He's basically saying "Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that abused its power, so we should all switch to it, becuase my software that will make OS's irrelevant only works on one OS." (because he doesn't know enough about OS's to make it work on more than one, perhaps? Haven't these problems been solved already, a long time ago?)
Question: if we're all using Windows as he dreams, and there ARE no other OS's because they're all "irrelevant", then what do we need his OS-independence software for? It's like handing out keys when there's no cell to escape from.
I agree we didn't get enough Gimli, and I'm as eager as anyone to see more of his experience with Galadriel (and I hear it's there, but I'm not reading the spoilers). But we get glimpses of him: his no-nonsense attempt to destroy the ring at the Council; his firey resolve at Balin's tomb; his (not enough, but observable) booty-kicking in the end battle. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be. Yes, he went for the easy laugh in Lothlorien with the "eyes of a fox - oop!" thing, but that's not entirely out of character with the dwarves' and elves' assessment of each other, even though it wasn't in the book.
Exactly. This is pure speculation, once again elevated to implied fact by a lazy, unverified summary. The story said no such thing, and quoted no verifiable source.
I was all set to buy one of these because I'm sick of the batteries dying in my palm III and all the sync problems I've had with the serial->usb adapter and big clunky cradle, but they're saying that if it's dark, I can't use the thing? Are they nuts?
Make a $109 version with a cheap little backlight and I'm all over it. I'm amazed they left this out.
> I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".
That IS the default as I understand it. That doesn't mean that a law backing up and clarifying a grey area that's very much under assault from the other side is a bad idea. I'm all for it.
Obviously time for 65-bit now
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 2
See, 64-bit can be broken in four years. Time to move to 65-bit, that'll keep us safe until 2010 or so. Wake up, people!
Go ahead and take my friggin' karma, I can't imagine what I'm saving it for. Nowhere did Ballmer say MS would "stomp Linux." I hate MS as much as the next geek, but I hate dirty catfighting even more.
Follow these steps for shoddy journalism: (honestly, can someone please explain the difference between/. and a $0.50 supermarket tabloid?)
C|Net gives a title to an article about Ballmer that uses the word "stomp" as if Ballmer had said it. They don't quote him saying it.
/. picks up the story (again) without reading it, and further butchers it by altering the title again and attributing a quote that's entirely fictitous but sounds really inflammatory and good, presenting it as fact.
People who angrily point this out get modded -1, Panties In A Twist, and they disappear into the Troll Pits, and the site is run by those who remain and who don't give a fuck. Repeat from step 1.
Like the demise of Wired all those years ago, it's just really sad. This place used to be a great source of information. It's fallen a long, long way.
I'm no fan of Uncle Steve, but unless I'm missing something, he himself didn't use the word "outsmart". He said "We have to compete with free software, on value, but in a smart way." ZDNet inexplicably translated this to "outsmart", and the anonymous poster takes this one step further to "We'll outsmart open source."
Sloppy and dumb. Keep right on lowering your standards, everyone.
This is not a finished product by any means, although the/. story says it's "released." It's the FIRST release, version 0.1, missing many features; 0.2 is in development now. Also, there's no mac version yet.
Covad failed to show up for the first two install appointments for my Speakeasy DSL in Boston. I took the day off both times. They didn't call, they didn't email, they simply didn't show up. Corporate, monopoly-bearing arrogance at its very worst. I complained to Speakeasy and the guy I talked to admitted that they got a lot of complaints about that. When they finally showed up one night, there was no apology, no explanation, just the you're-lucky-we're-here-at-all arrogance you'd expect from a company with no real competition (at least at the time, don't know how it is now).
Aren't people like this supposed to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes? Did it come? Were they against the wall? Screw them, I say, for my experience at least.
Has anybody in your family or your family friends considered getting a job at that institution for the purpose of slyly grabbing the records?
I've heard crazier ideas!:)
As I mentioned in another reply, I think ultimately I may just be better off not having that information. From a grim, deterministic perspective, if he had wanted me/us to have that information, there are plenty of ways he could have given it to us: retained copies, left a note, etc. He either didn't want us to know, or it didn't occur to him that we might want to know, and ultimately it was all his decision and choices. As painful as it all is, there probably isn't much healing to be had in that folder of information; it's just the "why?!" reflex that makes me want to see it. Maybe it's best to just move on.
What good does knowing "the path was that he was on" do? The person is dead; it's tragic. I understand grasping for answers, for a reason why your loved one did this, but how can we make sense out of a senseless act?
I'm not sure it does a lot of good in the end; I think it's just a human reflex, to some degree, to look for answers in the face of something senseless. I'd say that even in the probably very rare case where there actually might be an "answer", a specific thing that can be pointed to as a "cause", it still doesn't do you much good; it certainly won't bring them back.
The question I had specifically about my father was related to his medical condition in the months before he did it; if it turned out he had advanced liver disease and a bad prognosis, maybe that would be a small comfort of sorts - it might mean he did it partly because he thought he was going to die anyway, and maybe he wasn't suffering mentally quite as much as I imagined in the time leading up to it. But, of course, it doesn't change anything, and if that was part of his thinking, he at least could have left a note or something.
It's all very yucky, certainly. Maybe my inability to get that information is just keeping me from pointlessly banging my head against the wall; maybe there are good reasons for keeping that information private. I suppose if you clear those barriers, you'll just run into different ones a little farther down the road as you try to understand something that ultimately can't be understood. The big lesson of suicide (for me anyway) seems to be that it's the ultimate selfish act, and the survivors just don't get to know the whats and whys most of the time because it's not about them.
at least as far as the witholding of information goes. My father committed suicide 11 years ago, and one of the last things he did was get sent to a detox center to "dry out". It didn't work, and we wanted to get his medical records and other information about him from the center so we could piece together, as best we could, what the path was that he was on.
The center was having none of it, politely and compassionately but firmly refusing to release any of his information. This is primarily because they don't want to expose themselves to lawsuits, which can be tremendous, if there's any shred of a sign that something could have been done - which, with 20/20 hindsight, there always is.
If our society was less litigous, things like this might be more likely, but despite the fact that we weren't looking for anyone to blame, just for understanding, and even offered to sign a promise not to sue under any circumstances, they still had to say no. My lawyer told me I can't sign away my right to sue in any legally binding fashion, even of my own free will.
It's not their fault, and I don't blame them, but there's a hole in the picture we have of his last weeks that will never be filled in. The information is out there, but we're not allowed to get it under any circumstances or at any point. The fact that the family of the victim, whose interest in that kind of information is primal, primary and undeniable, is the ONE group of people who can't get it is just a testament to how whacked we all are.
Of course, the system is that way because so many of us feel that there must be a REASON why someone commits suicide that could be traced to something blameable outside of them. There's a real risk that I could try to sue the detox center, the school where he taught, the whiskey manufacturers, the gun manufacturers, the gas station where he filled up the night before... it's just absurd. My father killed himself because he was depressed, and his alcoholism didn't help. He wasn't victimized by anybody in ways that could be reined in by legislation - and TEEN suicide is tragic and widespread, and happens for reasons we often can't begin to fathom.
Suing a game company because a suicide victim played the game before killing himself is just as absurd as anything I might have tried to do. He didn't kill himself because he played a game. However, the game company SHOULD be able to release the information to the victim's family without fearing being blamed or sued into nothingness; plenty of people play that game without killing or harming themselves or others. Unfortunatly, the state of our hyper-litigous society means lots of good people are kept in the dark about things like this by simple financial necessity, because we all look for other people to blame/sue for our misfortunes. It's madness.
Anybody care to guess why the Mac version is $90 more ($497) than the Windows version ($407)? The only difference in the spec I can see is a 16-foot USB cable for the Mac version instead of a 10-foot serial cable.
Look neat, but they can forget my business until/unless they either answer that question (well) or make the prices the same. We (mac users) are all tired of this crap.
2) Find the parent sshd process and kill that one only! (don't do a killall) "pstree -p" is good at that.
Am I hosed if I start sshd with inetd? In the display below, which is the parent process? Or do I have to kill them all?
(stripped of nearly all useful information to get around the useless, brainless lameness filter: hopefully good enough. The "|" and "`" are supposed to line up under the "+" so that all of the sshds are in the same column, but we can't use <pre> tags so we can't do that.)
Thanks for this superb explanation. Moderators, please mod it up so other people can see it - there may be people out there who don't want to upgrade because they're worried about this.
Since I'm probably not the only bonehead out there in this situation, could someone more knowledgable than me advise on proper procedure for upgrading OpenSSH on a remote server via an ssh connection?
My server runs 2.2.0p1. I've got the 3.1p1 source and I'm ready to go. I'm always afraid that a glitch in the build procedure - or even a success - could replace the existing 2.2.0p1 sshd binary while it's talking to me and cut me off, and if something goes wrong in the process, leave the server unreachable, which means a long drive to the colo facility to sit down with a keyboard and monitor.
Can anybody help? I've never been able to find a clear answer for this question.
You want a mac because OSX kicks ass. You also want to run Linux for other reasons. You don't want to buy two machines. So you figure out how to run Linux on your mac in addition to OSX.
Fink is the bid'ness, and it kicks prodigious booty, but it only knows about packages that have been patched, and there are things you still can't do in rootless X (like 3d in a window, important if you want to run GtkRadiant), and there's no Apache/mod_perl build for Fink yet. Hopefully someday all of these gaps will be filled, but in the meanwhile it's very useful to be able to dual-boot.
If you just want Linux, you're obviously wasting your money on a mac. But if you want the smooth, creamy goodness of OSX and Linux to boot, the ability to run Linux on your mac is a godsend.
If they're going to charge me $230/mo, this is the level of service I'd expect:
1.5mb down / 640k up, or thereabouts, with no usage caps
4-8 static IPs
a kick-ass news server
all ports open, no service-sniffing
the right to run servers and do whatever the hell I want with my bandwidth
priority tech support numbers to people who actually know what they're talking about
pricing refunds for downtime
ok, and throw in the basic cable and local phone. That's about what I'd expect for $230.
Even with all that, I don't think I'd ever trust a "provider" like AOL enough to put all my eggs in their basket.
Slashdot Mirror
He's basically saying "Microsoft was found to be a monopoly that abused its power, so we should all switch to it, becuase my software that will make OS's irrelevant only works on one OS." (because he doesn't know enough about OS's to make it work on more than one, perhaps? Haven't these problems been solved already, a long time ago?)
Question: if we're all using Windows as he dreams, and there ARE no other OS's because they're all "irrelevant", then what do we need his OS-independence software for? It's like handing out keys when there's no cell to escape from.
I've been saving them for years. Someday I'm going to build a solar collector. Honest.
I agree we didn't get enough Gimli, and I'm as eager as anyone to see more of his experience with Galadriel (and I hear it's there, but I'm not reading the spoilers). But we get glimpses of him: his no-nonsense attempt to destroy the ring at the Council; his firey resolve at Balin's tomb; his (not enough, but observable) booty-kicking in the end battle. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be. Yes, he went for the easy laugh in Lothlorien with the "eyes of a fox - oop!" thing, but that's not entirely out of character with the dwarves' and elves' assessment of each other, even though it wasn't in the book.
It isn't, but Unix isn't free.
Exactly. This is pure speculation, once again elevated to implied fact by a lazy, unverified summary. The story said no such thing, and quoted no verifiable source.
I was all set to buy one of these because I'm sick of the batteries dying in my palm III and all the sync problems I've had with the serial->usb adapter and big clunky cradle, but they're saying that if it's dark, I can't use the thing? Are they nuts?
Make a $109 version with a cheap little backlight and I'm all over it. I'm amazed they left this out.
> I'd prefer to have the default be "of course we have this right, because it's not explicitly listed as a right that's not allowed".
That IS the default as I understand it. That doesn't mean that a law backing up and clarifying a grey area that's very much under assault from the other side is a bad idea. I'm all for it.
See, 64-bit can be broken in four years. Time to move to 65-bit, that'll keep us safe until 2010 or so. Wake up, people!
Follow these steps for shoddy journalism: (honestly, can someone please explain the difference between
- C|Net gives a title to an article about Ballmer that uses the word "stomp" as if Ballmer had said it. They don't quote him saying it.
- /. picks up the story (again) without reading it, and further butchers it by altering the title again and attributing a quote that's entirely fictitous but sounds really inflammatory and good, presenting it as fact.
- People who angrily point this out get modded -1, Panties In A Twist, and they disappear into the Troll Pits, and the site is run by those who remain and who don't give a fuck. Repeat from step 1.
Like the demise of Wired all those years ago, it's just really sad. This place used to be a great source of information. It's fallen a long, long way.I'm no fan of Uncle Steve, but unless I'm missing something, he himself didn't use the word "outsmart". He said "We have to compete with free software, on value, but in a smart way." ZDNet inexplicably translated this to "outsmart", and the anonymous poster takes this one step further to "We'll outsmart open source."
Sloppy and dumb. Keep right on lowering your standards, everyone.
This is not a finished product by any means, although the /. story says it's "released." It's the FIRST release, version 0.1, missing many features; 0.2 is in development now. Also, there's no mac version yet.
Covad failed to show up for the first two install appointments for my Speakeasy DSL in Boston. I took the day off both times. They didn't call, they didn't email, they simply didn't show up. Corporate, monopoly-bearing arrogance at its very worst. I complained to Speakeasy and the guy I talked to admitted that they got a lot of complaints about that. When they finally showed up one night, there was no apology, no explanation, just the you're-lucky-we're-here-at-all arrogance you'd expect from a company with no real competition (at least at the time, don't know how it is now).
Aren't people like this supposed to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes? Did it come? Were they against the wall? Screw them, I say, for my experience at least.
Why not just turn your monitor on and off as fast as you can? You'll save a lot of money.
It's at modssl.org. Thanks, Ralph!
How's about Neverwinter Nights?
Mac version this fall, two months later than the PC version.
One way to kill a freebie: post it on /.
Has anybody in your family or your family friends considered getting a job at that institution for the purpose of slyly grabbing the records?
:)
I've heard crazier ideas!
As I mentioned in another reply, I think ultimately I may just be better off not having that information. From a grim, deterministic perspective, if he had wanted me/us to have that information, there are plenty of ways he could have given it to us: retained copies, left a note, etc. He either didn't want us to know, or it didn't occur to him that we might want to know, and ultimately it was all his decision and choices. As painful as it all is, there probably isn't much healing to be had in that folder of information; it's just the "why?!" reflex that makes me want to see it. Maybe it's best to just move on.
What good does knowing "the path was that he was on" do? The person is dead; it's tragic. I understand grasping for answers, for a reason why your loved one did this, but how can we make sense out of a senseless act?
I'm not sure it does a lot of good in the end; I think it's just a human reflex, to some degree, to look for answers in the face of something senseless. I'd say that even in the probably very rare case where there actually might be an "answer", a specific thing that can be pointed to as a "cause", it still doesn't do you much good; it certainly won't bring them back.
The question I had specifically about my father was related to his medical condition in the months before he did it; if it turned out he had advanced liver disease and a bad prognosis, maybe that would be a small comfort of sorts - it might mean he did it partly because he thought he was going to die anyway, and maybe he wasn't suffering mentally quite as much as I imagined in the time leading up to it. But, of course, it doesn't change anything, and if that was part of his thinking, he at least could have left a note or something.
It's all very yucky, certainly. Maybe my inability to get that information is just keeping me from pointlessly banging my head against the wall; maybe there are good reasons for keeping that information private. I suppose if you clear those barriers, you'll just run into different ones a little farther down the road as you try to understand something that ultimately can't be understood. The big lesson of suicide (for me anyway) seems to be that it's the ultimate selfish act, and the survivors just don't get to know the whats and whys most of the time because it's not about them.
at least as far as the witholding of information goes. My father committed suicide 11 years ago, and one of the last things he did was get sent to a detox center to "dry out". It didn't work, and we wanted to get his medical records and other information about him from the center so we could piece together, as best we could, what the path was that he was on.
The center was having none of it, politely and compassionately but firmly refusing to release any of his information. This is primarily because they don't want to expose themselves to lawsuits, which can be tremendous, if there's any shred of a sign that something could have been done - which, with 20/20 hindsight, there always is.
If our society was less litigous, things like this might be more likely, but despite the fact that we weren't looking for anyone to blame, just for understanding, and even offered to sign a promise not to sue under any circumstances, they still had to say no. My lawyer told me I can't sign away my right to sue in any legally binding fashion, even of my own free will.
It's not their fault, and I don't blame them, but there's a hole in the picture we have of his last weeks that will never be filled in. The information is out there, but we're not allowed to get it under any circumstances or at any point. The fact that the family of the victim, whose interest in that kind of information is primal, primary and undeniable, is the ONE group of people who can't get it is just a testament to how whacked we all are.
Of course, the system is that way because so many of us feel that there must be a REASON why someone commits suicide that could be traced to something blameable outside of them. There's a real risk that I could try to sue the detox center, the school where he taught, the whiskey manufacturers, the gun manufacturers, the gas station where he filled up the night before... it's just absurd. My father killed himself because he was depressed, and his alcoholism didn't help. He wasn't victimized by anybody in ways that could be reined in by legislation - and TEEN suicide is tragic and widespread, and happens for reasons we often can't begin to fathom.
Suing a game company because a suicide victim played the game before killing himself is just as absurd as anything I might have tried to do. He didn't kill himself because he played a game. However, the game company SHOULD be able to release the information to the victim's family without fearing being blamed or sued into nothingness; plenty of people play that game without killing or harming themselves or others. Unfortunatly, the state of our hyper-litigous society means lots of good people are kept in the dark about things like this by simple financial necessity, because we all look for other people to blame/sue for our misfortunes. It's madness.
Anybody care to guess why the Mac version is $90 more ($497) than the Windows version ($407)? The only difference in the spec I can see is a 16-foot USB cable for the Mac version instead of a 10-foot serial cable.
Look neat, but they can forget my business until/unless they either answer that question (well) or make the prices the same. We (mac users) are all tired of this crap.
2) Find the parent sshd process and kill that one only! (don't do a killall) "pstree -p" is good at that.
Am I hosed if I start sshd with inetd? In the display below, which is the parent process? Or do I have to kill them all?
(stripped of nearly all useful information to get around the useless, brainless lameness filter: hopefully good enough. The "|" and "`" are supposed to line up under the "+" so that all of the sshds are in the same column, but we can't use <pre> tags so we can't do that.)
inetd(408)-+-sshd(5980)
|-sshd(9627)
`-sshd(23148)
Thanks for this superb explanation. Moderators, please mod it up so other people can see it - there may be people out there who don't want to upgrade because they're worried about this.
Since I'm probably not the only bonehead out there in this situation, could someone more knowledgable than me advise on proper procedure for upgrading OpenSSH on a remote server via an ssh connection?
My server runs 2.2.0p1. I've got the 3.1p1 source and I'm ready to go. I'm always afraid that a glitch in the build procedure - or even a success - could replace the existing 2.2.0p1 sshd binary while it's talking to me and cut me off, and if something goes wrong in the process, leave the server unreachable, which means a long drive to the colo facility to sit down with a keyboard and monitor.
Can anybody help? I've never been able to find a clear answer for this question.
TIA.
You want a mac because OSX kicks ass. You also want to run Linux for other reasons. You don't want to buy two machines. So you figure out how to run Linux on your mac in addition to OSX.
Fink is the bid'ness, and it kicks prodigious booty, but it only knows about packages that have been patched, and there are things you still can't do in rootless X (like 3d in a window, important if you want to run GtkRadiant), and there's no Apache/mod_perl build for Fink yet. Hopefully someday all of these gaps will be filled, but in the meanwhile it's very useful to be able to dual-boot.
If you just want Linux, you're obviously wasting your money on a mac. But if you want the smooth, creamy goodness of OSX and Linux to boot, the ability to run Linux on your mac is a godsend.
If they're going to charge me $230/mo, this is the level of service I'd expect:
1.5mb down / 640k up, or thereabouts, with no usage caps
4-8 static IPs
a kick-ass news server
all ports open, no service-sniffing
the right to run servers and do whatever the hell I want with my bandwidth
priority tech support numbers to people who actually know what they're talking about
pricing refunds for downtime
ok, and throw in the basic cable and local phone. That's about what I'd expect for $230.
Even with all that, I don't think I'd ever trust a "provider" like AOL enough to put all my eggs in their basket.