Check out this short Register story, which has a link to a very high rez photo where you can sorta make out the error
messages, especially if you are familiar with the system.
Which implies that a laptop, somewhere in the psace station was running some MS OS, but probably has no relevance to the topic of this article. I doubt their mission critical stuff is running on someone's laptop.
the headline for this/. article was poorly chosen - no research or fact checking apparently.
Because, unlike software, and even hardware, lines and the property they run on cannot be moved over to something instead of the monopoly.
I disagree. It's harder, but it's just a matter of a government body having the will and finding the law to do it. The AT&T divestiture involved transferring ownership of large amounts of equipment; this shouldn't be any different. If there's a law to do it, we should not be squeamish about using it to stop the ILECs from exploiting the monopoly status they have been granted.
Use anonymous email. It protects you and looks more like a threat. Just for good measure, send it to the SAs first, then to their non-techie PHBs if no action is taken.
So far we're not using Python in production, but it's probably just a matter of time.
Since the python license explicitly places it under the laws of the State of Virginia, and since Virginia has passed UCITA, and since UCITA lets the sellor make the license terms anything they want at any time they want, even after you've bought the product and started using it and your ONLY recourse to bad terms is to stop using it, you may want to think twice. ("Bought" may be the wrong word in this case, but the principle still applies.)
For these reasons, I'll no longer even consider use of Python (tho I'll admit I'm a perl bigot and the concept of syntactically signifcant whitespace is anathema to me). I used to think about learning Python, before I learned about the licensing.
And this is by itself enough reason for me to never use Python. At least twice, I've found myself reading about Python and thinking it's kind of neat sounding, but I always hit the part about syntactically significant whitespace and say, 'No, I think I'll pass'. I admit I'm partial to Perl.
Maybe, EXCEPT that one of the conditions for the merger with TW was that they open their IM. This was supposed to be done for them to get the FTC (or was it FCC?) to approve the merger. They made a lot of noises in that direction, it is now time for them to follow through.
But then you're still buying MS hardware and software in the XBOX. Better to get a beige box, run Linux/*BSD/whatever and avoid Redmond altogether. Plus no doubt there will be something in the XBOX EULA which will at least try to make this illegal (or convince you it is, at any rate).
You are a lowlife slime, trying to pretend he's something else. If I post my address on Usenet (which I've stopped doing, thanx to assholes like you) it's not your authorization to send me tons of crap. It's because I want to allow someone ON THAT FORUM (not you, slimeball) to contact me.
The P IV requires RAMBUS, much more cost with little or no performance benefit AND a manufacturer that is sersiously ethically challenged. (Witness the suits stating they patented ideas that came out of JEDEC meetings, which they are now using to extort..uh, extract license fees form other manufacturers.) Since Intel is limiting its cusomers's choices with P IV, I will limit my choice to non P IV processors ( and maybe to non-Intel processors).
read the EULA, Microsoft can recall any piece of software they want...
In the absence of an evil piece of crap like UCITA (or a particularly corrupt judge), EULAs that don't show up until after you've paid for the software are usually considered meaningless. This is just one of the reasons why the fight against UCITA is so important. UCITA would make all the evil crap in EULAS legally binding. See www.4cite.org.
He completely evaded the point of question 9 - the ruination of defacto standards such as Kerberos and Java. He just ignored it altogether. His answer to this is nothing but blather - which is the best he could do because there is NO good answer for what Microsoft has done to standards.
(For a discussion of how they abuse one of the most widely used and useful standards ever, see: Moronic Microsoft HTML)
You can't even wait for the *design* to be complete before you flame it? Amazing. Larry was pretty smart for perl5, but dumb for perl6? How did that hapen?
Example: Perl's pitiful documentation compared
to Python's rich, perfect, strait-from-the-mounth-of-god, Guido himself documentation.
Either you jest or you display ignorance. The perl distribution comes with tons of doc. Try issuing perldoc perldoc. You can use perldoc -f function_name_here to get information about any perl function and perldoc module_name_here to get documentation about any module for which the author has provided it (which is most of them if not damn near all of them).
More to the point, try man perl - each of the 70 sections is its own extensive man page, covering references, objects extensions in c - you name it it's probably there.
Oh, and how extensible is Perl? I never heard of an applet written in Perl.
What do these 2 sentences have to do with each other? many meabytes of perl extensions can be found at CPAN - I don't believe I've ever wanted to do something that wasn't made much easier by something that was already there. What does writing applets have to do with exensibility? perl is quite extensible in both perl and c. And there is a project to compile perl source to java bytecode, tho I'm not sure if it's still active. But client side applets aren't my main concern. I don't think they're flavor of the week anymore, anyhow.
"You must use warnings and strict everywhere except your main module" is not free and fun.
Unless I misunderstand, I think that nothing stops you from saying:
no strict;
no warnings;
after your module or class or whatever statement if you really want to. Frankly, I think "encouraging" module writers to be -w safe is a great idea. One of my favorites is hideously noisy with -w, (unless it's been rewritten recently); every time I use it I have to look at the output and remember whether this means it failed or if it's just the usual noise.
Even with the worst possible scripting installed in terms of security, it still would be very difficult to gain root access.
I disagree for the following reasons.
Many newbies come up and stay up as root.
Any user on the system could host a DDOS client, as they only need unprivileged ports.
So if a problem like this existed in a Linux browser, you'd often get the whole system owned, and even if you didn't, you can still become a major nuisance for the rest of the internet.
--
Re:was waiting for a gag... but it drags down othe
on
Perl + Python = Parrot
·
· Score: 1
Dude, you got sourceforge.net to define a host called jism? Happy April's fool.
"EBCDIC and Baudot support, " in the description of features in the description of the book. That's when I was sure this was an April 1 thing, tho I was strongly suspicious before.
BUT, in about the authors, it states that Larry Wall worked for Unisys during the period he created Perl. Anyone know if this is true? It would be the first evidence of anything not totally screwed up coming out of that outfit, possibly ever.
Did you actually read the whole thing? He clearly states the difference between casual sex and romance, insists that everyone be honest and on the same page. I don't think it objectifies women at all. I think it just says that they might be people who (gasp) like sex and (gasp) are attracted to guys who are fit and/or humorous and/or successfull, and (gasp) don't approach every single relationship with the idea that it must culminate in marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
...since Microsoft was one of the big proponents of UCITA. Maybe the modifications Maryland made weren't toothless after all. (Maybe.)
--
Check out this short Register story, which has a link to a very high rez photo where you can sorta make out the error messages, especially if you are familiar with the system.
/. article was poorly chosen - no research or fact checking apparently.
Which implies that a laptop, somewhere in the psace station was running some MS OS, but probably has no relevance to the topic of this article. I doubt their mission critical stuff is running on someone's laptop.
the headline for this
--
I've gone to every link and don't see anything that says that the machine involved was running Windows. Was it running Windows or not?
--
Because, unlike software, and even hardware, lines and the property they run on cannot be moved over to something instead of the monopoly.
I disagree. It's harder, but it's just a matter of a government body having the will and finding the law to do it. The AT&T divestiture involved transferring ownership of large amounts of equipment; this shouldn't be any different. If there's a law to do it, we should not be squeamish about using it to stop the ILECs from exploiting the monopoly status they have been granted.
--
Use anonymous email. It protects you and looks more like a threat. Just for good measure, send it to the SAs first, then to their non-techie PHBs if no action is taken.
--
So far we're not using Python in production, but it's probably just a matter of time.
Since the python license explicitly places it under the laws of the State of Virginia, and since Virginia has passed UCITA, and since UCITA lets the sellor make the license terms anything they want at any time they want, even after you've bought the product and started using it and your ONLY recourse to bad terms is to stop using it, you may want to think twice. ("Bought" may be the wrong word in this case, but the principle still applies.)
For these reasons, I'll no longer even consider use of Python (tho I'll admit I'm a perl bigot and the concept of syntactically signifcant whitespace is anathema to me). I used to think about learning Python, before I learned about the licensing.
--
And this is by itself enough reason for me to never use Python. At least twice, I've found myself reading about Python and thinking it's kind of neat sounding, but I always hit the part about syntactically significant whitespace and say, 'No, I think I'll pass'. I admit I'm partial to Perl.
--
Maybe, EXCEPT that one of the conditions for the merger with TW was that they open their IM. This was supposed to be done for them to get the FTC (or was it FCC?) to approve the merger. They made a lot of noises in that direction, it is now time for them to follow through.
--
But then you're still buying MS hardware and software in the XBOX. Better to get a beige box, run Linux/*BSD/whatever and avoid Redmond altogether. Plus no doubt there will be something in the XBOX EULA which will at least try to make this illegal (or convince you it is, at any rate).
--
Does this have support for the bastardized non-open protocol MS created out of kerberos?
--
You are a lowlife slime, trying to pretend he's something else. If I post my address on Usenet (which I've stopped doing, thanx to assholes like you) it's not your authorization to send me tons of crap. It's because I want to allow someone ON THAT FORUM (not you, slimeball) to contact me.
Crawl back under your rock, scum-bag.
--
The P IV requires RAMBUS, much more cost with little or no performance benefit AND a manufacturer that is sersiously ethically challenged. (Witness the suits stating they patented ideas that came out of JEDEC meetings, which they are now using to extort..uh, extract license fees form other manufacturers.) Since Intel is limiting its cusomers's choices with P IV, I will limit my choice to non P IV processors ( and maybe to non-Intel processors).
--
read the EULA, Microsoft can recall any piece of software they want...
In the absence of an evil piece of crap like UCITA (or a particularly corrupt judge), EULAs that don't show up until after you've paid for the software are usually considered meaningless. This is just one of the reasons why the fight against UCITA is so important. UCITA would make all the evil crap in EULAS legally binding. See www.4cite.org.
--
He completely evaded the point of question 9 - the ruination of defacto standards such as Kerberos and Java. He just ignored it altogether. His answer to this is nothing but blather - which is the best he could do because there is NO good answer for what Microsoft has done to standards.
(For a discussion of how they abuse one of the most widely used and useful standards ever, see: Moronic Microsoft HTML)
--
You can't even wait for the *design* to be complete before you flame it? Amazing. Larry was pretty smart for perl5, but dumb for perl6? How did that hapen?
--
Example: Perl's pitiful documentation compared to Python's rich, perfect, strait-from-the-mounth-of-god, Guido himself documentation.
Either you jest or you display ignorance. The perl distribution comes with tons of doc. Try issuing perldoc perldoc. You can use perldoc -f function_name_here to get information about any perl function and perldoc module_name_here to get documentation about any module for which the author has provided it (which is most of them if not damn near all of them).
More to the point, try man perl - each of the 70 sections is its own extensive man page, covering references, objects extensions in c - you name it it's probably there.
Oh, and how extensible is Perl? I never heard of an applet written in Perl.
What do these 2 sentences have to do with each other? many meabytes of perl extensions can be found at CPAN - I don't believe I've ever wanted to do something that wasn't made much easier by something that was already there. What does writing applets have to do with exensibility? perl is quite extensible in both perl and c. And there is a project to compile perl source to java bytecode, tho I'm not sure if it's still active. But client side applets aren't my main concern. I don't think they're flavor of the week anymore, anyhow.
--
"You must use warnings and strict everywhere except your main module" is not free and fun.
Unless I misunderstand, I think that nothing stops you from saying:
no strict;
no warnings;
after your module or class or whatever statement if you really want to. Frankly, I think "encouraging" module writers to be -w safe is a great idea. One of my favorites is hideously noisy with -w, (unless it's been rewritten recently); every time I use it I have to look at the output and remember whether this means it failed or if it's just the usual noise.
--
Sure, but the straight John Lennon quote was irresistable. (From the song "Revolution" for thos who didn't know.)
--
I disagree for the following reasons.
So if a problem like this existed in a Linux browser, you'd often get the whole system owned, and even if you didn't, you can still become a major nuisance for the rest of the internet.
--
Dude, you got sourceforge.net to define a host called jism? Happy April's fool.
--
"EBCDIC and Baudot support, " in the description of features in the description of the book. That's when I was sure this was an April 1 thing, tho I was strongly suspicious before.
BUT, in about the authors, it states that Larry Wall worked for Unisys during the period he created Perl. Anyone know if this is true? It would be the first evidence of anything not totally screwed up coming out of that outfit, possibly ever.
--
never mind - lost my junkbuster process due to (infrequent) reboot.
--
Netslaves seems to refuse connections made via junkbusters, so I won' be reading. I don't always use junkbusters, but I insist on the choice.
--
Did you actually read the whole thing? He clearly states the difference between casual sex and romance, insists that everyone be honest and on the same page. I don't think it objectifies women at all. I think it just says that they might be people who (gasp) like sex and (gasp) are attracted to guys who are fit and/or humorous and/or successfull, and (gasp) don't approach every single relationship with the idea that it must culminate in marriage.
--
From http://www.msnbc.com/news/481970.asp#BODY:
AOL 6.0 still uses Internet Explorer as its Web browser.
No sign of which version, tho.
--