To build the packages yourself ( ensuring binary compatibility).
In fact, using src rpms gives you all the flexibilty of a tar.gz build ( via modifying the spec file ) while retaining all the nifty rpm stuff ( package integrity verification, no/usr/local choas that will eventually ensue ). Aspiring admins of Linux boxes would do their sucessors well by studying up and _using_ the packaging systems.
I could never understand why 'exercise' is two four letter word for programmers. I'll discard any appearance issues due to the fact that 95% of the people on this forum probably never see the others in real life.
But what about mental clarity? Don't we get clouded mentally when we sit on our bum for 8 hours of work and then 3-4 more hours of hacking?
I know that exercise is one of the things that keeps my mind clear and sane. Anyone else feel the same way?
Heh. That would be fun. And then Rob could quit using that *grin* thing and actually smile on the camera.
I think we'd all prefer to see the gun-toting RMS and ESR duke it out at the shooting gallery. RMS takes pot shots at a cutout with the words "open source" on it and ESR could shoot beer bottles and keep quoting the famous "think speech,not beer" line that was the impetus for the renaming of "free software" to "open source".
And then they could both take turns blasting MS employees' windshields from trees. Then maybe they could call a truce and we could have no more of the "revisionist history" claims about GNU not getting the attention is deserves.
And after that we could have a game show: Name that ego! I think the first contestants should be Sengan, Bruce Perens, and an Anonymous Coward selected from the audience.
I'd watch it...unless it came on the same time as Millennium, that is.
"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion."
The question is whether they patented a process without being specific enough. I At first glance, it looks specifc enough, but once you clear the legalese it certainly looks like this might be too generic of a patent. And if that argument, one must consider the validity of this being technical enough of a process to get a patent. You can't patent a process without having a solid technical base to support it. If you look at other computer IP patents, you'll see that they patent algorithms and manufacturing processes. They are specific in nature. This patent is probably too broad (not by much) to let Sightsound get away with it. Look for a patent challenge from the RIAA.
Did anyone else see the part about Sightsound suing N2K? Apparently, they will be defended by the RIAA.
Dare I say that Sightsound is messing with the wrong people. Their patent ( along with all the other patents on generic internet business models ) simply cannot stand under US patent law. I hope the case goes to court and a precendent against blatantly ineligible patents is set.
After that, I hope the RIAA will join Sightsound to the special place reserved for them in hell.
I remember putting more money into this machine than any other coin-op. I often hear people mention this game on the "classics" list, does anyone know if there has ever been a video game adaptation?
Red Hat does pretty much _everything_ well. If you use it as a server, you have to work around the bugs and the updates. If you use it as a home system, you have to manually set up your GUI ( not a big deal, but newbies sure seem to hate vi) to get something decent.
But Debian does the rock-solid-server thing _really_ well. Very SA friendly and runs like a kitten-the most bugfree release out there.
And, as much as I hate using it ( YaST is a beast and KDE eats up too much real estate on my desktop and RAM), SuSe does provide the beginner a friendly experience. I dislike SuSe for the same reasons RMS does, but beginning users really don't care about politics. They just want to have something that runs while they learn about all the neat things they can do under Linux that they never would have fathomed under Windows.
And for a corporate desktop, a group that promotes the term "open source" because it hides their underlying hipocrisy regarding information freedom, where TCO and reliabilty are the issue, then Caldera does a fine job at that, again much better than Red Hat.
To put it bluntly, Red Hat isn't the best at anything. But they are _good_ at everything. One is forced to wonder if this compromise has become popular with the crowd who does _everything_ on their Linux system ( and thus advocates the platform, drawing in newbies).
Well, I'd just like to say I haven't seen anything like the BeOS since the Amiga days with its crowd.
People find developing for the BeOS to be very euphoric. Out of all the C++ APIs out there, its probably got the least amount of "base class fragility" in it. The whole API is threaded out the wazoo, and the "responsiveness" of the system is testament to how well the light processes work when used with a proper process model. I know that they are the first to bring to market a system with as much evolution in the OS. And I really don't have to know jack about deadlocks/staravation to make a multithreaded app.
And it doesn't stop just there. The file system is actually designed to not just store files, but also metadata about those files for the user to use.
And what about the BeOS developer community? They are an active bunch who do things like write drivers, port Mozilla, and write all sorts of software to make their experience better. And Be is thier in their cathedral, taking the BeOS in the direction of their vision, while being actively involved in assisting the developer community and incorporating their needs into that vision.
BeOS developers don't fuss about not having the source for their software. They know that, right now, they are the ones who make the BeOS a success. And Be treats them like gold as a sign of that respect.
That's the situation right now, and that's the only thing that really matters. All else is speculation. I use GNU/Linux and feel like information should be free, but I repsect the autonomy of Be Inc. to choose whatever liscense they please.
I hope we all scrutinize RedHat's actions more carefully. It may be the decline of the Linux spirit 'as we know it'.
Vigilance is the price of freedom, my friend.
As of right now, Red Hat has produced nothing but free software. They have not compromised their "main" distribution. ( their commerical offering does contain non-free software ). As long as Red Hat continues to produce and promote free software in their GNU/Linux distribution, no one should worry.
If Red Hat has made a design or implementation decision in their software that you cannot live with, there are plenty of other distributions that probably agree with you and have not made those decisions.
As for Red Hat's cohorts (Intel, venture capitalists) money, it should be noted that almost all of that is going into new facilities and support technicians. Neither of those things are detrimental to GNU/Linux.
As for the real danger Redhat poses, I just can't see any. They're not like MS because I have the _choice_ to use another distro if Red Hat upsets me. It is when this choice is revoked that Red Hat becomes a problem. And as each distro caters to a certain crowd, I have no fear that Red Hat will ever be my only choice...since I have the choice to fork off a distribution of my own at any time ( cf. Mandrake distro ).
One little voice of dissention
on
NYT covers WINE
·
· Score: 1
There isn't any reason that continued innovation won't come from this. For one, free software that is produced by individuals will continue to increase in volume and quality as more users move to GNU/Linux. And they won't choose the incredibly mangled Win32 API, preferring the simplicity and efficiency of free libraries like GTK.
Also, we have to look at the possiblity of new APIs added onto the Wine team to address needs from developers who do want to work on Win32. One the most likely candidates would be implementing a commonly used subset of Win32 on top of GTK, so code could be ported from Win32 and still have that great GNU/Linux look and feel.
Remember, free software births innovation. If more people rely on Wine, then the more people will want to change Wine to be what they need it to be, and then their contributions could then be folded back into the Wine base to enhance the Winlib platform. That's the way this whole shebang works.
As for corporations, they can do what they please. If thier software falls behind others in features and stability, as would any code just slapped onto Winelib and recompiled compared to a more native version, then they won't sell any. Easy as that.
Well, the counterculture undercurrents in the movie are so poorly represented in mass-market movies that they alone make the movie worth seeing.
That is, of course, you can stand the clausterphobic setting. Most people (including me) found that the setting of the movie ( the apartment, the big computer, black and white ) was the best in ages.
Besides, if Raster liked it ( see his page of random cruft at http://www.labs.redhat.com/~raster), how could it be that bad?
One of these days I gonna break down and up the threshold so I don't have to watch ACs like you publicly defecate on this forum.
As for your "points": 1) Red Hat took the initiative on glibc. I guarantee that _every_ distribution of Linux benefitted from Redhat's mistakes by not repeating them. Glibc is a _very_ important upgrade and distributions that are just getting it now (SuSe) or are not approaching it at all ( Slackware ) are the ones promoting binary incompatibility, not Red Hat.
2)As for the "broken" compiler mix, its better to ship a better standards compliant C++ compiler (egcs) than it is too keep one as sadly broken as g++ 2.7.2 ( or 2.8.1 ). I appluad Red Hat for making the developer come first. I disapprove,however, of thier handling of it.
3) As for the whole "desktop wars" thing, it was the right thing to do. KDE's QT (at the time) was nothing more than a "Quick and Dirty" fix to the problem. Its reliance on non-free software made it incompatible with Red Hat (and Debian ) policy. I do think Red Hat should of put it on the commercial version, since that isn't pure anyway. Anyway, this isn't a problem now ( the entire KDE system becomes free when QT 2.0 is released,and Red Hat should make it an option upon install). So quit bitching.
As for your signs of "Microsofts of Linux", I'd be much more worried about SuSe. RMS, the vocal conscience of free software ( as much as we'd like to not admit it) described them as "the worst" of the distributors (wrt to freeness). I don't keep up with SuSe, but RMS wouldn't have described them as that unless he had damn good reason. I worry much more on reliance of proprietary software than with distribution bugs that can be fixed by reading errata and following the easy directions. At least I know that RedHat audits their distribution throughly to find those bugs in the first place.
Elaborate on the "fights between distributors". I haven't seen Red Hat fighting with anyone. Have you been watching FUDAVISION again,AC?
Some think Apple may be trying to use its position as patent holder to gain a competitive edge in its core market of desktop and graphics publishing.
How could a technology patented by a corporation become an IEEE standard? What if someone had patented ethernet? How would networking be different? We'd probably be using a different MAC standard, one that had been developed to escape the patent restrictions.
I'm not against hardware patents, but I am against patenting technology that has been submitted and approved by a standards body. We've seen the damage Fraenhofer(sp?) has done to opening up the MP3 encoding process through their patents, and now we're watching the delay of the digital camcorder's acceptance to the market.
Perverse, Apple. I think your next IMac should come in a new flavor...rotten. I've been thinking of getting a G3 but now I won't get near your machines, no matter how nice the hardware is.
I disagree on the noise part. I was forced recently to move my computer to my bedroom. I look on the noise as a soothing thing, kinda like sailors with ship engines.
Silent hard drives are important. I don't want a pair of Cheetahs waking me up in the middle of the night from cron jobs.
Well, we all know what nanotechnology could do to benefit mankind. We've all read sci-fi novels where humans in the future where food and most everything else that is made up of mostly carbon,hydrogen,oxygen,and nitrogen assembled by nanotech "creatures"
But what about the darker side? What if someone created a nanotech creature programmed kill any living DNA and replicate itself as much as possible? That would be _much_ worse than a virus. Furthermore, when the human genome project is completed, you'll be able to single out characteristics of a human being. You could then target out a type of population and wipe them out with nanotech creatures.
Anyway, as long as this technology stays in the right hands ( and who is to dictate those? ) , then I think its benefits greatly outweigh its potential for destruction.
Well, you should be able to patent the drug itself. No one here wants to argue that. You have every right to do with it as you see fit, since it is your creation. Just like software licensing.
But you should _not_ be able to patent the processes that led you to making this product. For example, if you used an advanced filtering technique to purify one of your chemicals used in the drug, then you should not be able to patent that. Boy, that sounds like an algorithm.
Before you say "If I gave away the secrets to creating my drug then someone will recreate it". Well, if they used the same techniques to produce the same drug, then they wouldn't be able to do much with it. You've got the patent for the drug.
Thus you make your money and the algorithms are free. That way others can take the algorithms you used and create a different product. Read the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in it will you find that patents were meant to allow people to make money.
For an SA, like a coder, it's not about the specific tools but instead the technique. If I got on an Irix box, which would be more important:
1) Knowing what commands to issue/text files to modify to secure the system?
2) Knowing what holes are open on the system and what techniques are used to close them.( e.g. stopping spam by verifying envelopes and headers).
Obviously, the second choice. If I was a coder (and I am, much more than I'm an SA, but like most UNIX types I find myself in both ships) then knowing what data structure is optimal for certain tasks is far more important than knowing which keywords one to use to create it. If I only had the latter, how would I be able to implement it in another language?
"I have not affiliation with MS and would support any other company with similar philosphies"
How about government regimes?
1) Denying the people's right to choose. ( You get to load IE whether you like it or not.) Often found in "totalitarian" and "police" states.
2) Price fixing. Controlling the free market economy by setting the price on a commodity that you are the sole propreitor of. Often seen in "totalitarian" states to force citizens to be totally reliant on the government. Propaganda is often used to make citizens think they the state is the provider of all things necessary for their life, resulting in what is colloquially known as "brainwashing".
"Hard work is payed off nicely"-not when that damn beeper bags you at three in the morning to reboot the server. I'll sleep, thank you.
"Internet features": Oh yeah. Like all the stuff the saw working on the web and said. Hey! Lets throw it in the OS. That sounds more like cut-and-paste than innovation. Hey, when I put a picture of my poodle on my web site by clicking on a button in Last..err..I mean Frontpage, is that an "Internet Feature ( not that they created frontpage itself-they bought it)"? No scooter, it's not innovation, its automation. Been doing that since before billg was born.
"UI Enhancements"? C'mon dude. name one and we'll refute it.
DirectX-hey, when I made a game for the Sega Genesis back in 1990-1991, did I hand do it in assembler? Probably not. I probably compiled the code and used an API. Sheesh. M$, as the sole proprietor of evil..er..I mean the OS, saw that they could extend their hegemony by providing this API. It's nothing new or special. It just makes sense in their "windows everywhere" philosophy.
"there tons,tons,etc..." You tailing off on me boy? you're right, there are tons and tons of air in the world, but we can all see right through it, no?
ps if boredatwork sees this: big fan of the clue stick-good to see you back thwacking away!
Slashdot Mirror
Watch what RPMs you're using, buddy. Stuff from rawhide (and maybe other places) won't work since they are compiled against a different libc.
/usr/src/redhat/SPECS ../RPMS/
/usr/local choas that will eventually ensue ). Aspiring admins of Linux boxes would do their sucessors well by studying up and _using_ the packaging systems.
When the linker tries to resolve the symbol for the libc it was compiled against, it looks for __bzero. Which isn't there.
Your best bet is to download source rpms of the packages that are giving you the errors and then do a:
rpm -Uvh ***.src.rpm
cd
rpm -bb ***.spec
cd
rpm -Uvh ***..rpm
To build the packages yourself ( ensuring binary compatibility).
In fact, using src rpms gives you all the flexibilty of a tar.gz build ( via modifying the spec file ) while retaining all the nifty rpm stuff ( package integrity verification, no
I could never understand why 'exercise' is two four letter word for programmers. I'll discard any appearance issues due to the fact that 95% of the people on this forum probably never see the others in real life.
But what about mental clarity? Don't we get clouded mentally when we sit on our bum for 8 hours of work and then 3-4 more hours of hacking?
I know that exercise is one of the things that keeps my mind clear and sane. Anyone else feel the same way?
Heh. That would be fun. And then Rob could quit using that *grin* thing and actually smile on the camera.
I think we'd all prefer to see the gun-toting RMS and ESR duke it out at the shooting gallery. RMS takes pot shots at a cutout with the words "open source" on it and ESR could shoot beer bottles and keep quoting the famous "think speech,not beer" line that was the impetus for the renaming of "free software" to "open source".
And then they could both take turns blasting MS employees' windshields from trees. Then maybe they could call a truce and we could have no more of the "revisionist history" claims about GNU not getting the attention is deserves.
And after that we could have a game show: Name that ego! I think the first contestants should be Sengan, Bruce Perens, and an Anonymous Coward selected from the audience.
I'd watch it...unless it came on the same time as Millennium, that is.
Quoting from the USTPO pages:
"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion."
The question is whether they patented a process without being specific enough. I At first glance, it looks specifc enough, but once you clear the legalese it certainly looks like this might be too generic of a patent. And if that argument, one must consider the validity of this being technical enough of a process to get a patent. You can't patent a process without having a solid technical base to support it. If you look at other computer IP patents, you'll see that they patent algorithms and manufacturing processes. They are specific in nature. This patent is probably too broad (not by much) to let Sightsound get away with it. Look for a patent challenge from the RIAA.
Food for thought.
Did anyone else see the part about Sightsound suing N2K? Apparently, they will be defended by the RIAA.
Dare I say that Sightsound is messing with the wrong people. Their patent ( along with all the other patents on generic internet business models ) simply cannot stand under US patent law. I hope the case goes to court and a precendent against blatantly ineligible patents is set.
After that, I hope the RIAA will join Sightsound to the special place reserved for them in hell.
I remember putting more money into this machine than any other coin-op. I often hear people mention this game on the "classics" list, does anyone know if there has ever been a video game adaptation?
Red Hat does pretty much _everything_ well. If you use it as a server, you have to work around the bugs and the updates. If you use it as a home system, you have to manually set up your GUI ( not a big deal, but newbies sure seem to hate vi) to get something decent.
But Debian does the rock-solid-server thing _really_ well. Very SA friendly and runs like a kitten-the most bugfree release out there.
And, as much as I hate using it ( YaST is a beast and KDE eats up too much real estate on my desktop and RAM), SuSe does provide the beginner a friendly experience. I dislike SuSe for the same reasons RMS does, but beginning users really don't care about politics. They just want to have something that runs while they learn about all the neat things they can do under Linux that they never would have fathomed under Windows.
And for a corporate desktop, a group that promotes the term "open source" because it hides their underlying hipocrisy regarding information freedom, where TCO and reliabilty are the issue, then Caldera does a fine job at that, again much better than Red Hat.
To put it bluntly, Red Hat isn't the best at anything. But they are _good_ at everything. One is forced to wonder if this compromise has become popular with the crowd who does _everything_ on their Linux system ( and thus advocates the platform, drawing in newbies).
Well, I'd just like to say I haven't seen anything like the BeOS since the Amiga days with its crowd.
People find developing for the BeOS to be very euphoric. Out of all the C++ APIs out there, its probably got the least amount of "base class fragility" in it. The whole API is threaded out the wazoo, and the "responsiveness" of the system is testament to how well the light processes work when used with a proper process model. I know that they are the first to bring to market a system with as much evolution in the OS. And I really don't have to know jack about deadlocks/staravation to make a multithreaded app.
And it doesn't stop just there. The file system is actually designed to not just store files, but also metadata about those files for the user to use.
And what about the BeOS developer community? They are an active bunch who do things like write drivers, port Mozilla, and write all sorts of software to make their experience better. And Be is thier in their cathedral, taking the BeOS in the direction of their vision, while being actively involved in assisting the developer community and incorporating their needs into that vision.
BeOS developers don't fuss about not having the source for their software. They know that, right now, they are the ones who make the BeOS a success. And Be treats them like gold as a sign of that respect.
That's the situation right now, and that's the only thing that really matters. All else is speculation. I use GNU/Linux and feel like information should be free, but I repsect the autonomy of Be Inc. to choose whatever liscense they please.
I hope we all scrutinize RedHat's actions more carefully. It may be the decline of the Linux spirit 'as we know it'.
Vigilance is the price of freedom, my friend.
As of right now, Red Hat has produced nothing but free software. They have not compromised their "main" distribution. ( their commerical offering does contain non-free software ). As long as Red Hat continues to produce and promote free software in their GNU/Linux distribution, no one should worry.
If Red Hat has made a design or implementation decision in their software that you cannot live with, there are plenty of other distributions that probably agree with you and have not made those decisions.
As for Red Hat's cohorts (Intel, venture capitalists) money, it should be noted that almost all of that is going into new facilities and support technicians. Neither of those things are detrimental to GNU/Linux.
As for the real danger Redhat poses, I just can't see any. They're not like MS because I have the _choice_ to use another distro if Red Hat upsets me. It is when this choice is revoked that Red Hat becomes a problem. And as each distro caters to a certain crowd, I have no fear that Red Hat will ever be my only choice...since I have the choice to fork off a distribution of my own at any time ( cf. Mandrake distro ).
There isn't any reason that continued innovation won't come from this. For one, free software that is produced by individuals will continue to increase in volume and quality as more users move to GNU/Linux. And they won't choose the incredibly mangled Win32 API, preferring the simplicity and efficiency of free libraries like GTK.
Also, we have to look at the possiblity of new APIs added onto the Wine team to address needs from developers who do want to work on Win32. One the most likely candidates would be implementing a commonly used subset of Win32 on top of GTK, so code could be ported from Win32 and still have that great GNU/Linux look and feel.
Remember, free software births innovation. If more people rely on Wine, then the more people will want to change Wine to be what they need it to be, and then their contributions could then be folded back into the Wine base to enhance the Winlib platform. That's the way this whole shebang works.
As for corporations, they can do what they please. If thier software falls behind others in features and stability, as would any code just slapped onto Winelib and recompiled compared to a more native version, then they won't sell any. Easy as that.
Well, the counterculture undercurrents in the movie are so poorly represented in mass-market movies that they alone make the movie worth seeing.
That is, of course, you can stand the clausterphobic setting. Most people (including me) found that the setting of the movie ( the apartment, the big computer, black and white ) was the best in ages.
Besides, if Raster liked it ( see his page of random cruft at http://www.labs.redhat.com/~raster), how could it be that bad?
One of these days I gonna break down and up the threshold so I don't have to watch ACs like you publicly defecate on this forum.
As for your "points":
1) Red Hat took the initiative on glibc. I guarantee that _every_ distribution of Linux benefitted from Redhat's mistakes by not repeating them. Glibc is a _very_ important upgrade and distributions that are just getting it now (SuSe) or are not approaching it at all ( Slackware ) are the ones promoting binary incompatibility, not Red Hat.
2)As for the "broken" compiler mix, its better to ship a better standards compliant C++ compiler (egcs) than it is too keep one as sadly broken as g++ 2.7.2 ( or 2.8.1 ). I appluad Red Hat for making the developer come first. I disapprove,however, of thier handling of it.
3) As for the whole "desktop wars" thing, it was the right thing to do. KDE's QT (at the time) was nothing more than a "Quick and Dirty" fix to the problem. Its reliance on non-free software made it incompatible with Red Hat (and Debian ) policy. I do think Red Hat should of put it on the commercial version, since that isn't pure anyway. Anyway, this isn't a problem now ( the entire KDE system becomes free when QT 2.0 is released,and Red Hat should make it an option upon install). So quit bitching.
As for your signs of "Microsofts of Linux", I'd be much more worried about SuSe. RMS, the vocal conscience of free software ( as much as we'd like to not admit it) described them as "the worst" of the distributors (wrt to freeness). I don't keep up with SuSe, but RMS wouldn't have described them as that unless he had damn good reason. I worry much more on reliance of proprietary software than with distribution bugs that can be fixed by reading errata and following the easy directions.
At least I know that RedHat audits their distribution throughly to find those bugs in the first place.
Elaborate on the "fights between distributors". I haven't seen Red Hat fighting with anyone. Have you been watching FUDAVISION again,AC?
Now begone!
Some think Apple may be trying to use its position as patent holder to gain a competitive edge in its core market of desktop and graphics publishing.
How could a technology patented by a corporation become an IEEE standard? What if someone had patented ethernet? How would networking be different? We'd probably be using a different MAC standard, one that had been developed to escape the patent restrictions.
I'm not against hardware patents, but I am against patenting technology that has been submitted and approved by a standards body. We've seen the damage Fraenhofer(sp?) has done to opening up the MP3 encoding process through their patents, and now we're watching the delay of the digital camcorder's acceptance to the market.
Perverse, Apple. I think your next IMac should come in a new flavor...rotten. I've been thinking of getting a G3 but now I won't get near your machines, no matter how nice the hardware is.
I disagree on the noise part. I was forced recently to move my computer to my bedroom. I look on the noise as a soothing thing, kinda like sailors with ship engines.
Silent hard drives are important. I don't want a pair of Cheetahs waking me up in the middle of the night from cron jobs.
Well, we all know what nanotechnology could do to benefit mankind. We've all read sci-fi novels where humans in the future where food and most everything else that is made up of mostly carbon,hydrogen,oxygen,and nitrogen assembled by nanotech "creatures"
But what about the darker side? What if someone created a nanotech creature programmed kill any living DNA and replicate itself as much as possible? That would be _much_ worse than a virus.
Furthermore, when the human genome project is completed, you'll be able to single out characteristics of a human being. You could then target out a type of population and wipe them out with nanotech creatures.
Anyway, as long as this technology stays in the right hands ( and who is to dictate those? ) , then I think its benefits greatly outweigh its potential for destruction.
A little "replicated" food for thought. =)
Well, you should be able to patent the drug itself. No one here wants to argue that. You have every right to do with it as you see fit, since it is your creation. Just like software licensing.
But you should _not_ be able to patent the processes that led you to making this product. For example, if you used an advanced filtering technique to purify one of your chemicals used in the drug, then you should not be able to patent that. Boy, that sounds like an algorithm.
Before you say "If I gave away the secrets to creating my drug then someone will recreate it". Well, if they used the same techniques to produce the same drug, then they wouldn't be able to do much with it. You've got the patent for the drug.
Thus you make your money and the algorithms are free. That way others can take the algorithms you used and create a different product.
Read the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in it will you find that patents were meant to allow people to make money.
For an SA, like a coder, it's not about the specific tools but instead the technique. If I got on an Irix box, which would be more important:
1) Knowing what commands to issue/text files to modify to secure the system?
2) Knowing what holes are open on the system and what techniques are used to close them.( e.g. stopping spam by verifying envelopes and headers).
Obviously, the second choice. If I was a coder (and I am, much more than I'm an SA, but like most UNIX types I find myself in both ships) then knowing what data structure is optimal for certain tasks is far more important than knowing which keywords one to use to create it. If I only had the latter, how would I be able to implement it in another language?
As usual, why is always more important than how.
"I have not affiliation with MS and would support any other company with similar philosphies"
How about government regimes?
1) Denying the people's right to choose. ( You get to load IE whether you like it or not.) Often found in "totalitarian" and "police" states.
2) Price fixing. Controlling the free market economy by setting the price on a commodity that you are the sole propreitor of. Often seen in "totalitarian" states to force citizens to be totally reliant on the government. Propaganda is often used to make citizens think they the state is the provider of all things necessary for their life, resulting in what is colloquially known as "brainwashing".
"Hard work is payed off nicely"-not when that damn beeper bags you at three in the morning to reboot the server. I'll sleep, thank you.
hey scotty, let's be specific here, shall we:
Start menu: see other poster
"Internet features": Oh yeah. Like all the stuff the saw working on the web and said. Hey! Lets throw it in the OS. That sounds more like cut-and-paste than innovation. Hey, when I put a picture of my poodle on my web site by clicking on a button in Last..err..I mean Frontpage, is that an "Internet Feature ( not that they created frontpage itself-they bought it)"? No scooter, it's not innovation, its automation. Been doing that since before billg was born.
"UI Enhancements"? C'mon dude. name one and we'll refute it.
DirectX-hey, when I made a game for the Sega Genesis back in 1990-1991, did I hand do it in assembler? Probably not. I probably compiled the code and used an API. Sheesh. M$, as the sole proprietor of evil..er..I mean the OS, saw that they could extend their hegemony by providing this API. It's nothing new or special. It just makes sense in their "windows everywhere" philosophy.
"there tons,tons,etc..." You tailing off on me boy? you're right, there are tons and tons of air in the world, but we can all see right through it, no?
ps if boredatwork sees this: big fan of the clue stick-good to see you back thwacking away!