We know the motto, but it doesn't apply here, and you obviously don't understand it.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to randomly belittle others. FYI: I belive my comments are valid, yet that you read them wrong, just blantantly cannot read? For example, MS desision to use solid state memory could be something as simple as CF form factor memory, with the pin out changed, or a different operational voltage. In other words embrace and Extend. It was just an example, and I was attempting to demontrate how they might have actually learned something from their last consol faux pax.
I'd think the reasons for doing this are numerous, namely price reduction, and security. To speculate about the exact reason is a silly, as this probaly involves several domains of reason.
Also, I'm not against MS in anyway, and I used to work at Microsoft several years ago.
It was a nice attempt to troll though, better luck next time.
Maybe Microsoft also is also looking for ways to lockdown the hardware, and prevent people from installing linux. Possibly using a more compact form of memory which they can control better. You know the old moto: "embrace and extend". Microsoft need only pervert something for their proprietary needs, and lockout reverse engineering.
Another issue might be simply mechanical, hence the notion of reducing the need for moving parts. Since solidstate memory is increasing in capacity, and price. One cannot arge against the percieved advantage of having a hdd for large scale storage. I dump entire CD's to my xbox, and play them in games, or use the xbox as a primitive juke to play the entire collection. So possibly Microsoft is opening up an after market for add-on hard drives? Their stance being that you get "enough" storage for game-state saves, and if you need more get an add on memory module for your controller, or get the option hard drive. It certaily helps to leave space for the the extra hardware in the enclosure just in case they decide to include them later on (depending on what sony does).
Yes really! But in the context of binary distribution, not source code. In other words, lots of people contribute to the Free Xfee86 project, and under the terms of the new license. If you decided to distribute a livecd that ran whatever OS, it would seem that these license terms stipulate that a list of the contributors follow that binary distributions. Such as a fiel which holds the names of contributors.
That is why this entire thing is so absurd, that it is silly. Basicly what is happening is by design of the FSF. We have reached a place where the GPL has a monoploy on OSS, which is in turn being used against the community at large. Well I suspect the XFree86n foundation simply is feed up with it, and this is their way to point out these facts.
This is exactly correct. It is not a technical issue at all. The issue stems from the fact that the GPL steeals code, and doens't attribute where it comes from. This is the core issue! If I write a groovy program, and some GPL zealot decided it is suitable for their needs, they can simply take it, remove any mention of my authorship, and call it theirs under the GPL. So not only is the GPL viral, it is also unethical.
Remember the GPL was writen specificly to combat the Freedoms, and virtue of the BSD style license. RMS while at MIT saw much code beign writen in BSD style license, and some of that code was converted to proprietary code. This is how the GPL was born. Beings forced to maintain a list of contributors is against the idea of a non-free license like the GPL, and makes it harder to assymilate code that isn't yours.
The GPL is considered a virus, because it is free as in BEER but not as in FREEDOM. It hooks you in with the "FREE BEER" aspect of the software, but you cannot do anything with that software except look at it, or use it. Don't you dare try to use your creativity to change it, because the greedy authors of the original art think your changes is their art. Its a typical trap license, and for people to bitch about another license being incompatible with a virus just sounds silly. The reality is the Apache License has more liberty packed in a few sentances than the GPL will ever have in its' pages upon pages leagal rehtoric.
The sad thing is all this hinges on giving the authors of software fair credit, which the Apache license belives is fair. Where the GPL belives that mentioning contrinutors, you know that people who add contributiosn to the gpl virus-ware, should get due credit, instead of being put under an umbrella of nameless, forgoten contributors who the author forgets to mention, and thus steals their contributions. This is typical GPL fair. The original author offten steals the contributions and never mentions the source of all the little patches, and alterations they force others to give back to them under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL license says listing authors is an incompatiblity.
You don't belive me? Well read for yourself at the GPL website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. They spell it out very clearly that listing authors gets in the way of their eventual theft.
you could just use freebsd's jail fraimwork, which doens't require any special usermode-fu crud to mess with. It is simply there in any FreeBSd system, and is chroot on steroids. I simply hate the use of the word "jail" on a linux system as linux doens't have a "jail" command, just a chroot, and a bunch of scripts that sit on top of that which trap() things to handlers. Furthermore, you could simply use the linux compatibility mode in freebsd, which as it turns out is faster than linux itself, and then jail that off. Each freebsd jail can have its' own IP address, its own filesystems, and whatever else any other system has.
The notion of a run-level is a flaw that is fatal, and will lock you in. However, the BSD's never did lock themselves into this notion, and in fact doesn't support init levels except for compatibility. NetBSD doesn't support init 6 for instance, but freebsd does. I think OpenBSD, and Slackware are the only distro's left that use the old BSD way, as NetBSD and FreeBSD now use rcNG (next generation) in their startup. The think is that system startup is linier in nature (aka in line, and in order). The sysV style startup is based on the shell's lexical ordering, which is nice, but is way too simple. You cannot have complex dependancies like scriptA depends on scriptFOO, and scriptFOO might depend on scriptB. Lexical ordering is easy, but too simple. For example the timed might depend on the network to be started before it can contact the stratum servers. So the new BSD startup scripts has a notion of ordering that isn't dependant on lexical alphabet soup. Your script PROVIDES a service, and might REQUIRE another service before it starts, and might need to run BEFORE another service. These keywords can be placed in commenst of yoru startup scripts to control the startup ordering of the services via the program called rcorder, which parses all the startup scripts, and then executes them in order. This the best way to startup because it doesn't depend on a flawed notion of run-levels which plauge the unix history. the only problem is that they do not provide a way to starup sevices in tandem, or to execute an forget orphan services which neither REQUIRE another service to startup, or need to be run before anything else. It would be possible to speed up startup execution if you could have job-control in the startup scripts. Luck for us the shell can do this, but nobody seems to use it. The problem with having complex dependancies is that you remove the simplicity of lexical orderign which seems so intuative. Now you have to edit the scripts to achive the ordering you want, which is cumbersom, and only for a few seconds increase in overall startup speed. And to think that all this is as simply as/sbin/init executing one user land process (a shell script). Certainly when you think of it this way it is simple, but nobody wants to write startup scripts, which is basicly redesigning the wheel.
It is unknown if the bug could be used to execute arbitrary code, but it does require patching a Linux kernel (or rolling your own network stack) to exploit.
I think CowboyNeil needs to check his Linux using head before reporting on BSD ever again.
The one thing a typical Slashdot reading Linux weenie hates to hear is how much of a Zealot they appear to be to the rest of the world, and for that matter the rest of the non-GPL open source community. As a FreeBSD person, I have no doubt in my mind that you Finux Weenies would go so far as to dispatch death threats to SCO executives (this has happened), or to write software to target SCO's website (This has also happened). It simply isn't enough to lay back and allow SCO to make a fool out of their own self, as they have done.
This is why you dont' surf as a root users, or as any user with the ability to install stuff, or in general do anything but surf. Oh wait, this is on windows, and your always root (sorta speak).
For once a virri I like! Any bit of code that executes a DoS against the SCO fuktards is alright by me, and I might infect my own systems if I can actually find this virri.
Re:My personal experience in the FreeBSD world
on
FreeBSD 5.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Are you talking about the first time Matt's commit bit was revoked, or the second time?
I would agree that Matts arguments about biting off more than you can chew is valid. However, I'd say that the current dirrection FreeBSD is headign is a technically logical place to be going, and that any incremental steps in that dirrection only dellay things.
Regarding luigi-ware in the base, I'd agree that sudden bursts of interesting activity is nice, but the months of inatention afterwards is anoying. But adding PF is just yet another network firewall kit, and we already got enought of that bloat.
Actually, your incorrect in your assertion about the most secure one of the *BSD's. It is easy to belive what you read regarding what each of the BSD's does, and is. In reality NetBSD is by fare the *most* secure of all the BSD's, bar none. FreeBSD is the Linux of the BSD, with aqll its packages/ports, and support for peripherial hardware. OpenBSD is is secure, and has code audits, and produces other nice things that find their way into everything else, but is not the most secure by default BSD.
I like to ask people like yourself, no offence intended, why OpenBSd is the most secure? Is it something you have read some place, or something you were told, or discovered yourself?
In NetBSD, the default is nothing but a small bare minimal system, with nothing turned on. Nothing is more secure than this. OpenBSD on the other hand, has lots of things turned on by default, and has turned out to be the cause of most of their problems. Contrairy to what the OpenBSD website says, they have had about 7 or 8 default bugs in their installs in the past 3 years. They like to claim *one* root eplain since inception, or whatever... they are not all that!
In reality it goes like this: FreeBSD is the most powerfull, and linux like of the BSD's. NetBSD is the most portable, and most secure by default. OpenBSD wrote OpenSSH, and has the best t-shirts, and posters. OSx is the prettiest, and the most widely deployed desktop unix.
Does tcsh/csh have more "interactive" features than bourne? On the command line? I've never gotten this... what, for example? Thanks
Well sure, you got history, tab completion, improved job control, etc. TCSH is just as interactive as BASH. Bash and TCSH have many things incommon in regards as the users point of view, and ease of use. However, both shells are not suitable for portable shell scripting, like bourne shell is. One difference is that TCSH is utterly unsuitable for shell script, as it is designed to be an interactive shell, where Bash is more script friendly. This last point saddly leadcs some folks to belive that it is ok to script in bash, which leads to bad scripts.
The reason is not a mystery at all. Bill Joy, the creator of VI, NFS, PASCAL, BSD, and a CSH, wrote CSH because bourn was not very interactive. Saddly csh/tcsh are utterly unsuitable for shell scripting (the point of this thread), and bourne shell was preserved to do scripting in hetrogenius envirments. So due to this long Berkley heritiage, tcsh remains in the BSD distro's. As far as bash, well tcsh has all the same interacti ve features as bash does, so there is no real reason to include bash, especially since it has a viril license based on the FSF license. Since TCSH is truely free, it is more desirerable on a philisophical basis. So in this way you can see that tcsh, and bash have the same easy of use in daily interactive tasks, but tcsh doesn't have any license that it not so free. The choice seems very clear to me.
After looking at the pdf file that describes the process, I have to conclude that this would be ideal for a fibre-optic man-in-the-middle attack on quantum crypto. The whole thing hinges on the idea that the quantum spin of the photos are preserved after being observed, which this process appears to achive. The main focus of the pdf is about the exact nature of the quantum states of the photon's after being stored. This storage (in a supper cold gas cloud) could incorporate detectors with enough thru-put to possibly support the bandwitdh to tap a real quantum crypto setup.
Who knows, but this could lead to new technology that breaks the one-time-pad nature of optical quantum-crypto.
I would sugest a cluttery desk with dirty ash trays, lots of empty half crushed soda-pop cans, O'reilly books of various pedigry and colors spewn around the room and book shelves. Pillow hair, coffee cups, the abient glow of a monitor, and half eaten pizza. Combine these things into one logo and it would rule all other logos.
The reason i say this is because the white-list file could get really huge if your not carefull, and then you have the burden of advertising it on demand. Think of a good DoS situation that takes advantage of this.
from what i see into this, it is the notion of a white-list, which is advertised to the world. I duno, but I kinda like ot keep my white-list private if that is ok with you? Anyhoo... what about huge address spaces? I could be using ip6 one day, and how well would this scale up to something huge like that in years to come? Especially the large scale sites like hotmail, aol, yahoo, etc.. where users send email to all over the world.
But that is the point. Small form factor, and the definition of passive coooling when big heat-sinks are installed. In the ultimately conservative view it would be a chip bare to the air, with out any heat-disipation technology added.
Yeah, this is the same issue we had in FreeBSD. Lots of little pendantic issues that used to be a warning become errors. This is, as you point out, an issues with interpritaion of the ANSI C standards. Lots of folks try to say their code works, and it doesn't work due to a bug in the new GCC, but that is just water under the bridge when they figure out that the world has changed, and they have to change their code with it.
If they can make a better product than the soekris boards I might get interested. It is generally accepted that Intel chips have not been capable of being passivly cooled since the early Pentium days. I'd say the pentium 166(??) was the last passivly coolable design before active cooling became mandintory. A router doesn't need that much processor to operate unless its some sort of ultra-utilized mega router.
As a former employee of BE Inc. I have to chime in here on one glaring pharse of utter bull-shit that you wrote in your post so everyone can see that your obviously not having any idea of what your talking about.
If BeOS were easily dual-booted, more people would consider BeOS applications (the "OS barrier" would erode), and eventually more would be written (the "applications barrier" would erode).
I assume you haven't tried BeOS as it was highly dual-bootable with a very good graphical boot manager, and easily configured. BeOS could even live within a file inside the fat32/ntfs filesystems. The ability to dual boot is a non-issue for BeOS systems as this was one of the primary design goals, to co-exist with other Operating Systems in world dominated by one OS.
MS currently maintains both barriers, but if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to maintain the monopoly against all the competing and/or superior products out there.
Microsoft did this (in BeOS's case) with lucrative rebate deals and other incentives what involved OEM's (like DELL) who would preload computers with an opperating system like windows98, or BeOS. Dell computer, for example, signed a typical OEM agreement with Microsoft that basicly meant every computer dell sold was attached with a license for a Microsoft OS, even if the computer didn't ship with the Microsoft OS. In this way Microsoft ensured that Dell didn't save any money by using an alternative OS, and thus was anti-competitive. This is not to mention the other parts of the Microsoft OEM agreement that stipulated that any computer covered by the OEM agreement (which was all computers produced) could not contain a bootloader that was non-MS, or the agreement regarding the discounts/rebaits would be nill in addition to the penalty the OEM would have to pay. In other words, Dell wouldn't get the discount on the Microsoft OS (money in their pockets), and would even be fined for contract violation.
What we really need is a competing OS that has a full suite of applications, both of which are freely developed by anyone who wishes to, rather than being controlled by a single corporation, and it will probably need to be possible to buy a computer with these pre-installed, for it to truly break both of the barriers mentioned above.
You mean like FreeBSD, or Finux? I belive those qualify as competing OS's, yet at the time of BeOS, they were still not hardly on Microsofts radar as they were not viable desktop replacments, and Microsoft was making most of its money of the desktop systems area, not servers. In regards to full suite of application, and not being controlled by any single entity. Hrm.. have you Looked at Red Hat recently? In regards to a single corporation controlling things, pulling strings; Have you considered that Linus is the single point of control for the Linux kernel? You can alter Finux all you want, but there is still one single pooint of control over it. As I have pointed out above, one of your foundation points (BeOS dual boot) is stupid, and not valid. So reinforcing any point on them is also not helping. Not to throw sand in your eyes, but I should point out that Finux is easily dual bootable too, as is Freebsd.
Then, the only barrier will be in the mind -- the fact that people don't yet know about the potential of the OS and its applications, or that they're not yet ready to accept it over what it replaces.
Why would anybody take the effort to replace something that currently works? YOu could give them a huge incentive such as security, or price. But when you have an investment in time with the currently installed (and industry dominant) OS, there would need to be an overwhelmings reason to justify changing that.
Now... MS products aren't all completely crap. This is a true stament
But they must be seriously scared of anyone who can get their foot in the door, because a lot of their dominant products are dominant
Slashdot Mirror
We know the motto, but it doesn't apply here, and you obviously don't understand it.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to randomly belittle others. FYI: I belive my comments are valid, yet that you read them wrong, just blantantly cannot read? For example, MS desision to use solid state memory could be something as simple as CF form factor memory, with the pin out changed, or a different operational voltage. In other words embrace and Extend. It was just an example, and I was attempting to demontrate how they might have actually learned something from their last consol faux pax.
I'd think the reasons for doing this are numerous, namely price reduction, and security. To speculate about the exact reason is a silly, as this probaly involves several domains of reason.
Also, I'm not against MS in anyway, and I used to work at Microsoft several years ago.
It was a nice attempt to troll though, better luck next time.
Maybe Microsoft also is also looking for ways to lockdown the hardware, and prevent people from installing linux. Possibly using a more compact form of memory which they can control better. You know the old moto: "embrace and extend". Microsoft need only pervert something for their proprietary needs, and lockout reverse engineering.
Another issue might be simply mechanical, hence the notion of reducing the need for moving parts. Since solidstate memory is increasing in capacity, and price. One cannot arge against the percieved advantage of having a hdd for large scale storage. I dump entire CD's to my xbox, and play them in games, or use the xbox as a primitive juke to play the entire collection. So possibly Microsoft is opening up an after market for add-on hard drives? Their stance being that you get "enough" storage for game-state saves, and if you need more get an add on memory module for your controller, or get the option hard drive. It certaily helps to leave space for the the extra hardware in the enclosure just in case they decide to include them later on (depending on what sony does).
Yes really! But in the context of binary distribution, not source code. In other words, lots of people contribute to the Free Xfee86 project, and under the terms of the new license. If you decided to distribute a livecd that ran whatever OS, it would seem that these license terms stipulate that a list of the contributors follow that binary distributions. Such as a fiel which holds the names of contributors.
That is why this entire thing is so absurd, that it is silly. Basicly what is happening is by design of the FSF. We have reached a place where the GPL has a monoploy on OSS, which is in turn being used against the community at large. Well I suspect the XFree86n foundation simply is feed up with it, and this is their way to point out these facts.
This is exactly correct. It is not a technical issue at all. The issue stems from the fact that the GPL steeals code, and doens't attribute where it comes from. This is the core issue! If I write a groovy program, and some GPL zealot decided it is suitable for their needs, they can simply take it, remove any mention of my authorship, and call it theirs under the GPL. So not only is the GPL viral, it is also unethical.
Remember the GPL was writen specificly to combat the Freedoms, and virtue of the BSD style license. RMS while at MIT saw much code beign writen in BSD style license, and some of that code was converted to proprietary code. This is how the GPL was born. Beings forced to maintain a list of contributors is against the idea of a non-free license like the GPL, and makes it harder to assymilate code that isn't yours.
The GPL is considered a virus, because it is free as in BEER but not as in FREEDOM. It hooks you in with the "FREE BEER" aspect of the software, but you cannot do anything with that software except look at it, or use it. Don't you dare try to use your creativity to change it, because the greedy authors of the original art think your changes is their art. Its a typical trap license, and for people to bitch about another license being incompatible with a virus just sounds silly. The reality is the Apache License has more liberty packed in a few sentances than the GPL will ever have in its' pages upon pages leagal rehtoric.
The sad thing is all this hinges on giving the authors of software fair credit, which the Apache license belives is fair. Where the GPL belives that mentioning contrinutors, you know that people who add contributiosn to the gpl virus-ware, should get due credit, instead of being put under an umbrella of nameless, forgoten contributors who the author forgets to mention, and thus steals their contributions. This is typical GPL fair. The original author offten steals the contributions and never mentions the source of all the little patches, and alterations they force others to give back to them under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL license says listing authors is an incompatiblity.
You don't belive me? Well read for yourself at the GPL website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. They spell it out very clearly that listing authors gets in the way of their eventual theft.
you could just use freebsd's jail fraimwork, which doens't require any special usermode-fu crud to mess with. It is simply there in any FreeBSd system, and is chroot on steroids. I simply hate the use of the word "jail" on a linux system as linux doens't have a "jail" command, just a chroot, and a bunch of scripts that sit on top of that which trap() things to handlers. Furthermore, you could simply use the linux compatibility mode in freebsd, which as it turns out is faster than linux itself, and then jail that off. Each freebsd jail can have its' own IP address, its own filesystems, and whatever else any other system has.
Well said.
The notion of a run-level is a flaw that is fatal, and will lock you in. However, the BSD's never did lock themselves into this notion, and in fact doesn't support init levels except for compatibility. NetBSD doesn't support init 6 for instance, but freebsd does. I think OpenBSD, and Slackware are the only distro's left that use the old BSD way, as NetBSD and FreeBSD now use rcNG (next generation) in their startup. The think is that system startup is linier in nature (aka in line, and in order). The sysV style startup is based on the shell's lexical ordering, which is nice, but is way too simple. You cannot have complex dependancies like scriptA depends on scriptFOO, and scriptFOO might depend on scriptB. Lexical ordering is easy, but too simple. For example the timed might depend on the network to be started before it can contact the stratum servers. So the new BSD startup scripts has a notion of ordering that isn't dependant on lexical alphabet soup. Your script PROVIDES a service, and might REQUIRE another service before it starts, and might need to run BEFORE another service. These keywords can be placed in commenst of yoru startup scripts to control the startup ordering of the services via the program called rcorder, which parses all the startup scripts, and then executes them in order. This the best way to startup because it doesn't depend on a flawed notion of run-levels which plauge the unix history. the only problem is that they do not provide a way to starup sevices in tandem, or to execute an forget orphan services which neither REQUIRE another service to startup, or need to be run before anything else. It would be possible to speed up startup execution if you could have job-control in the startup scripts. Luck for us the shell can do this, but nobody seems to use it. The problem with having complex dependancies is that you remove the simplicity of lexical orderign which seems so intuative. Now you have to edit the scripts to achive the ordering you want, which is cumbersom, and only for a few seconds increase in overall startup speed. And to think that all this is as simply as /sbin/init executing one user land process (a shell script). Certainly when you think of it this way it is simple, but nobody wants to write startup scripts, which is basicly redesigning the wheel.
It is unknown if the bug could be used to execute arbitrary code, but it does require patching a Linux kernel (or rolling your own network stack) to exploit.
I think CowboyNeil needs to check his Linux using head before reporting on BSD ever again.
The one thing a typical Slashdot reading Linux weenie hates to hear is how much of a Zealot they appear to be to the rest of the world, and for that matter the rest of the non-GPL open source community. As a FreeBSD person, I have no doubt in my mind that you Finux Weenies would go so far as to dispatch death threats to SCO executives (this has happened), or to write software to target SCO's website (This has also happened). It simply isn't enough to lay back and allow SCO to make a fool out of their own self, as they have done.
This is why you dont' surf as a root users, or as any user with the ability to install stuff, or in general do anything but surf. Oh wait, this is on windows, and your always root (sorta speak).
For once a virri I like!
Any bit of code that executes a DoS against the SCO fuktards is alright by me, and I might infect my own systems if I can actually find this virri.
Are you talking about the first time Matt's commit bit was revoked, or the second time?
I would agree that Matts arguments about biting off more than you can chew is valid. However, I'd say that the current dirrection FreeBSD is headign is a technically logical place to be going, and that any incremental steps in that dirrection only dellay things.
Regarding luigi-ware in the base, I'd agree that sudden bursts of interesting activity is nice, but the months of inatention afterwards is anoying. But adding PF is just yet another network firewall kit, and we already got enought of that bloat.
Actually, your incorrect in your assertion about the most secure one of the *BSD's. It is easy to belive what you read regarding what each of the BSD's does, and is. In reality NetBSD is by fare the *most* secure of all the BSD's, bar none. FreeBSD is the Linux of the BSD, with aqll its packages/ports, and support for peripherial hardware. OpenBSD is is secure, and has code audits, and produces other nice things that find their way into everything else, but is not the most secure by default BSD.
I like to ask people like yourself, no offence intended, why OpenBSd is the most secure? Is it something you have read some place, or something you were told, or discovered yourself?
In NetBSD, the default is nothing but a small bare minimal system, with nothing turned on. Nothing is more secure than this. OpenBSD on the other hand, has lots of things turned on by default, and has turned out to be the cause of most of their problems. Contrairy to what the OpenBSD website says, they have had about 7 or 8 default bugs in their installs in the past 3 years. They like to claim *one* root eplain since inception, or whatever... they are not all that!
In reality it goes like this:
FreeBSD is the most powerfull, and linux like of the BSD's.
NetBSD is the most portable, and most secure by default.
OpenBSD wrote OpenSSH, and has the best t-shirts, and posters.
OSx is the prettiest, and the most widely deployed desktop unix.
Does tcsh/csh have more "interactive" features than bourne? On the command line? I've never gotten this... what, for example? Thanks
Well sure, you got history, tab completion, improved job control, etc. TCSH is just as interactive as BASH. Bash and TCSH have many things incommon in regards as the users point of view, and ease of use. However, both shells are not suitable for portable shell scripting, like bourne shell is. One difference is that TCSH is utterly unsuitable for shell script, as it is designed to be an interactive shell, where Bash is more script friendly. This last point saddly leadcs some folks to belive that it is ok to script in bash, which leads to bad scripts.
The reason is not a mystery at all. Bill Joy, the creator of VI, NFS, PASCAL, BSD, and a CSH, wrote CSH because bourn was not very interactive. Saddly csh/tcsh are utterly unsuitable for shell scripting (the point of this thread), and bourne shell was preserved to do scripting in hetrogenius envirments. So due to this long Berkley heritiage, tcsh remains in the BSD distro's. As far as bash, well tcsh has all the same interacti ve features as bash does, so there is no real reason to include bash, especially since it has a viril license based on the FSF license. Since TCSH is truely free, it is more desirerable on a philisophical basis. So in this way you can see that tcsh, and bash have the same easy of use in daily interactive tasks, but tcsh doesn't have any license that it not so free. The choice seems very clear to me.
After looking at the pdf file that describes the process, I have to conclude that this would be ideal for a fibre-optic man-in-the-middle attack on quantum crypto. The whole thing hinges on the idea that the quantum spin of the photos are preserved after being observed, which this process appears to achive. The main focus of the pdf is about the exact nature of the quantum states of the photon's after being stored. This storage (in a supper cold gas cloud) could incorporate detectors with enough thru-put to possibly support the bandwitdh to tap a real quantum crypto setup.
Who knows, but this could lead to new technology that breaks the one-time-pad nature of optical quantum-crypto.
this sounds more like a joke of some kind.
Hrm.......
I would sugest a cluttery desk with dirty ash trays, lots of empty half crushed soda-pop cans, O'reilly books of various pedigry and colors spewn around the room and book shelves. Pillow hair, coffee cups, the abient glow of a monitor, and half eaten pizza. Combine these things into one logo and it would rule all other logos.
The reason i say this is because the white-list file could get really huge if your not carefull, and then you have the burden of advertising it on demand. Think of a good DoS situation that takes advantage of this.
from what i see into this, it is the notion of a white-list, which is advertised to the world. I duno, but I kinda like ot keep my white-list private if that is ok with you? Anyhoo... what about huge address spaces? I could be using ip6 one day, and how well would this scale up to something huge like that in years to come? Especially the large scale sites like hotmail, aol, yahoo, etc.. where users send email to all over the world.
But that is the point. Small form factor, and the definition of passive coooling when big heat-sinks are installed. In the ultimately conservative view it would be a chip bare to the air, with out any heat-disipation technology added.
Yeah, this is the same issue we had in FreeBSD. Lots of little pendantic issues that used to be a warning become errors. This is, as you point out, an issues with interpritaion of the ANSI C standards. Lots of folks try to say their code works, and it doesn't work due to a bug in the new GCC, but that is just water under the bridge when they figure out that the world has changed, and they have to change their code with it.
If they can make a better product than the soekris boards I might get interested. It is generally accepted that Intel chips have not been capable of being passivly cooled since the early Pentium days. I'd say the pentium 166(??) was the last passivly coolable design before active cooling became mandintory. A router doesn't need that much processor to operate unless its some sort of ultra-utilized mega router.
As a former employee of BE Inc. I have to chime in here on one glaring pharse of utter bull-shit that you wrote in your post so everyone can see that your obviously not having any idea of what your talking about.
If BeOS were easily dual-booted, more people would consider BeOS applications (the "OS barrier" would erode), and eventually more would be written (the "applications barrier" would erode).
I assume you haven't tried BeOS as it was highly dual-bootable with a very good graphical boot manager, and easily configured. BeOS could even live within a file inside the fat32/ntfs filesystems. The ability to dual boot is a non-issue for BeOS systems as this was one of the primary design goals, to co-exist with other Operating Systems in world dominated by one OS.
MS currently maintains both barriers, but if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to maintain the monopoly against all the competing and/or superior products out there.
Microsoft did this (in BeOS's case) with lucrative rebate deals and other incentives what involved OEM's (like DELL) who would preload computers with an opperating system like windows98, or BeOS. Dell computer, for example, signed a typical OEM agreement with Microsoft that basicly meant every computer dell sold was attached with a license for a Microsoft OS, even if the computer didn't ship with the Microsoft OS. In this way Microsoft ensured that Dell didn't save any money by using an alternative OS, and thus was anti-competitive. This is not to mention the other parts of the Microsoft OEM agreement that stipulated that any computer covered by the OEM agreement (which was all computers produced) could not contain a bootloader that was non-MS, or the agreement regarding the discounts/rebaits would be nill in addition to the penalty the OEM would have to pay. In other words, Dell wouldn't get the discount on the Microsoft OS (money in their pockets), and would even be fined for contract violation.
What we really need is a competing OS that has a full suite of applications, both of which are freely developed by anyone who wishes to, rather than being controlled by a single corporation, and it will probably need to be possible to buy a computer with these pre-installed, for it to truly break both of the barriers mentioned above.
You mean like FreeBSD, or Finux? I belive those qualify as competing OS's, yet at the time of BeOS, they were still not hardly on Microsofts radar as they were not viable desktop replacments, and Microsoft was making most of its money of the desktop systems area, not servers. In regards to full suite of application, and not being controlled by any single entity. Hrm.. have you Looked at Red Hat recently? In regards to a single corporation controlling things, pulling strings; Have you considered that Linus is the single point of control for the Linux kernel? You can alter Finux all you want, but there is still one single pooint of control over it. As I have pointed out above, one of your foundation points (BeOS dual boot) is stupid, and not valid. So reinforcing any point on them is also not helping. Not to throw sand in your eyes, but I should point out that Finux is easily dual bootable too, as is Freebsd.
Then, the only barrier will be in the mind -- the fact that people don't yet know about the potential of the OS and its applications, or that they're not yet ready to accept it over what it replaces.
Why would anybody take the effort to replace something that currently works? YOu could give them a huge incentive such as security, or price. But when you have an investment in time with the currently installed (and industry dominant) OS, there would need to be an overwhelmings reason to justify changing that.
Now... MS products aren't all completely crap.
This is a true stament
But they must be seriously scared of anyone who can get their foot in the door, because a lot of their dominant products are dominant