>There's no reason to cater to people who can't >handle technical details, that market's already >taken care of.
I beg to differ. The "market's taken care of" is "people who can't handle technical details AND don't care about an unstable system". By a very famous software company;)
However, there are also a whole handful of people "who can't handle technical details BUT want a rock solid system all the time".
Now this is the market. Even some people from the "can handle technical details" group LIKE graphical installers and such, like myself. It is a lot easier to make a mistake in dselect than, say, the Stormix installer. It is the *usability* of the software that matters. And no, poor usability *cannot* be compansated by technical users. They *can* handle intricate technical details, but it doesn't mean they *have to*.
But it does not even remotely resemble watching DVD with an unapproved player.
Shooting in the backyard is clearly different from using your gun wisely. It might injure somebody.
Watching DVD with an unapproved player is indistinguishable from watching it with an approved player. It causes zero harm.
The only different thing is the label on the DVD players. One says "approved" and the other one does not say so.
You have paid for the disc. You should be able to watch it however you want. Copyright only protects COPYING. Watching is USING and is trivially different. Use your brain sucka.
So my analogy stands. Now can I have some of what you're smoking?
Your gun analogy is retarded as it is not legal to kill anyways. If it were illegal to even watch a DVD (obviously false) then your analogy might be correct. Nice try for you though.
A better analogy with guns: (the situation is completely fictional)
Suppose you have an H&K gun and H&K demands you to use H&K-approved bullets. Suppose Steyr makes bullets that you can use in an H&K too. Now you've got your H&K gun, but the Steyr bullets are a LOT cheaper. What would you do?
The gun is yours. There are legal uses of a gun. The conclusion? Provided that your use of the gun is legal, you can choose whatever bullet. Then, the H&K license is legally invalid.
It's a logically trivial conclusion. I wish it is so to you as well.
Well, if you think you have a better idea, make another standard. Nothing keeps you from setting up a competing standard that works better.
However, were it not for the POSIX standard, W3C standards, OSI standards, IEEE standards, we probably wouldn't have gone this far by now.
It all summarizes (again) to the "tradeoff" word - are there many innovation possibilities there? If so, make no standard yet. If not, a standard might be a good thing.
Hm....is anything a "real choice" only because people have done writing a desktop with it?
I'm sure some Perl affictionados says they can build a desktop too in OO Perl. And a Java/Python/Ruby desktop can be built - well, speed can be an issue, but Perl code runs as fast as C code nowadays, and Ruby code is only half that speed.
Other than that, there's nothing stopping people using a scripting language to write a desktop. In fact, the interactive nature of scripts makes debugging and maintenance a breeze. Plus, the desktops will be more scriptable than the current ones too.
These are just examples I thought up in less than a second.
Not to mention that C++ does NOT even belong to the good OO languages. Design some large project using UML and implement it in C++ and you'll know why.
Each one of my examples (except maybe Object Pascal) are by FAR better OO languages than C++.
I mean, c'mon. He is asking us to do so and with very valid reasons from his point of view.
Think of it this way. We ripped his code to start OpenSSH - taking his program as a gift. Even the ssh 1 license says you may do so, don't you think the author is a real nice person in doing so?
Not that we're legally bound to change the name, but don't you think it is one nice thing we can do in return of his code?
Of course, the new name has to resemble the old name so users will not be confused. And we should be given a long enough grace period to use the old name and the new name together so everyone will see "so this is what OpenSSH becomes" without scratching their heads for a bit. It's for the project's own protection, of course.
(If he's a nice peron, I think it is not his intention to use a name change to blast our recognition to oblivion. That's why we need a grace period)
Why wait for years before the enforcement? Hm...do you mean he actually have to hire a team to research for trademark infringements and find every one of them? It should not be the responsibility of the trademark holder to explicitly look for infringers. And here goes the "why wait for years" argument.
Finally, I vote for OpenSecSH. It's an excellent name. And the pun to "OpenSex" makes it even better.
You know what? I had mozilla crashing a while ago and hangs X with it. Of course ipchains is still running so apparently only my mouse and my keyboard stopped responding.
Even don't work. I actually had to SSH from another machine and reboot from there - killing X didn't help either.
Oh well. I guess it is still better than pressing the power button. At least I got a clean reboot.
Next time when this happens, tell them that you're buying it for a kid - better yet, bring one along with you and give the game to the kid immediately after you pay.
>The real selling point to the solid-state hard
>drive is the speed.
Hm...my reason to buy a solid state hard drive at all is to put an end to any moving parts in my box.
I move a lot. And I want peace of mind.
I want almost 100% shock resistent.
I want real low MTBF.
I want my drive to resist wear-outs.
Lower power consumption. Lower heat.
My current hard drive does not give me all these. I believe solid state disk can, or almost can.
In particular, I can shake or drop it any way I want without worrying damaging my data (a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea).
I could be wrong on this, or CompactFlash may not be flash. Last I read somewhere that Flash memories is SLOW and have a relatively SHORT lifetime. Hm...not a good candidate for mass solid state storages at all?
Hm... I guess you cannot just keep throwing new software to a P200 and expect the new software to let your old hardware to do things that wasn't possible before.
"Argh, Linux does not run on my 286!!" Well, we have to leave some hardware behind. More simultaneous new features = more computing power needed.
For something runnable on a P200 96MB however, try IceWM and DFM. It gives you a crude desktop environment that's like Windows 95 that takes minimal computing resources. (it is the default desktop for Vector Linux)
Hey, are you using EFM? I'm just curious. ALL I want is a usable file manager, which also lets you put shortcuts on desktops. Does EFM let you put symlinks on the root window directly?
Except that the average game does not play on Windows 95 (the only version available for retail is 95A. The B's and the C's are "OEM only not for resale") anymore, not without a lot of patches anyway.
A lot of games are requiring Windows 95 ends up requiring 95B or 95C (with new Tcp/Ip stack) which forces a lot of people to go with 98 anyway.
Still, if you're arguing that you can buy a used copy of Windows, nothing stops you from buying used copies of GAMES.
Slashdot Mirror
>There's no reason to cater to people who can't
;)
>handle technical details, that market's already
>taken care of.
I beg to differ. The "market's taken care of" is "people who can't handle technical details AND don't care about an unstable system". By a very famous software company
However, there are also a whole handful of people "who can't handle technical details BUT want a rock solid system all the time".
Now this is the market. Even some people from the "can handle technical details" group LIKE graphical installers and such, like myself. It is a lot easier to make a mistake in dselect than, say, the Stormix installer.
It is the *usability* of the software that matters. And no, poor usability *cannot* be compansated by technical users. They *can* handle intricate technical details, but it doesn't mean they *have to*.
Hey. Interesting.
There's a way you can follow the GPL while practically charging for the software. Just an idea, and I don't think it's a loophole.
GPL makes you distribute the source. Sure, distribute it. However, don't distribute the binaries. Distribute a whole CD of source.
Most people don't bother to compile anyway - then you'll charge people for the service of "compiling" the whole mess.
Sounds outlandish but it can start a pretty nice discussion I guess.
You know, the exception defines the rule...here goes. You're the exception. It further affirms that shooting in a backyard is foolish.
=)
Shooting in the backyard is stupid.
But it does not even remotely resemble watching DVD with an unapproved player.
Shooting in the backyard is clearly different from using your gun wisely. It might injure somebody.
Watching DVD with an unapproved player is indistinguishable from watching it with an approved player. It causes zero harm.
The only different thing is the label on the DVD players. One says "approved" and the other one does not say so.
You have paid for the disc. You should be able to watch it however you want. Copyright only protects COPYING. Watching is USING and is trivially different. Use your brain sucka.
So my analogy stands. Now can I have some of what you're smoking?
Your gun analogy is retarded as it is not legal to kill anyways. If it were illegal to even watch a DVD (obviously false) then your analogy might be correct. Nice try for you though.
A better analogy with guns: (the situation is completely fictional)
Suppose you have an H&K gun and H&K demands you to use H&K-approved bullets. Suppose Steyr makes bullets that you can use in an H&K too. Now you've got your H&K gun, but the Steyr bullets are a LOT cheaper. What would you do?
The gun is yours. There are legal uses of a gun. The conclusion? Provided that your use of the gun is legal, you can choose whatever bullet. Then, the H&K license is legally invalid.
It's a logically trivial conclusion. I wish it is so to you as well.
Well, if you think you have a better idea, make another standard. Nothing keeps you from setting up a competing standard that works better.
However, were it not for the POSIX standard, W3C standards, OSI standards, IEEE standards, we probably wouldn't have gone this far by now.
It all summarizes (again) to the "tradeoff" word - are there many innovation possibilities there? If so, make no standard yet. If not, a standard might be a good thing.
Hm....is anything a "real choice" only because people have done writing a desktop with it?
I'm sure some Perl affictionados says they can build a desktop too in OO Perl. And a Java/Python/Ruby desktop can be built - well, speed can be an issue, but Perl code runs as fast as C code nowadays, and Ruby code is only half that speed.
Other than that, there's nothing stopping people using a scripting language to write a desktop. In fact, the interactive nature of scripts makes debugging and maintenance a breeze. Plus, the desktops will be more scriptable than the current ones too.
C++ and Java the only choices? C'mon. They are choices, but by no mean the only ones.
Examples: Ruby, Python, Eiffel, Smalltalk, Object Pascal, Oberon, Modula-3.
These are just examples I thought up in less than a second.
Not to mention that C++ does NOT even belong to the good OO languages. Design some large project using UML and implement it in C++ and you'll know why.
Each one of my examples (except maybe Object Pascal) are by FAR better OO languages than C++.
I mean, c'mon. He is asking us to do so and with very valid reasons from his point of view.
Think of it this way. We ripped his code to start OpenSSH - taking his program as a gift. Even the ssh 1 license says you may do so, don't you think the author is a real nice person in doing so?
Not that we're legally bound to change the name, but don't you think it is one nice thing we can do in return of his code?
Of course, the new name has to resemble the old name so users will not be confused. And we should be given a long enough grace period to use the old name and the new name together so everyone will see "so this is what OpenSSH becomes" without scratching their heads for a bit. It's for the project's own protection, of course.
(If he's a nice peron, I think it is not his intention to use a name change to blast our recognition to oblivion. That's why we need a grace period)
Why wait for years before the enforcement? Hm...do you mean he actually have to hire a team to research for trademark infringements and find every one of them? It should not be the responsibility of the trademark holder to explicitly look for infringers. And here goes the "why wait for years" argument.
Finally, I vote for OpenSecSH. It's an excellent name. And the pun to "OpenSex" makes it even better.
I meant, Event [CTRL-ALT-whatever] don't work.
You know what? I had mozilla crashing a while ago and hangs X with it. Of course ipchains is still running so apparently only my mouse and my keyboard stopped responding.
Even don't work. I actually had to SSH from another machine and reboot from there - killing X didn't help either.
Oh well. I guess it is still better than pressing the power button. At least I got a clean reboot.
Isn't it easily done in Unix too?
Runlevel 3?
It does not start the CLI shell for user input at all if I understand it.
Next time when this happens, tell them that you're buying it for a kid - better yet, bring one along with you and give the game to the kid immediately after you pay.
It'd be interesting to see what they can do.
How about a customizable killfile?
Or a customizable regex link matcher to kill links like the goatse ones only retards post?
Thanks.
>The real selling point to the solid-state hard
>drive is the speed.
Hm...my reason to buy a solid state hard drive at all is to put an end to any moving parts in my box.
I move a lot. And I want peace of mind.
I want almost 100% shock resistent.
I want real low MTBF.
I want my drive to resist wear-outs.
Lower power consumption. Lower heat.
My current hard drive does not give me all these. I believe solid state disk can, or almost can.
In particular, I can shake or drop it any way I want without worrying damaging my data (a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea).
I could be wrong on this, or CompactFlash may not be flash. Last I read somewhere that Flash memories is SLOW and have a relatively SHORT lifetime. Hm...not a good candidate for mass solid state storages at all?
Check Waterloo out. It's CS program now has a bioinformatics option.
=)
Actually, no. I placed my mouse on your link, and if it shows up a whole bunch of spaces I know what it is - from your moderation history.
Or, should it be the other way round:
/dev/null > memory?
cat
Without installing Gnome or KDE - even their libs? That's cool. E can be a desktop environment by itself!
Hm...are you using the debug version of QT? You can recompile KDE and QT without the debug info and they'll be a lot faster, or so I heard.
you can also do a strip --strip-debug on the binaries and see if it gets any better. Just remember don't do a --strip-all to the libs.
Hm... I guess you cannot just keep throwing new software to a P200 and expect the new software to let your old hardware to do things that wasn't possible before.
"Argh, Linux does not run on my 286!!" Well, we have to leave some hardware behind. More simultaneous new features = more computing power needed.
For something runnable on a P200 96MB however, try IceWM and DFM. It gives you a crude desktop environment that's like Windows 95 that takes minimal computing resources. (it is the default desktop for Vector Linux)
Hey does EFM allow you to put symlinks on your desktop?
Hey, are you using EFM? I'm just curious. ALL I want is a usable file manager, which also lets you put shortcuts on desktops. Does EFM let you put symlinks on the root window directly?
Except that the average game does not play on Windows 95 (the only version available for retail is 95A. The B's and the C's are "OEM only not for resale") anymore, not without a lot of patches anyway.
A lot of games are requiring Windows 95 ends up requiring 95B or 95C (with new Tcp/Ip stack) which forces a lot of people to go with 98 anyway.
Still, if you're arguing that you can buy a used copy of Windows, nothing stops you from buying used copies of GAMES.
You're not making a fair comparison.