything that is considered spam is marked as such. If you want to view it, go ahead. Anything marked as spam is deleted within 30 days. I use Gmail myself, and of the ~225 spam emails I get daily, around 95% get marked correctly.
When a car is built, it is more or less a finished product. Sure, it has problems that can be repaired, but the car itself is essentially done.
Software on the other hand is never finished. It is unreasonable to expect a piece of software to have no bugs in it at all, especially in an operating system. With cars, defective would mean that an important element is malfunctioning, for example, the motor won't start. Windows 2000, on the other hand, although full of bugs just like the other Windowses, is at least stable. I do not think that it is fair to say that the software is defective if it has a bug.
Furthermore, the program was advertised as is. Thus, you knew what you were buying. It came with its EULA. A change to the program may require a new EULA.
There is a profound difference between a car and an operating system. A car needs to be tested fully, because it is the manufacturer who introduces errors, and not crackers. Also, we are talking about an EULA and not a warranty. I did not say that it is moral or ethical, or that I like or respect Microsoft for doing it (I use Debian myself), but the question is whether or not it is legal. What is illegal about it. You bought the product and agreed to the EULA. If you want to buy the new product (SP4), then you need to agree to its EULA.
No one's forcing you to use the product. The product was not defective; it was merely lacking in features. You knew about all of them before purchasing it and accepting its EULA. If you do not want to accept the new EULA then don't use the product. It's that simple. Either stick to SP1, or switch to a better OS altogether.
I agree. Furthermore, Apple's interface, for example, is much more user-friendly. GNU/Linux can be made user-friendly. The ironic thing is, it is actually quite a lot harder for a newbie home user to use GNU/Linux than it is for a business user. A home user has to do everything themselves. Although they may get help from the Internet and friends, it will be harder for them to figure out how to do simple things, especially when it involves finding theme source files and editing raw XML to change it (yes, this is sometimes necessary). A business user, however, is usually given his computer by the company, and the computer has been configured by an admin first. This admin is not a newbie, but an expert, and can actually make the system very secure.
No, that's my point. Business people are used to certain aspects of Windows. They want to be able to close the window. Click a menu. However, there are certain other things that can be changed. As, for example, an AC mentioned, Apple's interface is MUCH more user friendly than that of Windows.
Well, my question was an answer to the great-grandparent, which was about user-friendliness. The stuff that you mentioned is more from the sysadmin's point of view, since the user interface is either the same, or like I mentioned in my previous post, better. Do you really want to hear another description of why GNU/Linux is better from the sysadmin's point of view?
Actually, no. Microsoft ships a system which is easy for end-users but cannot be changed. There are several aspects of the Windows UI that are not at all obvious and can be confusing, but you cannot fix them. On GNU/Linux, however, everything can be changed. So in a business, when the sysadmin configures the computers, he can make them exactly like he wants them, in many cases easier than on Windows.
Not familiar with Suse myself, but virtually every distro has their own mailing list, I should think. I am a Debian user myself, and debian-user at lists.debian.org solved many of my problems.
This is a different sort of parenting. In order to explain this, let me use the analogy of the US government In the US government, we have three branches: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial makes sure that they are fair (basically). With parenting, however, this is all in one person. The parents decide what the kids eat, they make sure that they actually eat it, and then they listen to their kids complain and amend their laws. If you are able to do all three of these functions well, then you are a good parent.
Before, the government tried to do the job of the Legislative Branch of the family. They tried to teach kids bad from good and what to do and not to do. That, although very destructive, is fairly easy to spot. This, however, is far more subtle. They are now doing the job of the Executive Branch of the family, making sure that kids follow a food-list created by their parents.
There are several problems with this. Among other things, the system is far too beurocratic, not taking into account that compromises, etc. must be made. If a kid, for example, does the dishes for a week, perhaps he should be treated with a pizza. Instead of putting this on the list, however, wouldn't it just be easier to give him money? Furthermore, this sort of system elliminates trust between a parent and their kid. The US government does not have this trust in their Exeutive Branch, but the US family should. When the government does that job, it makes the family an extension of the government's policies, and I'm sure that you can agree that this is not good.
in this system the lunch lady doesn't decide what the child eats. The parents do.
Functionally, yes. But look at it from the kids' point of view: It is their parent who fills out their food-plan or whatever it's called. They go to the school, and attempt to buy a lunch. Unfortunately, they are told that they can't by the lunch lady. I know that I always accepted the authority of my mother much more than of some old lunch lady, whose probably on drugs.
I think what the grandparent meant was that it is important that you yourself tell your kids don't buy $food. It is important that they hear from you that you don't want them to buy $food, and not from the lunch lady. Even though she is just passing on the information, she is the one who ends up enforcing the law, not the parent.
Furthermore, since she represents the food department of the public school, which is a government institution, one can make an argument that this is another way in which the government is parenting our children. This time, they ``represent the parents'' by saying no.
You should note that ``keep my wireless network unsecured'' != ``keep it completely open''. I have a packet tracker installed on my server and do know when someone is using the computer (and what they're doing with it)
I totally agree. I have an AP at home that I do not secure out of principle. I want to share it (that, and, I am too lazy to bother configuring both the router and the wireless cards)
This won't work. How do you define ``program''. If ``program'' means an executable, then you have a problem. Suppose one of the whitelisted applications was perl. In that case, you run perl with your file and boom! You have a program. And the computer can't even figure out that the Perl script is a program, since it does not understand it.
And there are tons of others as well. No interpreters? Fine. You can use Excel macros for God's sake!
A threat is when someone says concretely, I am going to kill you. If you show that you are actively taking steps to kill this man, then that's a threat. Saying, KILL $TEACHER, with that graphic about him and not to him is not a threat. It is sick, sure, but not a threat to his safety.
Slashdot Mirror
I am writing this off of a laptop with Ubuntu on it. I am also running three other desktops, two with Debian and one with Ubuntu. All of them have the Mozilla version of Firefox, and not the Debian version.
As much as I like Debian, I hate the Debian Firefox package. It gets updated infrequently compared to the Mozilla updates, etc.
I am not at all familiar with the actual logistics and rules of that particular game. I am just saying that if anyone were to punish him, it would be the game developers in-game.
As many readers pointed out, his crime was only inside the game, and had nothing to do with real life. I expect the game developers can suspend his account, seeing as it is almost certainly in their Terms of Service.
Huh. Nice.
Well, which one should the Google Malware use? Would it be ALSA or what?
I use GNU/Linux also (as well as ALSA also), but I do not think that such tweaking will need to happen in Windows.
Well, you could always write one in Perl. Scan the page for instances of , then try to see if "text" exists. If not, report it. Also, I believe the W3C has a checker bundled with their validator (validator.w3.org)
> :argdo:%s/[^m]//ge | w this would remove the funky windows line endings (mind you, ^m = ctrl-v ctrl-m in vim).
:-)
Or, in emacs
M-% (AKA Meta(usually Alt)-Shift-5)
Query Replace: ^M with [nothing]
P.S. Note that ^M is not Caret-M. It is a single character. I usually just copy it out of the file, and then do it in emacs.
I know many of the geeks out there have forsaken Perl, but it is still, in my opinion, an indisposable tool. I am currently fixing up a website similar to the one you described, especially in terms of the HTML problems. Write a Perl script to fix capitalization, closing of tags, etc. But understand that if code is not written well to begin with, than in many cases, it is impossible to automate the process of fixing it. You are going to have to do some things by hand.
Depending on how bad it is, consider rewriting the HTML and CSS part of the website from scratch. It may be easier than fixing old code.
True, but the main, overarching idea sort of made sense in an indirect sort of way. Almost everyone affected by this will be Windows and Mac users, I guarantee you. Either problems porting the program to GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux users just noticing it much quicker will prevent it from being much of an issue there.
This is a good solution except for one thing: the reason that big companies are filtering spam emails completely is that it greatly reduces storage and resources. As someone else mentioned, if you have a ration of 4:1 (spam:legitimate), and you process mail in the millions daily, it is going to be very annoying having to store all of that spam for so long.
Gmail handles the issue pretty well -- everything that is considered spam is marked as such. If you want to view it, go ahead. Anything marked as spam is deleted within 30 days. I use Gmail myself, and of the ~225 spam emails I get daily, around 95% get marked correctly.
OK, let me rephrase what I said earlier.
When a car is built, it is more or less a finished product. Sure, it has problems that can be repaired, but the car itself is essentially done.
Software on the other hand is never finished. It is unreasonable to expect a piece of software to have no bugs in it at all, especially in an operating system. With cars, defective would mean that an important element is malfunctioning, for example, the motor won't start. Windows 2000, on the other hand, although full of bugs just like the other Windowses, is at least stable. I do not think that it is fair to say that the software is defective if it has a bug.
Furthermore, the program was advertised as is. Thus, you knew what you were buying. It came with its EULA. A change to the program may require a new EULA.
There is a profound difference between a car and an operating system. A car needs to be tested fully, because it is the manufacturer who introduces errors, and not crackers. Also, we are talking about an EULA and not a warranty. I did not say that it is moral or ethical, or that I like or respect Microsoft for doing it (I use Debian myself), but the question is whether or not it is legal. What is illegal about it. You bought the product and agreed to the EULA. If you want to buy the new product (SP4), then you need to agree to its EULA.
No one's forcing you to use the product. The product was not defective; it was merely lacking in features. You knew about all of them before purchasing it and accepting its EULA. If you do not want to accept the new EULA then don't use the product. It's that simple. Either stick to SP1, or switch to a better OS altogether.
I agree. Furthermore, Apple's interface, for example, is much more user-friendly. GNU/Linux can be made user-friendly. The ironic thing is, it is actually quite a lot harder for a newbie home user to use GNU/Linux than it is for a business user. A home user has to do everything themselves. Although they may get help from the Internet and friends, it will be harder for them to figure out how to do simple things, especially when it involves finding theme source files and editing raw XML to change it (yes, this is sometimes necessary). A business user, however, is usually given his computer by the company, and the computer has been configured by an admin first. This admin is not a newbie, but an expert, and can actually make the system very secure.
No, that's my point. Business people are used to certain aspects of Windows. They want to be able to close the window. Click a menu. However, there are certain other things that can be changed. As, for example, an AC mentioned, Apple's interface is MUCH more user friendly than that of Windows.
Well, my question was an answer to the great-grandparent, which was about user-friendliness. The stuff that you mentioned is more from the sysadmin's point of view, since the user interface is either the same, or like I mentioned in my previous post, better. Do you really want to hear another description of why GNU/Linux is better from the sysadmin's point of view?
Actually, no. Microsoft ships a system which is easy for end-users but cannot be changed. There are several aspects of the Windows UI that are not at all obvious and can be confusing, but you cannot fix them. On GNU/Linux, however, everything can be changed. So in a business, when the sysadmin configures the computers, he can make them exactly like he wants them, in many cases easier than on Windows.
Not familiar with Suse myself, but virtually every distro has their own mailing list, I should think. I am a Debian user myself, and debian-user at lists.debian.org solved many of my problems.
This is a different sort of parenting. In order to explain this, let me use the analogy of the US government In the US government, we have three branches: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial makes sure that they are fair (basically). With parenting, however, this is all in one person. The parents decide what the kids eat, they make sure that they actually eat it, and then they listen to their kids complain and amend their laws. If you are able to do all three of these functions well, then you are a good parent.
Before, the government tried to do the job of the Legislative Branch of the family. They tried to teach kids bad from good and what to do and not to do. That, although very destructive, is fairly easy to spot. This, however, is far more subtle. They are now doing the job of the Executive Branch of the family, making sure that kids follow a food-list created by their parents.
There are several problems with this. Among other things, the system is far too beurocratic, not taking into account that compromises, etc. must be made. If a kid, for example, does the dishes for a week, perhaps he should be treated with a pizza. Instead of putting this on the list, however, wouldn't it just be easier to give him money? Furthermore, this sort of system elliminates trust between a parent and their kid. The US government does not have this trust in their Exeutive Branch, but the US family should. When the government does that job, it makes the family an extension of the government's policies, and I'm sure that you can agree that this is not good.
Functionally, yes. But look at it from the kids' point of view: It is their parent who fills out their food-plan or whatever it's called. They go to the school, and attempt to buy a lunch. Unfortunately, they are told that they can't by the lunch lady. I know that I always accepted the authority of my mother much more than of some old lunch lady, whose probably on drugs.
I think what the grandparent meant was that it is important that you yourself tell your kids don't buy $food. It is important that they hear from you that you don't want them to buy $food, and not from the lunch lady. Even though she is just passing on the information, she is the one who ends up enforcing the law, not the parent.
Furthermore, since she represents the food department of the public school, which is a government institution, one can make an argument that this is another way in which the government is parenting our children. This time, they ``represent the parents'' by saying no.
You should note that ``keep my wireless network unsecured'' != ``keep it completely open''. I have a packet tracker installed on my server and do know when someone is using the computer (and what they're doing with it)
I totally agree. I have an AP at home that I do not secure out of principle. I want to share it (that, and, I am too lazy to bother configuring both the router and the wireless cards)
This won't work. How do you define ``program''. If ``program'' means an executable, then you have a problem. Suppose one of the whitelisted applications was perl. In that case, you run perl with your file and boom! You have a program. And the computer can't even figure out that the Perl script is a program, since it does not understand it.
And there are tons of others as well. No interpreters? Fine. You can use Excel macros for God's sake!
Actually, the law agrees with me, if you can call the police, the law.
Watch:
KILL GORSHKOV!
Are you feeling threatened?
A threat is when someone says concretely, I am going to kill you. If you show that you are actively taking steps to kill this man, then that's a threat. Saying, KILL $TEACHER, with that graphic about him and not to him is not a threat. It is sick, sure, but not a threat to his safety.