I can't count how many conversations I have had with techies about things like the 'open wireless access point defense,' the 'trojaned computer defense,' the 'NAT-ted firewall defense,' and the 'dynamic IP address defense.'...
I'm sorry, but facts are facts and the way things work are they way that they work. I'm sorry, but no, you cannot tie a single IP address to a single person and a single piece of activity no matter how hard you try and no matter how many times you say it. It's a bummer for all those companies selling detection systems that trawl file sharing networks to the RIAA, and it would be lovely and simple if only it were true, but it isn't. It's funny that a lawyer is placing his faith in 'infallible' technology without understanding how that technology works, without understanding that it doesn't provide proof in the way that he thinks that it does and that he's deriding the very people who understand how it works. It won't make systems like this any less flawed:
He mentions kiddie porn, but of course, that's always the politically correct thing to say;-).
He's right that search and seizure will provide much more solid evidence so I wonder why he even bothers trying to dismiss other technical arguments other than to stroke his own ego about him being 'right'. However, there is ample evidence that there are some pretty terrible trojans out there that will do some pretty damn dodgy things to your machine. You'd have to be stupid and let your computer get in a pretty bad state, but then, most people do. Things are not as cut and dried as he thinks they are in the technology world and it strikes me as rather dangerous when a lawyer starts writing something that says "You're guilty, don't bother" regarding something where he has no clue how things actually work.
There's very little in the way of evidence in that piece of writing for starters and he hasn't 'walked through' anything. Without willingness to back up 'facts' with knowledge of what you're dealing with, whether it be medical matters, engineering or IT, then you're on a rocky road.
It's no suprise really. Hell, artists (the people who actually come up with the material) might get the impression that they would get better results and be better off financially going it alone and using blogs and other forums as promotion than they would being protected by the RIAA from all those nasty pirates and copyright violators. The excutives need to be kept in nice suits, BMWs and have enough left over to snort coke off the arses of strippers wearing clear heels. It has little to do with any concrete violation of copyright and everything to do with the prospect of losing the Don Simpson lifestyle.
They have to cross license because they depend on each other, but they have no obligation to license to NVidia.
Cross-licensing is a crock. It is done to try and head off any threat of legal action two or more companies might throw at each other, but the suspicion of that threat is not based on anything concrete. It's more about warm fuzzy feelings and to give the legal people something to do. It's also done as a protectionist tactic between companies to make sure no one else enters the party, and if they try to to ensure that everyone will be asking a lot of questions that can't be answered about their legality.
But they're going to go after Mono, right? Let's just ignore that Samba 4 is (supposedly) going to eat Microsoft's lunch on the AD side of things. They're gonna go right after Mono! Rar! BE SCARED! Because that makes so much sense for them to do, right? It's not cutting off their noses to spite their face at all.
There's one vital difference. Samba is not adhering to a standard that has been ratified by the ECMA that they can use to say "Ahhhhh, you're infringing!" and where the ECMA has not ruled that it will be RAND licensed forever whatever happens. Mono adheres to something quantifiable that can be pinned on them. Samba doesn't. It is something reverse engineered and where much of the implementation is partially completed and even incompatible with what Microsoft does. You could say that Samba just happens to be Windows Networking compatible in some ways. If you look at any of the patent applications that Microsoft has filed you will generally see something like "This adheres to code running in a CLR........" with a definition of what the CLR is somewhere in the text and a referral to the ECMA. You can't nail Samba down like that.
.Net is what Microsoft is telling people to use to develop applications for Windows, applications are what keep Windows where it is and Windows is where Microsoft's bread and butter is. Don't underestimate their willingness to protect that.
What Mono did and it surprises me is that a Mono developer = Microsoft.NET developer, but a Microsoft.NET developer != Mono developer.
Hmmmm. That might be OK is Mono was leading and not following, and it might be OK if people were not developing all their code on the.Net platform first before trying Mono. Alas, neither is the case.
While I won't go as far as being paranoid about "it was always the governments plan and they just want the data on everyone", it doesn't surprise me that our government isn't even capable of introducing both halves of an ID scheme at the same time.
I'm even more cynical than that. While the government will probably get some data on people, judging from other such projects that have gone before it will be extremely poorly coordinated and it will be a far bigger security risk than anything else because they won't be able to keep a lid on the data. It just strikes me that a lot of companies have got cosy with the government, promising them things that are almost certainly not going to work in order to fleece them of billions of pounds. Billions of borrowed pounds in the current climate, that is.
But if you've got 10x 200 GB HDDs, and one of them fails, you've only lost 200 GB.
The odds are that you're going to get more than one drive failure in that array when compared with larger drives and less of them, and with multiple drive failures you spend more time in array rebuilds and then comes the greater chance of a complete array failure as a result of those two factors - something you really don't want.
While if you're running 1x 2 TB HDD, and that one drive fails, you're pretty much hosed.
The bleeding obvious. Well yer, because you don't have any redundancy. You're not comparing like with like there.
The Fedora KDE SIG is small. It had only 4 or 5 members at the time (versus 6 now, yippee). There was no way for them to both bring a 4.x desktop into Fedora *and* maintain a 3.5.x desktop.
So what? You maintain a 3.x desktop then until you're all ready.
Their choices were to either to be stuck with maintaining an unmaintained version of KDE for the next 6 to 12 months
Who told you 3.x was going to be unmaintained, and certainly for the next few months until a new Fedora release? The KDE developers had made it consistently clear that KDE 3.x would continue to be maintained and supported. It sounds like someone deliberately wasn't listening.
It's not their fault that the KDE developers screwed up.
It was a distro decision to do that, and a silly one on behalf of their users. It isn't the first time where a major new piece of software is released and a distribution has to ask themselves whether to go with it or wait a release behind. It isn't exactly the first time a distribution has royally screwed their users in order to be bleeding edge. *cough* PulseAudio *cough*, and that really was a silly addition.
I use screenlet buttons and arranged them specifically on the living room tv set. I have 1 high definition card, one analog card, and cable modem. I have on one 1080p screen running at the same time
That's great, but the chances of you using that resolution and having your screenlets, or gdesklets (probably a better option), and the rest of your desktop scale nicely to the size of the screen are pretty much nil - which is what I'm talking about since there is no real resolution independence there in the desktop. SVG is not used everywhere and the application framework is built with a specific resolution in mind. In addition, neither this or Compiz is bundled as part of Gnome so you're on your own stability-wise.
There is so much more! my wii mote works with my hand motion navigating cursor and I just click on the preset screenlets icons.
Great. Let me know when it's on sale.
tvtime runs the analog cable shows, google earth for traffic and weather.
MythTV would be a far more practical option to provide something universal for all this as tvtime is merely a small application for getting TV output. To make it actually useful you need a framework to record TV at specific times and give you access to all your media through one interface. I hope you enjoy using all those applications. In addition, Google Earth doesn't provide you with traffic and weather by itself.
Calling a distro brain dead because it specifically runs all the latest stuff, then complaining when they don't all work is what's brain dead.
I'm afraid you can't get around this by saying that it's all bleeding edge as a disclaimer. You have to sensibly decide what to put in a new release and it seems as though they were more casual about KDE 4.0 than other software they were packaging up. What Fedora did, and has done, only hurts their users.
They do warn you, you know. If you want stable, run fucking ubuntu.
I don't understand why he couldn't use KDE 3.x until 4.x was more usable?
Because Fedora tried to make it look like they had to throw their lot in with KDE 4.0 when distros like Suse installed 3 and 4 side-by-side and made a decision only to default KDE 4 as the default KDE deskotp when it reached 4.2.
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess why it was done in that way, and why Ubuntu ballsed up their LTS release;-).
In gnome, we have screenlets, awn, kiba-dock, compiz fusion.
If you think you have the equivalent of anything that can be done with Plasma with those things, or indeed with what Microsoft will be doing with Windows and Apple with Mac OS in those areas then you'e pretty seriously deluding yourself. For starters, Plasma provides a unified framework for developers to develop applets and applications, as well as deploy them, and not have to bring in a dozen frameworks that all look different. In addition, screenlets and compiz in particular are not a tested part of the Gnome desktop and so exhibit some rather strange stability issues. To cap it all off, those things just do not have the graphical capabilities of Plasma and Qt that you'll find in Windows and Mac as well, the biggest being resolution independence.
The posibilities are endless in creating touchpads with screenlets buttons as executables for certain applications or using awn or kiba-dock on a 65inch HD-television for navigation on your living room setup.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. A 65 inch TV eh? You're going to find that pretty darned difficult without proper resolution independence;-).
I think you have to be pretty desperate about something to pick out one section of this interview and stick that in as the headline. Linus is currently using Gnome because KDE 4.0 didn't do what he wanted it to do right now, and given that he's using Fedora and he obviously doesn't get the chance of continuing to use KDE 3.x like any distributor with half a brain would do then he's a bit stuck. Where KDE has been concerned Fedora and Red Hat have seemingly always presented what they want you to see, and KDE 4.0 was an ideal rod to use for its back. No matter though.
There's much ado about nothing really. Whatever anyone tries the good technology always will out, and I'm afraid in the open source desktop world that is KDE right now. Frok that perspective then the message is very much still 'use KDE'. There's nothing else that is able to keep up technologically with what Microsoft and Apple are doing with Windows and Mac from a presentation, developer and application perspective. If you want to stay on the equivalents of today's CDE then that's absolutely fine, but a break has been necessary to move things on. Linus even justifies the approach to a large extent:
In the development community there are two camps - people that want stability and people that want to release often. End-users will do crazy things that no amount of testing infrastructure will get so there are competing pressures. You want filesystems to be stable, but you can't be in beta forever. Btrfs is developmental, but it was merged in the main kernel to help people test it.
Not only does Microsoft have a firm grasp of multicore tuning, but its scalability story promises to keep getting better with time.
When you see bullshit buzzwords in articles that look as if they've been written by marketing people then look out. Marketing-led, buzzword-laden people always have stories. Are we really supposed to be impressed that the richest OS developer in the world can actually create a SMP capable OS that actually works reasonably given that SMP systems have been around for years? From the tone of the article it's like they're shocked that it works.
Yep, that is definitely an instance where Gentoo comes in quite handy. The options with other distros is that you are lucky enough to find updates and backports repositories, you get a RPM or DEB from somewhere and install at your own risk, you compile yourself or you can your current distro and upgrade to the new version. Not good. This is where most package managers and installation of software on Linux breaks down.
If this is correct, then my original reasoning stands. C++ requires wrappers or proxies to work well with other languages. gobject C-based libraries, as nasty as they are to develop, require much much less of this.
This means what, exactly? There's no criteria saying you can't use wrappers or proxes of any kind to aid in providing bindings. The stupid and utterly meaningless implication was that C++ made libraries too hard to bind to. That isn't the case. Sorry.
So no. Smoke bindings haven't proved me wrong.. in fact they've proved my original point.
Yes they have. You implied that it was utterly fantastic for GTK and Gnome to be using C, even though they are inherently object oriented bit os software in their nature, because C was far easier to bind to than and implied it wasn't really possible with C++. It was a stupid metric to use to decide on a base language to use, but still wrong.
No the binding arguments aren't stupid.
Yes they are. Firstly, when you have a GUI toolkit and desktop environment that is inherently object oriented in nature then it is sensible to develop off a toolkit and a language that uses object orientation. Why bother using C and GTK and then creating object oriented bindings off the back of it? It's a lot of work for nothing. Secondly, very, very few people actually use language bindings and C is still the primary language of application developers within Gnome. Thirdly, there is an awful lot more important criteria than how easy your language and libraries are to bind to. The more bindings you have and the 'easier' it is to do them doesn't write applications and create functionality. I've never understood this whole bindings thing that comes out. It doesn't matter and no one cares how many bindings you have or how seemingly easy they are to create. It only matters if it is helping developers to develop lots and lots of applications and functionality that users care about with them. They aren't.
Besides all this, arguing that core Gnome APIs should be C++ based is just silly because they are already C-based.
Yes it is and yes they are. However, they were still completely wrong to develop an object oriented toolkit and an object oriented desktop environment with a language that has no object oriented features whatsoever and then hack them on.
If we rewrote everything we'd just end up with KDE/Qt anyway.
Umm, because it's precisely the *right* language for the job.
Hmmmm, and that is based on?:-
C++ restricts your binding options to other languages pretty dramatically
I wish people would drop this stupid bindings argument. It's brain dead. Firstly, bindings have to be maintained, properly, if they are to be of any use to developers. That takes effort. Secondly, why bother with binding object orientation and other languages on when you can have a language built with proper object orientation in the first place because that's what your software requires? Vala shouldn't even really be necessary.
Oh, and the Smoke bindings that KDE uses have proved you wrong. So pffffffffffffff.
Why don't you actually boot it, or failing that, take the hard drive out, perhaps look at some logs and actually find out rather than aligning it with a certain set of mystical circumstances?
Credit card companies do things like monitoring your usage habits, and calling you when you deviate wildly from them in order to make sure everything is legit and froody.
While I can agree with that because it is the credit card company's money I am spending, I can't see it working here. This is equipment not owned or even loaned from the phone company, they can never take responsibility for exactly how it is configured and it will be impossible, and probably annoying, for the phone company to try and monitor all suspicious activity because what is defined as suspicious constantly changes for everyone. They'd need a real Big Brother tracking system. On top of that, this is a company that is supposed to be able to set up VoIP systems properly and make them secure. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
The downside is that they're 1024x768 usually, and are usually off-brands.
Slightly misleading because plasmas of that size are usually to small too have a higher resolution, and they use rectangular pixels so size-wise they are certainly widescreen. It's entirely arguable as to whether a higher resolution makes a real difference to picture quality at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what the parent is describing isn't going to be solved by a test environment.
Many people would love to outsource management of Exchange server, and it's even better if someone wants to do it for free.
I'm sorry, but facts are facts and the way things work are they way that they work. I'm sorry, but no, you cannot tie a single IP address to a single person and a single piece of activity no matter how hard you try and no matter how many times you say it. It's a bummer for all those companies selling detection systems that trawl file sharing networks to the RIAA, and it would be lovely and simple if only it were true, but it isn't. It's funny that a lawyer is placing his faith in 'infallible' technology without understanding how that technology works, without understanding that it doesn't provide proof in the way that he thinks that it does and that he's deriding the very people who understand how it works. It won't make systems like this any less flawed:
;-).
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/uwcse_dmca_tr.pdf
He mentions kiddie porn, but of course, that's always the politically correct thing to say
He's right that search and seizure will provide much more solid evidence so I wonder why he even bothers trying to dismiss other technical arguments other than to stroke his own ego about him being 'right'. However, there is ample evidence that there are some pretty terrible trojans out there that will do some pretty damn dodgy things to your machine. You'd have to be stupid and let your computer get in a pretty bad state, but then, most people do. Things are not as cut and dried as he thinks they are in the technology world and it strikes me as rather dangerous when a lawyer starts writing something that says "You're guilty, don't bother" regarding something where he has no clue how things actually work.
There's very little in the way of evidence in that piece of writing for starters and he hasn't 'walked through' anything. Without willingness to back up 'facts' with knowledge of what you're dealing with, whether it be medical matters, engineering or IT, then you're on a rocky road.
It's no suprise really. Hell, artists (the people who actually come up with the material) might get the impression that they would get better results and be better off financially going it alone and using blogs and other forums as promotion than they would being protected by the RIAA from all those nasty pirates and copyright violators. The excutives need to be kept in nice suits, BMWs and have enough left over to snort coke off the arses of strippers wearing clear heels. It has little to do with any concrete violation of copyright and everything to do with the prospect of losing the Don Simpson lifestyle.
Cross-licensing is a crock. It is done to try and head off any threat of legal action two or more companies might throw at each other, but the suspicion of that threat is not based on anything concrete. It's more about warm fuzzy feelings and to give the legal people something to do. It's also done as a protectionist tactic between companies to make sure no one else enters the party, and if they try to to ensure that everyone will be asking a lot of questions that can't be answered about their legality.
There's one vital difference. Samba is not adhering to a standard that has been ratified by the ECMA that they can use to say "Ahhhhh, you're infringing!" and where the ECMA has not ruled that it will be RAND licensed forever whatever happens. Mono adheres to something quantifiable that can be pinned on them. Samba doesn't. It is something reverse engineered and where much of the implementation is partially completed and even incompatible with what Microsoft does. You could say that Samba just happens to be Windows Networking compatible in some ways. If you look at any of the patent applications that Microsoft has filed you will generally see something like "This adheres to code running in a CLR........" with a definition of what the CLR is somewhere in the text and a referral to the ECMA. You can't nail Samba down like that.
.Net is what Microsoft is telling people to use to develop applications for Windows, applications are what keep Windows where it is and Windows is where Microsoft's bread and butter is. Don't underestimate their willingness to protect that.
Hmmmm. That might be OK is Mono was leading and not following, and it might be OK if people were not developing all their code on the .Net platform first before trying Mono. Alas, neither is the case.
I'm even more cynical than that. While the government will probably get some data on people, judging from other such projects that have gone before it will be extremely poorly coordinated and it will be a far bigger security risk than anything else because they won't be able to keep a lid on the data. It just strikes me that a lot of companies have got cosy with the government, promising them things that are almost certainly not going to work in order to fleece them of billions of pounds. Billions of borrowed pounds in the current climate, that is.
The odds are that you're going to get more than one drive failure in that array when compared with larger drives and less of them, and with multiple drive failures you spend more time in array rebuilds and then comes the greater chance of a complete array failure as a result of those two factors - something you really don't want.
The bleeding obvious. Well yer, because you don't have any redundancy. You're not comparing like with like there.
Stupid. You just end up with wildly divergent performance and increase the chances of failures.
So what? You maintain a 3.x desktop then until you're all ready.
Who told you 3.x was going to be unmaintained, and certainly for the next few months until a new Fedora release? The KDE developers had made it consistently clear that KDE 3.x would continue to be maintained and supported. It sounds like someone deliberately wasn't listening.
It was a distro decision to do that, and a silly one on behalf of their users. It isn't the first time where a major new piece of software is released and a distribution has to ask themselves whether to go with it or wait a release behind. It isn't exactly the first time a distribution has royally screwed their users in order to be bleeding edge. *cough* PulseAudio *cough*, and that really was a silly addition.
That's great, but the chances of you using that resolution and having your screenlets, or gdesklets (probably a better option), and the rest of your desktop scale nicely to the size of the screen are pretty much nil - which is what I'm talking about since there is no real resolution independence there in the desktop. SVG is not used everywhere and the application framework is built with a specific resolution in mind. In addition, neither this or Compiz is bundled as part of Gnome so you're on your own stability-wise.
Great. Let me know when it's on sale.
MythTV would be a far more practical option to provide something universal for all this as tvtime is merely a small application for getting TV output. To make it actually useful you need a framework to record TV at specific times and give you access to all your media through one interface. I hope you enjoy using all those applications. In addition, Google Earth doesn't provide you with traffic and weather by itself.
No.
I'm afraid you can't get around this by saying that it's all bleeding edge as a disclaimer. You have to sensibly decide what to put in a new release and it seems as though they were more casual about KDE 4.0 than other software they were packaging up. What Fedora did, and has done, only hurts their users.
Errrrr, yer. Right. :-)
Because Fedora tried to make it look like they had to throw their lot in with KDE 4.0 when distros like Suse installed 3 and 4 side-by-side and made a decision only to default KDE 4 as the default KDE deskotp when it reached 4.2.
;-).
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess why it was done in that way, and why Ubuntu ballsed up their LTS release
If you think you have the equivalent of anything that can be done with Plasma with those things, or indeed with what Microsoft will be doing with Windows and Apple with Mac OS in those areas then you'e pretty seriously deluding yourself. For starters, Plasma provides a unified framework for developers to develop applets and applications, as well as deploy them, and not have to bring in a dozen frameworks that all look different. In addition, screenlets and compiz in particular are not a tested part of the Gnome desktop and so exhibit some rather strange stability issues. To cap it all off, those things just do not have the graphical capabilities of Plasma and Qt that you'll find in Windows and Mac as well, the biggest being resolution independence.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. A 65 inch TV eh? You're going to find that pretty darned difficult without proper resolution independence ;-).
There's much ado about nothing really. Whatever anyone tries the good technology always will out, and I'm afraid in the open source desktop world that is KDE right now. Frok that perspective then the message is very much still 'use KDE'. There's nothing else that is able to keep up technologically with what Microsoft and Apple are doing with Windows and Mac from a presentation, developer and application perspective. If you want to stay on the equivalents of today's CDE then that's absolutely fine, but a break has been necessary to move things on. Linus even justifies the approach to a large extent:
When you see bullshit buzzwords in articles that look as if they've been written by marketing people then look out. Marketing-led, buzzword-laden people always have stories. Are we really supposed to be impressed that the richest OS developer in the world can actually create a SMP capable OS that actually works reasonably given that SMP systems have been around for years? From the tone of the article it's like they're shocked that it works.
Yep, that is definitely an instance where Gentoo comes in quite handy. The options with other distros is that you are lucky enough to find updates and backports repositories, you get a RPM or DEB from somewhere and install at your own risk, you compile yourself or you can your current distro and upgrade to the new version. Not good. This is where most package managers and installation of software on Linux breaks down.
This means what, exactly? There's no criteria saying you can't use wrappers or proxes of any kind to aid in providing bindings. The stupid and utterly meaningless implication was that C++ made libraries too hard to bind to. That isn't the case. Sorry.
Yes they have. You implied that it was utterly fantastic for GTK and Gnome to be using C, even though they are inherently object oriented bit os software in their nature, because C was far easier to bind to than and implied it wasn't really possible with C++. It was a stupid metric to use to decide on a base language to use, but still wrong.
Yes they are. Firstly, when you have a GUI toolkit and desktop environment that is inherently object oriented in nature then it is sensible to develop off a toolkit and a language that uses object orientation. Why bother using C and GTK and then creating object oriented bindings off the back of it? It's a lot of work for nothing. Secondly, very, very few people actually use language bindings and C is still the primary language of application developers within Gnome. Thirdly, there is an awful lot more important criteria than how easy your language and libraries are to bind to. The more bindings you have and the 'easier' it is to do them doesn't write applications and create functionality. I've never understood this whole bindings thing that comes out. It doesn't matter and no one cares how many bindings you have or how seemingly easy they are to create. It only matters if it is helping developers to develop lots and lots of applications and functionality that users care about with them. They aren't.
Yes it is and yes they are. However, they were still completely wrong to develop an object oriented toolkit and an object oriented desktop environment with a language that has no object oriented features whatsoever and then hack them on.
ROTFL. There you are then. Nuff said.
Hmmmm, and that is based on? :-
I wish people would drop this stupid bindings argument. It's brain dead. Firstly, bindings have to be maintained, properly, if they are to be of any use to developers. That takes effort. Secondly, why bother with binding object orientation and other languages on when you can have a language built with proper object orientation in the first place because that's what your software requires? Vala shouldn't even really be necessary.
Oh, and the Smoke bindings that KDE uses have proved you wrong. So pffffffffffffff.
Where's the Lego Lord of the Rings version?
Open Office is not a GTK or a Gnome application, and it shows. It can superficially look like a GTK application, as well as a Qt/KDE one though.
Why don't you actually boot it, or failing that, take the hard drive out, perhaps look at some logs and actually find out rather than aligning it with a certain set of mystical circumstances?
While I can agree with that because it is the credit card company's money I am spending, I can't see it working here. This is equipment not owned or even loaned from the phone company, they can never take responsibility for exactly how it is configured and it will be impossible, and probably annoying, for the phone company to try and monitor all suspicious activity because what is defined as suspicious constantly changes for everyone. They'd need a real Big Brother tracking system. On top of that, this is a company that is supposed to be able to set up VoIP systems properly and make them secure. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Slightly misleading because plasmas of that size are usually to small too have a higher resolution, and they use rectangular pixels so size-wise they are certainly widescreen. It's entirely arguable as to whether a higher resolution makes a real difference to picture quality at all.