Why would you NEED insurance for crakers? All the boxes of crackers I buy have a 'money back if not satisified' label. And, if the saltines aren't right, I just throw them out.
Seems like a waste to buy cracker insurance.
As for hacker insurance, I guess there ARE risks with using chairs made with axes. You would think tho, if you LIKE axe-made chairs, you'd inspect the craftmanship before you bought it.
Besides AlterNIC, there was some fan-fare about a company that was going to offer a browser plug-in where the consumer could type in, say, disney at the URL location line and then they would be re-directed to where disney wanted.
It was like $40 per entry, and was going to 'be more expensive' after some time.
Given I can't find any references to this product idea, it seems to have failed.
Now, WHY does this idea of an alternative naming has not taken off? Because what makes the internet useful is the interconnection of the network. An alternative name service works to destroy the usefulness of the net by introducing confusion. If, on the "real internet", disney.go.com takes me to Disney, but on the 'fake internet' I end up at the nude mickey/pluto page, all that will happen is the alternative NIC will fail. And given the person asked "Can I call a machine microsoft.com on an intranet or on a network based on a naming scheme different from the standard DNS?", the questioner doesn't grok that humans thrive on consistancy. If they type in microsoft and get BillCo, that is good.
>To counter that, if you ever catch a kiddie on your system (logged in), don't just boot him off. 'talk' him.
Although this is a nice concept, the reality is as soon as the 'hacker wannabees' know you are watching, they either drop link, or type cd / rm -r * & THEN drop link.
If the goal is exploration, the world is WAY different than the John Draper days of blue boxing.
386 computers that can run BSD are thrown in the trash. So access to computing resource is limited by electrcity. No need to break into systems to get CPU cycles.
The internet is FAR bigger than the old BellCore network. And the documentation that DRIVES the internet is all out in the open. No need to go dumpster dive the 'keepers of the network' to learn about the network. Or blue box about to map the network.
>Um...newspapers actually tend to follow up on major stories.
Major stories tend to keep going, hence the 'follow-up'
An example of a splash and no follow up - the sextuplets born, what 2 years ago?
"old media" doesn't let you look at a old/new story and then follow it to the present. Or, the present story into the past. This option exists on the web. And could exist here on/., if the/. crew wanted to spend the $ on it.
>but they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly.
No, they have no *responsibility* to use it fairly.
If they want others to view them as a fair source of information it is in their best interest to act fairly.
The webgame is all about delivering eyeballs. If the eyeballs are 'linux users' they do not care. And, in a weeks time, this thread will go away, no one will care. No one has the time to track and then not use 'unfair' services. And, odds are, anyone who DOES care about 'fairness' doesn't use calandering software on other servers.
No, this is something that you don't normally get in the media....updates on past stories.
A large number of stories on/. are part of a thread on 'topic X'.
Attempts to track 'a thread' include 1) Sections 2) This slashback idea and the occational link back to a previous/. story.
If/. had the money (that gets you time/talent) you could actually have a 'story thread' function.
Thus: If you wanted all the links about, say the Sony/emulators story, you could get just that presented. And just sony would be a seperate link. Mind you, you can preform searches, and to go thru such work would be an attempt to actually make/. some kind of news research/link site.
Given it is 'news for nerds, stuff that matters', it prob. is not worth the extra code for most of the users here. Esp. with the facination of some readers with making pertified beowolf clusteres of natlie portman.
Although most days this issue of some quality control measures sounds appealing, who judges the quality needing to be controlled?
As a race, we can't get along.
As a race, some of us claim that 'resources are running out.' Other believe that the resources are unlimited. Even this/. story touches on the idea that "we" want more power to keep living the life "we" have. Yet, in these conversations about resources and allocation, no one discusses making a change to reduce the long-term numbers of consumers of resources.
If "we" can't even discuss population control, how are "we" even able to discuss engineering a 'quality controlled' human?
There is nothing stopping OpenSource code from having formal specs and a well thought out design process.
Does Mr. Spafford think Kerberos insecure?
Last time I checked Kerberos has a formal design spec, peer review AND is opensource.
I do not see that Microsoft products qualify as secure. Where is the formal design spec? The peer review? It doesn't look better on the closed source side of things, but I guess Gene didn't want to grind that axe eh?
Why not a donation of time and skill and port the code fom the other BSD's to OpenBSD?
I'll follow the example of Pat. Ya see, Pat wanted to send a $500 check to OpenBSD as a donation. He got an e-mail back saying 'that was not enough'. Given they arn't interested in $500, odds are most of us do not have checkbooks big enuf to bankroll the project.
The developer in question should be looking at making his/her code run across Unix, not Linux.
Portable code is the key. If they write PORTABLE code they can run on Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, BSD, Mac OS X, etc.
Now, why develop for OpenSource Unix *FIRST*? As another had said....you have FULL access to the source code. You can trace the flow from your code to theirs. And figure out if the error is in their code, the written docuemntation you used to produce the call, or the error is in your code.
The only thing to watch out for is GPLed code if you don't want your code under the GPL. Odds are your firm makes its profit from intellectual property expressed in the source you compile and sell. *IF* someone makes a charge that you have GPLed code in your product, you will have to defend this charge. Such defense could be as simple as a statement "No we don't" to hiring a lawyer to explain to a judge why the lawsuit over the GPL needs to be decided in your firms favor via the presentation of your source code to a judge, paid experts, etc. How do you avoid the GPL? Just read the licences. Some are as simple as public domain. The licence on PostgreSQL is an example of a simple one that is not PD and specific to one program. Some are more verbose and complicated.
If the code *HAS* to run on Windows, libraries exist for Unix to Windows portability. These cost $, and slow up operation, but somehow money and speed are not an issue with M$ software.
Yes, lets all hail Linus for inventing Unix 25+ years ago when he worked at Bell Labs!
And without RMS, the original Univacs and the projected 6 IBM's built to serve the worlds computing needs.
The feline has departed the paper containment /dev
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
Lets say 'napster can't trade in copywrited material of the RIAA' *poof* Ok, there will still be SOME things and use for napster....there is MP3 art that is copywrited and able to be distributed. And, gosh, some that is not copywrited! Napster doesn't become useless....but it DOES remove the value for most people.
If the TRUE desire is for people to illegally trade warez, then it will just move to swapping via IRC channels, UseNet, the up and comming freenet, guntilla(sp), and the old fashioned 'go to Joe's house and have a copy party' The article quoted a couple of days ago about how 'for the 1st time in 90 years money won't be made from recordings' is true.
So, who's got a MP3 of the 'sounds of slashot' CD?
I'm betting Home Power isn't used to such traffic.
The thing that seems to be ignored when talking about power consumtion is part of the equation is ignored. If every human wants to live with 10KwH of electricity, and the number of KwHs is limited, to make the equation balance, the number of people will need to be reduced.
Ebola, war, people jumping out of windows when the Internet stocks they own collapse in price, or when we send off 20% of the population (the telephone sanitizers) can do the job.
No, it is NOT in their best interest. If developers can't develop due to a lack of information, how do you have applications?
M$ has applications because they have users. They have users because there are applications. To break this cycle, OpenSource needs to make life as easy as possible to develop applications.
By copying/being the well known API of Unix, and having resonable licencing fees, 2 of the objections to supporting the environment are removed.
GUI development tools and rapid-code tools are starting to show up for the same price point as on the M$ side.
The thing lacking is 70+% of the market share. The many versions of Linux combined with no working LSB, and the distain Linux users/developers treat the Linux compatibility of SCO/BSD/Solaris doesn't lend itself to convincing developers of marketshare.
You are making an assumption: The only programs *TO* use are thoes with source that is 'open'.
You many have never run into a program that doesn't run on more than 1,2,3 distros, but one that leaps to my mind is PICK. Oracle *USED* to be this way. I'm sure if people wanted, they could add to the list. Note how you don't use closed source binary only packages.....and the programs you never see are ones you have no interest in-because they are closed source.
>I think MS-OS *will* fight to keep the APIs from being open. It is in MS-OS's best interests to have good use made of its OS, but it is not in its best interest to give that info away.
How do you come to this conclusion?
If no one knows *HOW* to call the OS to use its features correctly, how is that in *ANY* developers interest....any developer EXCEPT Microsoft?
With 150+ distros, you don't call this fragmentation? Programs that only run on 1, 2 or 3 of the 150+ distros is not fragmentation?
Fragmentation comes from a desire for market differenatation, the desire of a company to take a commodity product and make it unique. And, lo and behold, given software only works on a few versions of Linux, I'd say the fragmentation has already happened.
>The vast majority of computer users--even professionals--want nothing to do with a command line. Witness the earlier success of Windows NT
His conclusion is WRONG.
If 'the banishment of command lines' was what drove NT sales, then explain why at $12,995 for an unlimited user licence of NT 3.1 Micro$oft was having trouble selling copies. Then, at $250 for the unlimited version, copies sold, and started to replace Novell Fileservers.
If 'the banishment of command lines' is because of some believe that arcane command sequences are evil, then explain why regedit.exe and resedit exist? Setting a flag to 0x15 or knowing the 4 char string for this file type is GVVM is archane.
'The Market' has spoken....it accepts things like regedit.exe and resedit, *AND* command lines. If it didn't want 'nothing to do with a command line' then there would be no need for regedit or resedit
This unit is too big to be a PDA. "The PDA Market" has shown large PDA's don't sell well.
Without Applications - a method to make this UNIT useful, it won't be a "winner".
There are plenty of places where this unit can be a win...just not in the palm pilot space, where size, battery life and cost rule.
A good place for thsi unit is in the 'roving inside your business comminicating data' market. Or, in the bathroom giving you something to read. Even here, if the backend of the company is Windows based, the only hope for pad-to-backend intergration is XML or a custom App. Given how well custom apps were rewarded by Apple/Newton, not many people will want to go that way.
It is a nice plan, and more power to 'em. About the only 'benifit' I see (outside of maketshare) is the ability to settle the question (ok, it won't settle it. People will question the ability of Debian to properly support the kernels/cooking the books for testing):
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you NEED insurance for crakers? All the boxes of crackers I buy have a 'money back if not satisified' label. And, if the saltines aren't right, I just throw them out.
Seems like a waste to buy cracker insurance.
As for hacker insurance, I guess there ARE risks with using chairs made with axes. You would think tho, if you LIKE axe-made chairs, you'd inspect the craftmanship before you bought it.
And their usefullness is VERY limited.
Brought the site up under BSD.
1) the stop button doesn't stop it
2) it goes so far in loading, then dies.
Under Winblows, a box askes if I want to 'upgrade' my browser. No such box under BSD. Same for MacOS.
So, it looks to me like this 'market brand building' technology isn't because it is not cross platform
Besides AlterNIC, there was some fan-fare about a company that was going to offer a browser plug-in where the consumer could type in, say, disney at the URL location line and then they would be re-directed to where disney wanted.
It was like $40 per entry, and was going to 'be more expensive' after some time.
Given I can't find any references to this product idea, it seems to have failed.
Now, WHY does this idea of an alternative naming has not taken off? Because what makes the internet useful is the interconnection of the network. An alternative name service works to destroy the usefulness of the net by introducing confusion. If, on the "real internet", disney.go.com takes me to Disney, but on the 'fake internet' I end up at the nude mickey/pluto page, all that will happen is the alternative NIC will fail. And given the person asked "Can I call a machine microsoft.com on an intranet or on a network based on a naming scheme different from the standard DNS?", the questioner doesn't grok that humans thrive on consistancy. If they type in microsoft and get BillCo, that is good.
Like it helped the Newton programmers and users eh?
>To counter that, if you ever catch a kiddie on your system (logged in), don't just boot him off. 'talk' him.
Although this is a nice concept, the reality is as soon as the 'hacker wannabees' know you are watching, they either drop link, or type
cd /
rm -r * &
THEN drop link.
If the goal is exploration, the world is WAY different than the John Draper days of blue boxing.
386 computers that can run BSD are thrown in the trash. So access to computing resource is limited by electrcity. No need to break into systems to get CPU cycles.
The internet is FAR bigger than the old BellCore network. And the documentation that DRIVES the internet is all out in the open. No need to go dumpster dive the 'keepers of the network' to learn about the network. Or blue box about to map the network.
>Um...newspapers actually tend to follow up on major stories.
/., if the /. crew wanted to spend the $ on it.
Major stories tend to keep going, hence the 'follow-up'
An example of a splash and no follow up - the sextuplets born, what 2 years ago?
"old media" doesn't let you look at a old/new story and then follow it to the present. Or, the present story into the past. This option exists on the web. And could exist here on
>but they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly.
No, they have no *responsibility* to use it fairly.
If they want others to view them as a fair source of information it is in their best interest to act fairly.
The webgame is all about delivering eyeballs. If the eyeballs are 'linux users' they do not care. And, in a weeks time, this thread will go away, no one will care. No one has the time to track and then not use 'unfair' services. And, odds are, anyone who DOES care about 'fairness' doesn't use calandering software on other servers.
No, this is something that you don't normally get in the media....updates on past stories.
/. are part of a thread on 'topic X'.
/. story.
/. had the money (that gets you time/talent) you could actually have a 'story thread' function.
/. some kind of news research/link site.
A large number of stories on
Attempts to track 'a thread' include
1) Sections
2) This slashback idea
and the occational link back to a previous
If
Thus: If you wanted all the links about, say the Sony/emulators story, you could get just that presented. And just sony would be a seperate link. Mind you, you can preform searches, and to go thru such work would be an attempt to actually make
Given it is 'news for nerds, stuff that matters', it prob. is not worth the extra code for most of the users here. Esp. with the facination of some readers with making pertified beowolf clusteres of natlie portman.
And, if I have read the GPL correctly, you can not release a 'GPL Version for this platform only'
Because, if you CAN restrict the GPL-ism to one platform only, then the source 'isn't free'.
If they want to make the "linux" version free for "linux only" then they need their own licence.
As a race, we can't get along.
As a race, some of us claim that 'resources are running out.' Other believe that the resources are unlimited. /. story touches on the idea that "we" want more power to keep living the life "we" have.
Even this
Yet, in these conversations about resources and allocation, no one discusses making a change to reduce the long-term numbers of consumers of resources.
If "we" can't even discuss population control, how are "we" even able to discuss engineering a 'quality controlled' human?
There is nothing stopping OpenSource code from having formal specs and a well thought out design process.
Does Mr. Spafford think Kerberos insecure?
Last time I checked Kerberos has a formal design spec, peer review AND is opensource.
I do not see that Microsoft products qualify as secure. Where is the formal design spec? The peer review? It doesn't look better on the closed source side of things, but I guess Gene didn't want to grind that axe eh?
Why a donation of mney?
Why not a donation of time and skill and port the code fom the other BSD's to OpenBSD?
I'll follow the example of Pat. Ya see, Pat wanted to send a $500 check to OpenBSD as a donation. He got an e-mail back saying 'that was not enough'. Given they arn't interested in $500, odds are most of us do not have checkbooks big enuf to bankroll the project.
The developer in question should be looking at making his/her code run across Unix, not Linux.
Portable code is the key. If they write PORTABLE code they can run on Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, BSD, Mac OS X, etc.
Now, why develop for OpenSource Unix *FIRST*? As another had said....you have FULL access to the source code. You can trace the flow from your code to theirs. And figure out if the error is in their code, the written docuemntation you used to produce the call, or the error is in your code.
The only thing to watch out for is GPLed code if you don't want your code under the GPL. Odds are your firm makes its profit from intellectual property expressed in the source you compile and sell. *IF* someone makes a charge that you have GPLed code in your product, you will have to defend this charge. Such defense could be as simple as a statement "No we don't" to hiring a lawyer to explain to a judge why the lawsuit over the GPL needs to be decided in your firms favor via the presentation of your source code to a judge, paid experts, etc. How do you avoid the GPL? Just read the licences. Some are as simple as public domain. The licence on PostgreSQL is an example of a simple one that is not PD and specific to one program. Some are more verbose and complicated.
If the code *HAS* to run on Windows, libraries exist for Unix to Windows portability. These cost $, and slow up operation, but somehow money and speed are not an issue with M$ software.
Yes, lets all hail Linus for inventing Unix 25+ years ago when he worked at Bell Labs!
And without RMS, the original Univacs and the projected 6 IBM's built to serve the worlds computing needs.
Lets say 'napster can't trade in copywrited material of the RIAA' *poof*
Ok, there will still be SOME things and use for napster....there is MP3 art that is copywrited and able to be distributed. And, gosh, some that is not copywrited! Napster doesn't become useless....but it DOES remove the value for most people.
If the TRUE desire is for people to illegally trade warez, then it will just move to swapping via IRC channels, UseNet, the up and comming freenet, guntilla(sp), and the old fashioned 'go to Joe's house and have a copy party' The article quoted a couple of days ago about how 'for the 1st time in 90 years money won't be made from recordings' is true.
So, who's got a MP3 of the 'sounds of slashot' CD?
I'm betting Home Power isn't used to such traffic.
The thing that seems to be ignored when talking about power consumtion is part of the equation is ignored. If every human wants to live with 10KwH of electricity, and the number of KwHs is limited, to make the equation balance, the number of people will need to be reduced.
Ebola, war, people jumping out of windows when the Internet stocks they own collapse in price, or when we send off 20% of the population (the telephone sanitizers) can do the job.
They ship boxes with BSD on them, but when I called and asked for a windows free Thinkpad or a FreeBSD Thinkpad, I was told no go.
No offer was made to ship it with Linux. (Not that I wanted that either)
No, it is NOT in their best interest. If developers can't develop due to a lack of information, how do you have applications?
M$ has applications because they have users. They have users because there are applications. To break this cycle, OpenSource needs to make life as easy as possible to develop applications.
By copying/being the well known API of Unix, and having resonable licencing fees, 2 of the objections to supporting the environment are removed.
GUI development tools and rapid-code tools are starting to show up for the same price point as on the M$ side.
The thing lacking is 70+% of the market share. The many versions of Linux combined with no working LSB, and the distain Linux users/developers treat the Linux compatibility of SCO/BSD/Solaris doesn't lend itself to convincing developers of marketshare.
>Besides, it's better to use sources anyway.
You are making an assumption: The only programs *TO* use are thoes with source that is 'open'.
You many have never run into a program that doesn't run on more than 1,2,3 distros, but one that leaps to my mind is PICK. Oracle *USED* to be this way. I'm sure if people wanted, they could add to the list. Note how you don't use closed source binary only packages.....and the programs you never see are ones you have no interest in-because they are closed source.
>I think MS-OS *will* fight to keep the APIs from being open. It is in MS-OS's best interests to have good use made of its OS, but it is not in its
best interest to give that info away.
How do you come to this conclusion?
If no one knows *HOW* to call the OS to use its features correctly, how is that in *ANY* developers interest....any developer EXCEPT Microsoft?
RedHat, Mandrake, TurboLinux, Suse, blah, blah, blah
With 150+ distros, you don't call this fragmentation? Programs that only run on 1, 2 or 3 of the 150+ distros is not fragmentation?
Fragmentation comes from a desire for market differenatation, the desire of a company to take a commodity product and make it unique. And, lo and behold, given software only works on a few versions of Linux, I'd say the fragmentation has already happened.
>The vast majority of computer users--even professionals--want nothing to do with a command line. Witness the earlier success of Windows NT
His conclusion is WRONG.
If 'the banishment of command lines' was what drove NT sales, then explain why at $12,995 for an unlimited user licence of NT 3.1 Micro$oft was having trouble selling copies. Then, at $250 for the unlimited version, copies sold, and started to replace Novell Fileservers.
If 'the banishment of command lines' is because of some believe that arcane command sequences are evil, then explain why regedit.exe and resedit exist? Setting a flag to 0x15 or knowing the 4 char string for this file type is GVVM is archane.
'The Market' has spoken....it accepts things like regedit.exe and resedit, *AND* command lines. If it didn't want 'nothing to do with a command line' then there would be no need for regedit or resedit
>If it's Linux and 802.11, we may have a winner .
So, if it ran BSD, this is NOT a win?
This unit is too big to be a PDA. "The PDA Market" has shown large PDA's don't sell well.
Without Applications - a method to make this UNIT useful, it won't be a "winner".
There are plenty of places where this unit can be a win...just not in the palm pilot space, where size, battery life and cost rule.
A good place for thsi unit is in the 'roving inside your business comminicating data' market. Or, in the bathroom giving you something to read. Even here, if the backend of the company is Windows based, the only hope for pad-to-backend intergration is XML or a custom App. Given how well custom apps were rewarded by Apple/Newton, not many people will want to go that way.
Yes. At least the VERSION that is licenced that way. Later versions do not have this 'feature' in the licence.
Things like Virtual PC (on mac) or BOCSH would be OK, and any packages that it 'licenced' by M$.
It is a nice plan, and more power to 'em. About the only 'benifit' I see (outside of maketshare) is the ability to settle the question (ok, it won't settle it. People will question the ability of Debian to properly support the kernels/cooking the books for testing):
Which kernel is faster, Linux or BSD.