Noticed you got nicely flamed for posting your opinions about the GPL on slashdot. I suggest you read the license before posting next time. Anyway, your arguement about nukes doesn't make much sense. I am paying for the software my government purchases, at least as much as you are, and I'd like to have access to the source code. I know how to read, understand, compile and use that software with little to no help from my government, but I'm paying for it so I should at the very least be given a choice. Either that or how about they just send me back my money and just use yours to purchase proprietary software. Guess I could always stop paying taxxes and use the extra cash to fight off the IRS in court. Can you imagine the impact of several million people doing that on your precious economy? This is all just one big stupid game, and you think you're winning.
Isn't a diverse marketplace supposed to be a good thing?
Exactly, I think you'll find those same people who prefer IDE over SCSI prefer Microsoft over any other software. BECAUSE it is a monopoly and creates a less diverse marketplace. People don't want to have to do the thinking required to make a choice anymore, even if that means losing the freedom to choose.
speaking of which, does anyone know how to get that working on linux? I use a TDK IDE CDR and cdrecord, but I'm too lazy to look up the driver flags and it doesn't autodetect. Also does anyone know how to burn a multi session cd, other than just the -multi option which tends to burn a multisession capable cd, but doesn't change the directory structure or files when you append a new session.
I think a lot of this has to do with the complexity of our libraries, too. Using KDE or GNOME or OpenGL adds a lot to a staticly linked commercial software package. But I may not know what I'm talking about. Compare Doom to Quake 3 or UT2003. The difference in detail and complexity should be obvious, we need more memory and performance because we need to do more with a computer than ever before. And the bloat comes from keeping it dynamic and stable, KISS, etc. At least that's my opinion.
Always making excuses for the shortcomings of Linux aren't we?
Of course I am. Linux is a free software project like all the other GNU software you popularly know as Linux, not a commercial piece of software. I'm not making excuses for the shortcomings of RedHat or SuSE. I am making excuses for the shortcomings of Debian. See the difference? Anyway complain all you want, that won't help notepad open any faster. I might suggest downloading and compiling XFree86 and your applications without all the extra debugging symbols and bloat, staticly linked for your architecture, or getting a fast scsi drive to store your most used apps and swap on. This might speed things up a bit. I hear dual processor systems are very snappy.
Yes, exactly. Linux is slow because nobody knows how to properly configure their own boxen. I'm sorry to point this out, but these type of articles are the most annoying to a professional who has been working on linux for the last 5 years. Obviously its slightly slower than other OSs, its still under heavy developement, but please save the "My notepad takes 5 minutes to load" comments for the newsgroups. Want help? That's different. But don't knock Linux if you don't understand it.
I don't want to have a job in a couple years. I've been working in the IT field for 5 years now and I've seen many things similar to this very topic. Capitalism is inherently flawed and everybody has to have noticed this by now. But nobody is willing to admit it or to try to do something about it, like replace it with a system that works. Management in corporations have too much power and too little knowledge to be effective as a leader. If they were effective they would be purchasing the most economical bid, but often they simply toss it out because it isn't filled with buzzwords or doesn't look pretty or isn't priced reasonably high. How can I put my trust and faith in a corporation that makes poor decisions with my limitted resources? I can't, so I don't, so I don't lose when the stock market crashes, and boy will it crash, again and again and again and again. How do we end this cycle of stupidity? We start making the right decisions, we start doing everything ourselves instead of outsourcing it, we high good competent people and treat them well and take care of them and eachother. We work together as a team to solve problems and make products, not to make quick decisions and throw around power and money like its a game. This is life, its not a game. You don't get any extra chances no matter how much money or how many points you win. But nobody will learn that very concept until so many of us have lost our jobs, ruined our homes, and destroyed countless business models and wasted years of work, pushing shoddy half-ass outsourced products out the door prematurely, just to collect the few extra pennies that make us happy.
Yes, but it is rather irresponsible of management to ignore their IT folks based on some trivial personality conflict. Human factors or no your IT department knows your technology better than anyone else and they should be used as this type of resource, instead of discarded as yet another employee/slave that's required to bend over backwards to support an organization that ignores them. This is why I, as a sys admin, no longer give advice to execs or management, but just warn them of problems I forsee them encountering in the future. At least it keeps me in a stable job through this turbulent economy since I take no responsibility for any decision making. Unfortunately our stock has lost 7/8ths of its value in the last year. Not my problem. I work for the cash.
I don't know. But I think the public has always been stupid. I was stupid when I was born and without the internet I would have never read anything but what they gave me to read. Reading one side of the story makes you stupid, in my opinion. But maybe all my theoretical BS about capitalism and communism and such would never work in reality anyway. Maybe I don't understand people or reality. I want more drugs.
exactly, the free market. Then people are forced to educate themselves or suffer the consequences of their actions. And corporations would be forced to play nice with the public or lose large sums of money because they can't be trusted. See, here in America the public is too stupid to think for themselves, but in a libertarian world they wouldn't have a choice.
Ok, to start with its the nyquist theorem. I suggest you look it up before asking others to. Second its a theorem that states that the highest possible reproducible frequency is half the sample frequency. So a 44,100 Hz sample frequency could possibly reproduce a 22,050 Hz frequency. That makes sense, however, it does not take into account all the data that is lost by sampling every 1/44,100 times a second. Analog creates a continuous function. If you've ever read up on calculus or precalc limits you'd understand what I mean by this. No matter what detail you can get out of digital sampling it will still be digital and lose data from the original analog source. Now maybe you can't hear the difference but I sure can when it is played on loudspeakers. Perhaps one day when we quadruple our sampling rate and bit depth we may surpass the capabilities of the human ear, but we have yet to do that with current 44.1Khz/16-bit technology and don't forget mp3s take that digital source and then losslessly encode it losing more data. Just stick with analog for a few years you won't be disappointed.
They can't collaborate. There are just too many patents in the way. Nasa has to build their own and can't use any of the technology Honda used to do it. That's capitalism.
if people talked to each other more on this planet maybe we would get somewhere
This is like saying that windows is better than linux because its easier to configure. There are reasons to use vinyl besides scratching. To start with it just sounds better. Analog can not be beat. By anything. (HINT: There are reasons DJs started using records and analog synths again) And mixing mp3s completely misses this point. When you're playing music LOUD on a good set of speakers you need quality analog sound or you'll notice how fake and unnatural everything sounds, specially a digital recording that has been losslessly encoded. But this is great for all those people who don't care about the quality of their sound. Most DJs I know wouldn't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole. But I'm not a DJ.
That's fine. You've all read about the recent Forgent JPG thing. So you know that patented formats such as MP3 could easily be licensed for a reasonable fee. If you want to pay that fee then feel free to continue using MP3s. But don't complain when, in a few years, you find yourself converting hundreds of gigs of MP3s to some other format to avoid licensing costs and to maintain compatibility. You've been warned!
So with capitalism we live in a utopian soceity? We don't have jobs that are more respected than others? Besides the arguement that robots would become intelligent and turn on their human masters is there any real legitimate arguement against communism in a fully automated industrial society? There are plenty of arguements against the actions communist governments have performed in the past, but leaving governments aside for now can some, anyone explain to me exactly why capitalism is better than communism economicly with the technology we've developed by 2002?
All I can hope is that one day the cost of food will increase so much that all the telephones and typewriters and computers and cars and houses you have will be worthless in comparison. Maybe then you might reallize how much nicer it would have been if we all could have worked together to provide enough for all of us.
I disagree. It is not fair to cap your broadband IF you have the technology and capability to offer your customers exactly what they want and it doesn't cost you more than you make off your customers. Unfortunately we don't want a society of content providers. We already have a business model for that. So providing broadband upload would do the same thing for movies that the low bandwidth internet did to music. Isn't THAT the society we've all been fighting for? It seems odd to me that we'd come this far only to stop ourselves from giving us everything we want when its within our reach. Oh, but now I understand your reasoning. Bandwidth costs should never change no matter how technology improves. You still live in a world where you think a T-1 line is the only way to provide broadband bandwidth. You seemed to have miss the whole idea of wireless broadband or the fact that we have at least 5 times the fibre backbone bandwidth just waiting to be tapped when it might be needed. To help clue you in you can get more bandwidth from a $150 wireless box than you can out of a T-1 line costing you $500/mo. You, sir, are the reason capitalism frustrates me.
Wrong the problem lies with capitalism. It is an inherent flaw that causes people to look out for number one instead of providing services for all. Communism would be a far better approach to a post-industrial/computerized society. In this information age we have the ability to do something known as computerized automation. What does that mean? It means you can have machines do ALL of the work. If our money is based on the amount of work we do and if we have machines do all the work what does that mean? Money is free. If money and work are essentially free then why do we need capitalism? We don't.
But there are some very rich people who do, in order to maintain their lifestyle status as a billionaire or even a millionaire. Those are the people who are pushing for all this capitalist propoganda and commercialism, get-rich-quick schemes, etc.
But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe capitalism saved the world, beat the commis and will make us all rich. Cheers to all those capitalists out there with the easy life who are financially indipendant and worry free. I'll be among you soon enough. So what do I care?
I would also recommend cygwin for windows. It would allow them to run an X windows system and windowmaker or various other window managers. Give them openssh, a bash shell, apache, and lots of other toys to play with. If they might be able to use it. CS majors probably could.
Slashdot Mirror
Noticed you got nicely flamed for posting your opinions about the GPL on slashdot. I suggest you read the license before posting next time. Anyway, your arguement about nukes doesn't make much sense. I am paying for the software my government purchases, at least as much as you are, and I'd like to have access to the source code. I know how to read, understand, compile and use that software with little to no help from my government, but I'm paying for it so I should at the very least be given a choice. Either that or how about they just send me back my money and just use yours to purchase proprietary software. Guess I could always stop paying taxxes and use the extra cash to fight off the IRS in court. Can you imagine the impact of several million people doing that on your precious economy? This is all just one big stupid game, and you think you're winning.
You're missing the point. Users don't know how to read.
Isn't a diverse marketplace supposed to be a good thing?
Exactly, I think you'll find those same people who prefer IDE over SCSI prefer Microsoft over any other software. BECAUSE it is a monopoly and creates a less diverse marketplace. People don't want to have to do the thinking required to make a choice anymore, even if that means losing the freedom to choose.
BurnProof
speaking of which, does anyone know how to get that working on linux? I use a TDK IDE CDR and cdrecord, but I'm too lazy to look up the driver flags and it doesn't autodetect. Also does anyone know how to burn a multi session cd, other than just the -multi option which tends to burn a multisession capable cd, but doesn't change the directory structure or files when you append a new session.
I think a lot of this has to do with the complexity of our libraries, too. Using KDE or GNOME or OpenGL adds a lot to a staticly linked commercial software package. But I may not know what I'm talking about.
Compare Doom to Quake 3 or UT2003. The difference in detail and complexity should be obvious, we need more memory and performance because we need to do more with a computer than ever before. And the bloat comes from keeping it dynamic and stable, KISS, etc. At least that's my opinion.
Always making excuses for the shortcomings of Linux aren't we?
Of course I am. Linux is a free software project like all the other GNU software you popularly know as Linux, not a commercial piece of software. I'm not making excuses for the shortcomings of RedHat or SuSE. I am making excuses for the shortcomings of Debian. See the difference? Anyway complain all you want, that won't help notepad open any faster. I might suggest downloading and compiling XFree86 and your applications without all the extra debugging symbols and bloat, staticly linked for your architecture, or getting a fast scsi drive to store your most used apps and swap on. This might speed things up a bit. I hear dual processor systems are very snappy.
BIND is not designed to support domains whose in memory image is several gigabytes.
I bet a perl script could handle it.
Yes, exactly. Linux is slow because nobody knows how to properly configure their own boxen. I'm sorry to point this out, but these type of articles are the most annoying to a professional who has been working on linux for the last 5 years. Obviously its slightly slower than other OSs, its still under heavy developement, but please save the "My notepad takes 5 minutes to load" comments for the newsgroups. Want help? That's different. But don't knock Linux if you don't understand it.
I don't want to have a job in a couple years. I've been working in the IT field for 5 years now and I've seen many things similar to this very topic. Capitalism is inherently flawed and everybody has to have noticed this by now. But nobody is willing to admit it or to try to do something about it, like replace it with a system that works. Management in corporations have too much power and too little knowledge to be effective as a leader. If they were effective they would be purchasing the most economical bid, but often they simply toss it out because it isn't filled with buzzwords or doesn't look pretty or isn't priced reasonably high. How can I put my trust and faith in a corporation that makes poor decisions with my limitted resources? I can't, so I don't, so I don't lose when the stock market crashes, and boy will it crash, again and again and again and again. How do we end this cycle of stupidity? We start making the right decisions, we start doing everything ourselves instead of outsourcing it, we high good competent people and treat them well and take care of them and eachother. We work together as a team to solve problems and make products, not to make quick decisions and throw around power and money like its a game. This is life, its not a game. You don't get any extra chances no matter how much money or how many points you win. But nobody will learn that very concept until so many of us have lost our jobs, ruined our homes, and destroyed countless business models and wasted years of work, pushing shoddy half-ass outsourced products out the door prematurely, just to collect the few extra pennies that make us happy.
This is better than I ever expected from mankind. We've really outdone ourselves this time. *pat on the back*
Yes, but it is rather irresponsible of management to ignore their IT folks based on some trivial personality conflict. Human factors or no your IT department knows your technology better than anyone else and they should be used as this type of resource, instead of discarded as yet another employee/slave that's required to bend over backwards to support an organization that ignores them. This is why I, as a sys admin, no longer give advice to execs or management, but just warn them of problems I forsee them encountering in the future. At least it keeps me in a stable job through this turbulent economy since I take no responsibility for any decision making. Unfortunately our stock has lost 7/8ths of its value in the last year. Not my problem. I work for the cash.
I don't know. But I think the public has always been stupid. I was stupid when I was born and without the internet I would have never read anything but what they gave me to read. Reading one side of the story makes you stupid, in my opinion. But maybe all my theoretical BS about capitalism and communism and such would never work in reality anyway. Maybe I don't understand people or reality. I want more drugs.
And I applaud your blind faith in capitalism to save the world. God bless you!
Ok, Einstein, and maybe you should study fractals.
exactly, the free market. Then people are forced to educate themselves or suffer the consequences of their actions. And corporations would be forced to play nice with the public or lose large sums of money because they can't be trusted. See, here in America the public is too stupid to think for themselves, but in a libertarian world they wouldn't have a choice.
Ok, to start with its the nyquist theorem. I suggest you look it up before asking others to. Second its a theorem that states that the highest possible reproducible frequency is half the sample frequency. So a 44,100 Hz sample frequency could possibly reproduce a 22,050 Hz frequency. That makes sense, however, it does not take into account all the data that is lost by sampling every 1/44,100 times a second. Analog creates a continuous function. If you've ever read up on calculus or precalc limits you'd understand what I mean by this. No matter what detail you can get out of digital sampling it will still be digital and lose data from the original analog source. Now maybe you can't hear the difference but I sure can when it is played on loudspeakers. Perhaps one day when we quadruple our sampling rate and bit depth we may surpass the capabilities of the human ear, but we have yet to do that with current 44.1Khz/16-bit technology and don't forget mp3s take that digital source and then losslessly encode it losing more data. Just stick with analog for a few years you won't be disappointed.
They can't collaborate. There are just too many patents in the way. Nasa has to build their own and can't use any of the technology Honda used to do it. That's capitalism.
if people talked to each other more on this planet maybe we would get somewhereOr maybe we'd all just be communists.
This is like saying that windows is better than linux because its easier to configure. There are reasons to use vinyl besides scratching. To start with it just sounds better. Analog can not be beat. By anything. (HINT: There are reasons DJs started using records and analog synths again) And mixing mp3s completely misses this point. When you're playing music LOUD on a good set of speakers you need quality analog sound or you'll notice how fake and unnatural everything sounds, specially a digital recording that has been losslessly encoded. But this is great for all those people who don't care about the quality of their sound. Most DJs I know wouldn't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole. But I'm not a DJ.
That's fine. You've all read about the recent Forgent JPG thing. So you know that patented formats such as MP3 could easily be licensed for a reasonable fee. If you want to pay that fee then feel free to continue using MP3s. But don't complain when, in a few years, you find yourself converting hundreds of gigs of MP3s to some other format to avoid licensing costs and to maintain compatibility. You've been warned!
So with capitalism we live in a utopian soceity? We don't have jobs that are more respected than others? Besides the arguement that robots would become intelligent and turn on their human masters is there any real legitimate arguement against communism in a fully automated industrial society? There are plenty of arguements against the actions communist governments have performed in the past, but leaving governments aside for now can some, anyone explain to me exactly why capitalism is better than communism economicly with the technology we've developed by 2002?
All I can hope is that one day the cost of food will increase so much that all the telephones and typewriters and computers and cars and houses you have will be worthless in comparison. Maybe then you might reallize how much nicer it would have been if we all could have worked together to provide enough for all of us.
I disagree. It is not fair to cap your broadband IF you have the technology and capability to offer your customers exactly what they want and it doesn't cost you more than you make off your customers. Unfortunately we don't want a society of content providers. We already have a business model for that. So providing broadband upload would do the same thing for movies that the low bandwidth internet did to music. Isn't THAT the society we've all been fighting for? It seems odd to me that we'd come this far only to stop ourselves from giving us everything we want when its within our reach.
Oh, but now I understand your reasoning. Bandwidth costs should never change no matter how technology improves. You still live in a world where you think a T-1 line is the only way to provide broadband bandwidth. You seemed to have miss the whole idea of wireless broadband or the fact that we have at least 5 times the fibre backbone bandwidth just waiting to be tapped when it might be needed. To help clue you in you can get more bandwidth from a $150 wireless box than you can out of a T-1 line costing you $500/mo. You, sir, are the reason capitalism frustrates me.
Wrong the problem lies with capitalism. It is an inherent flaw that causes people to look out for number one instead of providing services for all. Communism would be a far better approach to a post-industrial/computerized society. In this information age we have the ability to do something known as computerized automation. What does that mean? It means you can have machines do ALL of the work. If our money is based on the amount of work we do and if we have machines do all the work what does that mean? Money is free. If money and work are essentially free then why do we need capitalism? We don't.
But there are some very rich people who do, in order to maintain their lifestyle status as a billionaire or even a millionaire. Those are the people who are pushing for all this capitalist propoganda and commercialism, get-rich-quick schemes, etc.
But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe capitalism saved the world, beat the commis and will make us all rich. Cheers to all those capitalists out there with the easy life who are financially indipendant and worry free. I'll be among you soon enough. So what do I care?
I would also recommend cygwin for windows. It would allow them to run an X windows system and windowmaker or various other window managers. Give them openssh, a bash shell, apache, and lots of other toys to play with. If they might be able to use it. CS majors probably could.
Yes! What we need is MORE government. Because we all know how just and moral governments are. I trust my government. No really. Its ALWAYS on my side!