It is a violation of *my* First Amendment rights to force me to pay for speech with which I disagree. Actually, it is a violation of my rights to force me to pay for any speech, really, but especially when I am subsidizing views which are offensive to me.
For some reason, many people seem to miss this point; it is crucial to understanding the argument against public art funding (and public campaign financing).
They didn't even apply fixes to known security holes, that had previously been publicized and recommended by the vendor, yet they had the nerve to call the machine 'securelinux'!
This 'contest' was obviously a sham. It may not have been a conspiracy, but there certainly was a shameful display of cluelessness involved here. Why wasn't the NT machine set up without the recommended Service Packs?
Nowadays, the hot technologies in three-tier high end sites are EJB+JSP app servers and/or the ASP+COM combo. In (mostly two-tier) smaller projects, the cresting environments are PHP and Cold Fusion.
OK...the EJP/JSP stuff I can see, but ASP/COM for high-end stuff? I just can't imagine it, seeing what I've seen about the stability of ASP/IIS/NT. I know of a company that just set up a *brand new* NT/SQL Server machine, which will act as a DB server to their NT/IIS server. You can already blue screen the thing, just by running packages in the Enterprise Manager.:-)
I suppose if you want to run a ring of web servers...but you're still going to run into weirdness, I'd bet. Man, that's like intentionally running your head full speed into a brick wall.
Minivend does pretty much all the stuff you're talking about. The only really rough part right now is the user back end (minimate or webmin module). Both of the available back ends currently have some problems. Otherwise, I find that minivend works quite well as a small- to mid-level e-commerce solution. It can handle inventory, quantity pricing, sales tax, shipping costs, etc. More information (and a mailing list archive) is available at http://www.minivend.com.
Re:Can You Install Windows 98? I think I can!
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 5
If you system hard drive has no partitions on it and if your computer can boot directly from a CD-ROM drive (either ATAPI 1.2 compatible IDE or SCSI connected to Adaptec host adapter), you can literally install the full or OEM installation version of Windows 98 directly from a CD-ROM boot. Try THAT with Linux.
I have. It works. Has worked for some time with RedHat, at least.
I think the BEST thing about Windows 98 is the fact Microsoft _has_ heard the complaints about Windows 95 installation and has done something about it. On most modern computers, I can have Windows 98 installed and running in about 45 minutes. If you're not used to UNIX, installing Linux will take at least twice as long.
The only difficult steps in installing RedHat Linux (other distributions can vary in difficulty) are: partitioning the disk (still difficult with Windows) and selecting the video adapter (can also be a pain in Windows if your adapter is not auto-detected, which seems to be about half the time). If you do know your video adapter, RedHat will ask you if you want to automatically start X. If you do, it will set up xdm to run at startup, so you never even see a command prompt.
My last Linux install took about 45 min...but that was because I was doing an remote FTP install from ftp.varesearch.com...try THAT with Windows.:-D
...that I disagree with your characterization of Sun as worse than Microsoft.
Unlike Microsoft, Sun actually delivers some high-quality products.
Just this morning, some bozo's scripts drove the load on an UltraSPARC-based web server up to ~38. No problem...I went in and killed his processes. The machine was still responsive, even under that kind of a load.
Solaris is still more scalable than Linux (although I prefer Linux for most uses these days).
Java is an excellent language, even if the runtime implementation is subpar.
Sun makes a lot of good stuff. Yes, we have to make sure we don't get cornered by them or any other vendor, but to compare them with Microsoft is unfair, IMO.
DISCLAIMER: I (my company, really) have already bought and paid for a commercial use license for StarOffice (just prior to the Sun acquisition), so I have no dog in this race, so to speak.
That said, I am scratching my head over the way Sun has licensed this.
What is the real goal here? I presume, like many others, that the goal is to "cut off Microsoft's air supply," by going after their big cash cow, Office.
If that is true, the current license (as well as the SCSL, under which the source, when released, will be licensed) doesn't accomplish the goal, due to its limitations on redistribtion.
Why not, at the very least, allow unlimited redistribution of binaries? That would get StarOffice into more hands, which gets Sun closer to the goal of damaging Microsoft's revenue stream.
Presumably, Sun isn't going to make a lot of cash selling StarOffice, since they are giving it away. So, why not let others distribute? I really don't understand the reasoning behind that.
Well, turn it around. The real question is: if you've been told that your server has to be NT, wouldn't you prefer to be running sendmail than IIS?
Personally, yes, I would, but then again...I'm not the kind of person likely to be setting up an NT mail server.
I see your point; I guess I'm just kind of wondering aloud why someone would want to go half-way like that. I mean, if you're an all-Microsoft house, I would think you'd be running Exchange, so you can use those nifty proprietary Exchange features.
Otherwise, I would think someone who is already thinking down the lines of not tying themselves exclusivly to Microsoft solutions, if they wanted to use sendmail, would just set themselves up a UNIXy box of some sort.
But, you're right...if they do set up sendmail on their NT box, that's still a Good Thing(tm), because it means that normal mail programs (including those that run on non-Microsoft operating systems) can be used on the clients.
The unusual thing is that sendmail for NT is not open source.
It's not really odd; they've been advertising their closed-source Sendmail Pro thing for some time here on Slashdot.
Of course, the only reason anyone would need Sendmail Pro is because of the sheer user hostility of sendmail.cf and friends. Keep that bat book handy.
I've switched all my machines over to Exim. Nice configuration files, and licensed under the GPL.
I think the real question this article raises is...if you're setting up a mail server, and you've chosen sendmail as your MTA, why in the heck would you want to run it on NT?
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
No language about "internal use." In fact, "internal" does not appear anywhere in the GPL. Corel is violating the terms of the GPL. Perhaps this was unintentional. Regardless, it must be corrected promptly, if only to specify that the license language only applies to those parts of the distribution wholly developed by Corel.
Qt 2.0 is Free Software; RMS and ESR agree on this.
KDE has always been Free Software.
I realize you're just trolling, and you're probably a paid astroturfer, but still, others might be reading who actually believe the garbage you're spouting.
I heard that PepsiCo was selling off its fast-food holdings; I don't know what the status of that is.
Burger King had a deal with PepsiCo from roughly 1983-1988, if I recall correctly. After that deal expired, they went back to Coca-Cola, who they had dealt with prior to the Pepsi deal.
OT: does anyone actually like those awful gel-coated "crispy" fries Burger King sells now?
Of course the employer has a legal right to engage in this kind of snooping.
However, too many people forget that legality is not the same thing as morality. I dare say, that as a fellow Libertarian, you, more than others, should recognize that. It is because of the failure of most people to draw that distinction that we have the level of over-legislation that we see today.
So, while the employer is almost certainly within his/her legal rights (at least in the US; I don't know for sure about in other countries), to do so as a manner of course would be highly unethical.
As some others have said, however, if this is used only in the presence of preexisting suspicion, I don't see such an ethical problem. I suspect that the temptation to use it in other cases is too great, however, to be able to realistically limit it to only ethical use. Better to just avoid it all together, if you are an ethical employer.
Public universities and other governmental agencies should be forbidden from using any non-free software unless they can prove that there is no appropriate free software available for a particular application.
It reminds me of the deals Coke gets with fast food chains and university cafeterias to only distribute Coke (and thus the university gets some kind of kick-back from Coke). Disgusting.
Isn't it Pepsi that generally does this? I know it was Pepsi at my university (Humboldt State Univ.).
Pepsi seems to get a lot of the governmental deals, at least here in the Pacific Northwest.
Also, Safeco Field (Seattle Mariners' new ballpark) has only Pepsi...but at least they have Alaskan Amber to make up for it.:-)
I put Matthias at the top of my list because at a time when CDE was the pinnacle of UNIX GUIs, he saw the need for a real UNIX desktop environment, and started the long process toward the very usable KDE that we have today. His work and foresight is making acceptance of Linux and Free/Open/Net BSD on the desktop possible.
Slashdot Mirror
If time is real, when did time start?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
For some reason, many people seem to miss this point; it is crucial to understanding the argument against public art funding (and public campaign financing).
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
This 'contest' was obviously a sham. It may not have been a conspiracy, but there certainly was a shameful display of cluelessness involved here. Why wasn't the NT machine set up without the recommended Service Packs?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
OK...the EJP/JSP stuff I can see, but ASP/COM for high-end stuff? I just can't imagine it, seeing what I've seen about the stability of ASP/IIS/NT. I know of a company that just set up a *brand new* NT/SQL Server machine, which will act as a DB server to their NT/IIS server. You can already blue screen the thing, just by running packages in the Enterprise Manager. :-)
I suppose if you want to run a ring of web servers...but you're still going to run into weirdness, I'd bet. Man, that's like intentionally running your head full speed into a brick wall.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Minivend is licensed under the GPL.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I have. It works. Has worked for some time with RedHat, at least.
I think the BEST thing about Windows 98 is the fact Microsoft _has_ heard the complaints about Windows 95 installation and has done something about it. On most modern computers, I can have Windows 98 installed and running in about 45 minutes. If you're not used to UNIX, installing Linux will take at least twice as long.
The only difficult steps in installing RedHat Linux (other distributions can vary in difficulty) are: partitioning the disk (still difficult with Windows) and selecting the video adapter (can also be a pain in Windows if your adapter is not auto-detected, which seems to be about half the time). If you do know your video adapter, RedHat will ask you if you want to automatically start X. If you do, it will set up xdm to run at startup, so you never even see a command prompt.
My last Linux install took about 45 min...but that was because I was doing an remote FTP install from ftp.varesearch.com...try THAT with Windows. :-D
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Unlike Microsoft, Sun actually delivers some high-quality products.
Just this morning, some bozo's scripts drove the load on an UltraSPARC-based web server up to ~38. No problem...I went in and killed his processes. The machine was still responsive, even under that kind of a load.
Solaris is still more scalable than Linux (although I prefer Linux for most uses these days).
Java is an excellent language, even if the runtime implementation is subpar.
Sun makes a lot of good stuff. Yes, we have to make sure we don't get cornered by them or any other vendor, but to compare them with Microsoft is unfair, IMO.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Are you sure? :-)
it is slow compared to MS Office. On Linux it takes about a minute to load
I just started it. It took 8 seconds, on a Celeron 300(450). That's not really fast, but it's not that bad.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
That said, I am scratching my head over the way Sun has licensed this.
What is the real goal here? I presume, like many others, that the goal is to "cut off Microsoft's air supply," by going after their big cash cow, Office.
If that is true, the current license (as well as the SCSL, under which the source, when released, will be licensed) doesn't accomplish the goal, due to its limitations on redistribtion.
Why not, at the very least, allow unlimited redistribution of binaries? That would get StarOffice into more hands, which gets Sun closer to the goal of damaging Microsoft's revenue stream.
Presumably, Sun isn't going to make a lot of cash selling StarOffice, since they are giving it away. So, why not let others distribute? I really don't understand the reasoning behind that.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Personally, yes, I would, but then again...I'm not the kind of person likely to be setting up an NT mail server.
I see your point; I guess I'm just kind of wondering aloud why someone would want to go half-way like that. I mean, if you're an all-Microsoft house, I would think you'd be running Exchange, so you can use those nifty proprietary Exchange features.
Otherwise, I would think someone who is already thinking down the lines of not tying themselves exclusivly to Microsoft solutions, if they wanted to use sendmail, would just set themselves up a UNIXy box of some sort.
But, you're right...if they do set up sendmail on their NT box, that's still a Good Thing(tm), because it means that normal mail programs (including those that run on non-Microsoft operating systems) can be used on the clients.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
It's not really odd; they've been advertising their closed-source Sendmail Pro thing for some time here on Slashdot.
Of course, the only reason anyone would need Sendmail Pro is because of the sheer user hostility of sendmail.cf and friends. Keep that bat book handy.
I've switched all my machines over to Exim. Nice configuration files, and licensed under the GPL.
I think the real question this article raises is...if you're setting up a mail server, and you've chosen sendmail as your MTA, why in the heck would you want to run it on NT?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Who is number one?
You are number six.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Earlier this year, in Alberta.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
No language about "internal use." In fact, "internal" does not appear anywhere in the GPL. Corel is violating the terms of the GPL. Perhaps this was unintentional. Regardless, it must be corrected promptly, if only to specify that the license language only applies to those parts of the distribution wholly developed by Corel.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
This is nothing more than pro-Microsoft propaganda.
Microsoft got caught with their pants down, yet again, and this guy, and the moderator who moderated this up, don't like it.
Microsoft is utterly corrupt, and is destroying themselves. Their astroturfing won't do any good, in the long run.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
KDE has always been Free Software.
I realize you're just trolling, and you're probably a paid astroturfer, but still, others might be reading who actually believe the garbage you're spouting.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
And KDE has always been Free.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Burger King had a deal with PepsiCo from roughly 1983-1988, if I recall correctly. After that deal expired, they went back to Coca-Cola, who they had dealt with prior to the Pepsi deal.
OT: does anyone actually like those awful gel-coated "crispy" fries Burger King sells now?
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
However, too many people forget that legality is not the same thing as morality. I dare say, that as a fellow Libertarian, you, more than others, should recognize that. It is because of the failure of most people to draw that distinction that we have the level of over-legislation that we see today.
So, while the employer is almost certainly within his/her legal rights (at least in the US; I don't know for sure about in other countries), to do so as a manner of course would be highly unethical.
As some others have said, however, if this is used only in the presence of preexisting suspicion, I don't see such an ethical problem. I suspect that the temptation to use it in other cases is too great, however, to be able to realistically limit it to only ethical use. Better to just avoid it all together, if you are an ethical employer.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Public universities and other governmental agencies should be forbidden from using any non-free software unless they can prove that there is no appropriate free software available for a particular application.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Isn't it Pepsi that generally does this? I know it was Pepsi at my university (Humboldt State Univ.).
Pepsi seems to get a lot of the governmental deals, at least here in the Pacific Northwest.
Also, Safeco Field (Seattle Mariners' new ballpark) has only Pepsi...but at least they have Alaskan Amber to make up for it. :-)
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Yes. That's correct. LyX, and then KLyX.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Yes. My mention of Matthias is not in any way a slight of the GNOME people. They are doing good things, too.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I put Matthias at the top of my list because at a time when CDE was the pinnacle of UNIX GUIs, he saw the need for a real UNIX desktop environment, and started the long process toward the very usable KDE that we have today. His work and foresight is making acceptance of Linux and Free/Open/Net BSD on the desktop possible.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Hello? Not to be argumentative, but isn't what is happening to OS/2 precisely what makes closed-source software bad?
BeOS is closed source, but it has a future.
No. BeOS may have a future. Because it is closed-source, you can never be sure of its future.
Only open-source software is assured of a future, as long as anyone is still interested in it.
IBM, and others like them, are never going to sucker me into closed-source operating systems again.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page