But what are the other advantages? Reading the site it looks roughly comparable to a Palm V and costs as much as a Palm VIIx, but without the built in wireless.
I suppose the new form factor is more convenient, but for the same price I'd rather have the Palm VIIx's wireless internet.
Their copyright of the specs only affects your ability to reproduce/redistribute the specifications of the language. It does not affect your ability to use the specs to create your own implementation. That is fair use, and is legal. Note, this assumes you didn't sign any sort of Non disclosure agreement and you arent going to redistribute your work.
That leaves only two other possible areas of infringement: Patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Assuming they have not patented this language, you are OK there. I don't even know if it's possible to patent a language (given some other nutty patents I've seen, I'm sure it is), but as long as you didn't see their source code you'd still be in the clear probably.
The easiest way to get around trademark infringement is not to give your language the same name as their language. Call it something else. Back when the DOD trademarked the name "Ada", they wouldn't license the name to anyone who didn't produce a language on par with the government's Ada specs. However, this did not stop others from developing Ada-like implementations that went by another name. AFAIK, anyone can use the Ada name these days.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer, and I really have no basis for what I've just said, so you should NOT take my advice but instead consult a real lawyer before doing anything else.
What about the old IBM keyboards from the XT series? You know, the ones with the clicky keys. Those things are built like sh*t brickhouses.
I've got one that served as a public library terminal during the 80s, and still gets regular use. I've not seen one break yet. I don't know if Big Blue still sells them, but you could probably get a lot of them at auctions if you didn't mind the hassle.
Why not spare yourself the headaches of buying new equipment and dealing with "copy protection" schemes that deprive you of fair use and JUST QUIT WATCHING TV.
I just cancelled my cable today, and I feel better already. Now I will have more time to do productive things, like spend time with friends and family, read, or even exercise. That's not to mention the fact that I will have $57 extra per month to spend on whatever I want.
Time is really the most valuable thing you have. Don't waste another minute watching cheezy sitcoms and braindead ads. Crap is crap, even if it's 1920x1080.
My apartment complex has ethernet over RJ11 lines. It comes into my apt and plugs into the back of a converter which converts it to regular RJ45, which plugs into my NIC.
The converters are made by Tut Systems and cost about $170 for a 1 megabit converter.
Why they didn't just wire the place with cat 5, I don't know.
That's only if you make the assumption that the majority of peer to peer connections are between users of the same ISP. In the Real World (TM), I would guess this is usually not the case. Services like Napster generally make no distinction between a user next door to you and one half way around the world (except in ping time, and that's only if you find the file you need both locally and from someone in a remote location, which is probably still more infrequent).
Peer to peer doesn't imply any sort of geographic proximity, it is just a description of how two clients interact with one another.
Someone told me once that smoking is bad for hdd's because the small particulate matter of smoke can permeate the air filter on the hard disk and get inside. I know that at least some hard drives are not comlpletely sealed to outside air. My old IBM XT hard drive had a little paper filter that allowed pressure equalization between the inside of the drive and the outside air.
I haven't yet seen such a device on any newer drives, so I can't comment on them.
I've recently decided that every time MS comes out with one of these FUD filled "We're going to legislate open source out of the picture" diatribes, I'm going to write a letter to each of my congressmen asking them to vote against anything pro MS. I wrote one yesterday to my Sentaor, who happens to be on the Technology Committee.
I know one person isn't much, but if each of us sends a concise, hand written letter to our congresspersons every time this happens, maybe it will start making a difference.
Actually, you could make the argument that Open Source conscribes to capitalism as well. Linux is purely following Microsoft's path for entry into a market that they do not yet dominate (see internet explorer), give it away for free to get "customers". Many Linux business models focus
Sure Internet Explorer is free, if your time is worthless!
I've done a little bash programming, and I've also written a compiler (in C), and it would seem to me that writing an assembler would not be especially difficult in bash because the langauge contains very good string manipulation utilities (sed, awk, etc.). As one poster mentioned, assembly maps very well to machine code. Building in support for assembler macros could get tough, though.
Now, if you were to try and write a 3rd generation language compiler (such as Pascal) in bash, you might get into trouble fast. This would require some very extensive control and data structures that bash doesn't support as well as, say, C. I'm not sure bash has multidimensional arrays or pointers, and these make constructing things like symbol tables a lot easier.
Still, I would say this guy knows a lot more about bash than I do, and there is probably something I am missing (since I can't read the source right now).
I've been waiting for this moment to unveil my newest creation: the Smallest Browser Ever.
Here is the source:
cut here
----
#!/bin/sh
wget $1
----
The Java virtual machine still needs fleshing out a bit, any help appreciated.
Re:Open Source does not always require redistribut
on
Open Source And Spying
·
· Score: 1
That's not the way I read it. I think the key phrase is any work that you distribute or publish. If someone does not distribute or publish programs derived from GPL'd code, they don't have to make the source available to anyone.
I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from the GPL, and I believe that this is in accord with the spirit of the license. I think the idea is that you don't have to accept the GPL, but you have no rights to distribute GPL'd code otherwise.
Open Source does not always require redistribution
on
Open Source And Spying
·
· Score: 1
It is my understanding that the GPL only requires that source be made publically available if binaries are distributed to the public. Thus, as long as the government modifies open source projects for internal use only, it will not be required to publish source. It's still early in the morning, so I may be wrong here.
I agree, it would be better to grant only monitoring privileges. You have studied for X years in order to do your job well. Why should someone who has relatively little experience be granted the same authority? An overzealous admin will do much more harm than good.
If you're running a UNIX variant, why not consider giving this person sudo access with read only privs (assuming this is possible with sudo)? Then, like the previous poster mentioned, have them come to you when they need changes made to the system.
If your sever crashes due to some software you've got running maybe...
A>. You shouldn't be using that software.
Not always an option.
B>. You should learn how to set it up.
I thought ease of setup/use was the whole reason for running Windows.
or, more likely...
C>. You shouldn't be the admin of a server in the first place.
It's not hard to avoid running shit softare that brings down a Windows box.
Well, sometimes it actually is. If the software you need is not available anywhere else, do you really have a choice? When it crashes, wouldn't it be nice if the rest of your system didn't go down the toilet?
The point I made originally is that when your application crashes and if it brings down your Windows system, your users will blame YOU (not application developer X) for their system being down, and it will be YOUR fault for not choosing a more robust OS (assuming you made the choice). There are OS's out there with very good fault tolerance built in. I'm sure someone on/. can point you in the right direction:)
I'm not trying to flame Windows. It does some things very well, and it certainly has its place in IT. I use it at work and occasionally at home. However, when it comes to serious reliability and fault tolerance, in my experience Windows NT just isn't up there. I have not used Windows 2000, so I can't really comment on it.
Won't the guest's disk image still have to be accessible from the host's file system? If this is the case, wouldn't it be as simple as saying cp secure.img unsecure.location?
The only solution I could see would be encrypting the guest image, but this is still insecure.
GSM phones are excellent at handling data like text messages. GSM is also the cellphone standard in Europe, so it should work there.
I know you said you don't want a cellphone, but you could just get one of the inexpensive plans and use text messaging only. With mine, I pay $US4.99/mo and I get to send a number of text messages equivialent to the number of minutes in my calling plan (300). Receiving messages is free.
Messages can be sent to other GSM users, or to any email address. People can also send me text messages via email. Very handy.
It's obvious what Microsoft's motives are here. They are trying to scare IT Managers away from Linux. Miller's statements are vague and lack any supporting facts. Read this article and you will enjoy insightful comments like, "Linux is not leading anything" and "We have yet to see a free business model with any chance of long term success."
Here's my favorite:
Miller also said that Microsoft believes that "in the rush to get on the enterprise bandwagon," the new Linux kernel lacks some of the key elements required for enterprise use.
Nevermind that he never mentions what these elements are, but claiming that the 2.4 Kernel was rushed is like calling molasses quicksilver. 2.4 came out when it was ready, not when the marketing dept said it should be released (that's why it was a year late). This is a concept Microsoft apparently cannot grasp.
People usually attack others for the shortcomings they see in themselves, and I think this is what Microsoft is doing in this case. If they didn't perceive Linux as a threat they wouldn't be doing this.
While I would agree that large percolators are great for making large amounts of coffee, I wouldn't recommend serving perk coffee to your employees. Percolation usually produces a more bitter, less tasty brew due to the reheating and recirculation of coffee over the grounds. Any cheapo $12 drip machine will produce better coffee than a percolator.
Instead, look into getting some of those glass lined vacuum bottles with the push down dispenser on top (the kind you see at some coffee stands). If you fill two or three of those you should have enough coffee, and it will stay fresh a long time since it's not in constant contact with the air.
Slashdot Mirror
But what are the other advantages? Reading the site it looks roughly comparable to a Palm V and costs as much as a Palm VIIx, but without the built in wireless. I suppose the new form factor is more convenient, but for the same price I'd rather have the Palm VIIx's wireless internet.
I am not a Lawyer.
Their copyright of the specs only affects your ability to reproduce/redistribute the specifications of the language. It does not affect your ability to use the specs to create your own implementation. That is fair use, and is legal. Note, this assumes you didn't sign any sort of Non disclosure agreement and you arent going to redistribute your work.
That leaves only two other possible areas of infringement: Patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Assuming they have not patented this language, you are OK there. I don't even know if it's possible to patent a language (given some other nutty patents I've seen, I'm sure it is), but as long as you didn't see their source code you'd still be in the clear probably.
The easiest way to get around trademark infringement is not to give your language the same name as their language. Call it something else. Back when the DOD trademarked the name "Ada", they wouldn't license the name to anyone who didn't produce a language on par with the government's Ada specs. However, this did not stop others from developing Ada-like implementations that went by another name. AFAIK, anyone can use the Ada name these days.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer, and I really have no basis for what I've just said, so you should NOT take my advice but instead consult a real lawyer before doing anything else.
That's the beauty of our system, the lawyers clean up either way.
What about the old IBM keyboards from the XT series? You know, the ones with the clicky keys. Those things are built like sh*t brickhouses.
I've got one that served as a public library terminal during the 80s, and still gets regular use. I've not seen one break yet. I don't know if Big Blue still sells them, but you could probably get a lot of them at auctions if you didn't mind the hassle.
I just cancelled my cable today, and I feel better already. Now I will have more time to do productive things, like spend time with friends and family, read, or even exercise. That's not to mention the fact that I will have $57 extra per month to spend on whatever I want.
Time is really the most valuable thing you have. Don't waste another minute watching cheezy sitcoms and braindead ads. Crap is crap, even if it's 1920x1080.
My apartment complex has ethernet over RJ11 lines. It comes into my apt and plugs into the back of a converter which converts it to regular RJ45, which plugs into my NIC.
The converters are made by Tut Systems and cost about $170 for a 1 megabit converter.
Why they didn't just wire the place with cat 5, I don't know.
or are /. posts getting to the point that you can't tell what they're about just from reading the intros?
That's only if you make the assumption that the majority of peer to peer connections are between users of the same ISP. In the Real World (TM), I would guess this is usually not the case. Services like Napster generally make no distinction between a user next door to you and one half way around the world (except in ping time, and that's only if you find the file you need both locally and from someone in a remote location, which is probably still more infrequent).
Peer to peer doesn't imply any sort of geographic proximity, it is just a description of how two clients interact with one another.
Someone told me once that smoking is bad for hdd's because the small particulate matter of smoke can permeate the air filter on the hard disk and get inside. I know that at least some hard drives are not comlpletely sealed to outside air. My old IBM XT hard drive had a little paper filter that allowed pressure equalization between the inside of the drive and the outside air.
I haven't yet seen such a device on any newer drives, so I can't comment on them.
because the next advertisement you see could destroy your home and eat your family!
I know one person isn't much, but if each of us sends a concise, hand written letter to our congresspersons every time this happens, maybe it will start making a difference.
Sure Internet Explorer is free, if your time is worthless!
I've done a little bash programming, and I've also written a compiler (in C), and it would seem to me that writing an assembler would not be especially difficult in bash because the langauge contains very good string manipulation utilities (sed, awk, etc.). As one poster mentioned, assembly maps very well to machine code. Building in support for assembler macros could get tough, though.
Now, if you were to try and write a 3rd generation language compiler (such as Pascal) in bash, you might get into trouble fast. This would require some very extensive control and data structures that bash doesn't support as well as, say, C. I'm not sure bash has multidimensional arrays or pointers, and these make constructing things like symbol tables a lot easier.
Still, I would say this guy knows a lot more about bash than I do, and there is probably something I am missing (since I can't read the source right now).
I've been waiting for this moment to unveil my newest creation: the Smallest Browser Ever.
Here is the source:
cut here
----
#!/bin/sh
wget $1
----
The Java virtual machine still needs fleshing out a bit, any help appreciated.
I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from the GPL, and I believe that this is in accord with the spirit of the license. I think the idea is that you don't have to accept the GPL, but you have no rights to distribute GPL'd code otherwise.
It is my understanding that the GPL only requires that source be made publically available if binaries are distributed to the public. Thus, as long as the government modifies open source projects for internal use only, it will not be required to publish source. It's still early in the morning, so I may be wrong here.
I agree, it would be better to grant only monitoring privileges. You have studied for X years in order to do your job well. Why should someone who has relatively little experience be granted the same authority? An overzealous admin will do much more harm than good.
If you're running a UNIX variant, why not consider giving this person sudo access with read only privs (assuming this is possible with sudo)? Then, like the previous poster mentioned, have them come to you when they need changes made to the system.
A>. You shouldn't be using that software.
Not always an option.
B>. You should learn how to set it up.
I thought ease of setup/use was the whole reason for running Windows.
or, more likely... C>. You shouldn't be the admin of a server in the first place.
It's not hard to avoid running shit softare that brings down a Windows box.
Well, sometimes it actually is. If the software you need is not available anywhere else, do you really have a choice? When it crashes, wouldn't it be nice if the rest of your system didn't go down the toilet?
The point I made originally is that when your application crashes and if it brings down your Windows system, your users will blame YOU (not application developer X) for their system being down, and it will be YOUR fault for not choosing a more robust OS (assuming you made the choice). There are OS's out there with very good fault tolerance built in. I'm sure someone on /. can point you in the right direction :)
I'm not trying to flame Windows. It does some things very well, and it certainly has its place in IT. I use it at work and occasionally at home. However, when it comes to serious reliability and fault tolerance, in my experience Windows NT just isn't up there. I have not used Windows 2000, so I can't really comment on it.
It's the classic "When Windows crashes it's somebody else's fault." When your server crashes, do you think your customers will accept this excuse?
Won't the guest's disk image still have to be accessible from the host's file system? If this is the case, wouldn't it be as simple as saying cp secure.img unsecure.location?
The only solution I could see would be encrypting the guest image, but this is still insecure.
GSM phones are excellent at handling data like text messages. GSM is also the cellphone standard in Europe, so it should work there.
I know you said you don't want a cellphone, but you could just get one of the inexpensive plans and use text messaging only. With mine, I pay $US4.99/mo and I get to send a number of text messages equivialent to the number of minutes in my calling plan (300). Receiving messages is free.
Messages can be sent to other GSM users, or to any email address. People can also send me text messages via email. Very handy.
Here's my favorite:
Miller also said that Microsoft believes that "in the rush to get on the enterprise bandwagon," the new Linux kernel lacks some of the key elements required for enterprise use.
Nevermind that he never mentions what these elements are, but claiming that the 2.4 Kernel was rushed is like calling molasses quicksilver. 2.4 came out when it was ready, not when the marketing dept said it should be released (that's why it was a year late). This is a concept Microsoft apparently cannot grasp.
People usually attack others for the shortcomings they see in themselves, and I think this is what Microsoft is doing in this case. If they didn't perceive Linux as a threat they wouldn't be doing this.
That is to say, I seen it on /.
What the hell do all those charges on my phone bill mean?
Thank you
While I would agree that large percolators are great for making large amounts of coffee, I wouldn't recommend serving perk coffee to your employees. Percolation usually produces a more bitter, less tasty brew due to the reheating and recirculation of coffee over the grounds. Any cheapo $12 drip machine will produce better coffee than a percolator.
Instead, look into getting some of those glass lined vacuum bottles with the push down dispenser on top (the kind you see at some coffee stands). If you fill two or three of those you should have enough coffee, and it will stay fresh a long time since it's not in constant contact with the air.