Yes, but lawyers can be sued for giving bad legal advice, and doctors can be sued for giving bad medical advice. Nobody forced their clients to do what they said, either. The whole premise behind a consulting company is to receive guidance from a knowledgable, unbiased third party.
Are there any chances that unscrupulous consultants are opening themselves up for lawsuits? It seems to me that if someone could prove that a consulting firm ripped his company off by selling it a product that is far more expensive product than it needed, especially if the firm had an interest in the fact that the particular product was sold, it would be liable for some kind of conflict of interest suit. Any ideas?
> Windows 2000 Server is an entry-level solution for running more reliable and manageable file, print, intranet, communications and infrastructure services. Windows 2000 Advanced Server includes additional functionality to enhance availability and scalability of e-commerce and line-of-business applications.
Really. So, if Windows is the superior operating system, and, by logical extension, Microsoft's code is superior, I have two questions:
1. Why did Microsoft use GPLed code in its FTP.EXE program included with Windows? (Load it into a hex editor and look for Regents)
2. Why is Win2K's TCP/IP stack fingerprint nearly identical to a BSD fingerprint (BSD having been around longer)?
If used responsibly, this could have great benefits. But it only takes one unscrupulous person abusing it to offset the benefits. Can we really trust people with things like this nationwide? There are already cameras on many streetcorners. If they can't pick out criminals with those things, maybe they should fight crime the old-fashioned way: logic.
> Where's the step where you entered it into a text document
The > is an output redirector. It redirects the text from the display to a file or other device.
> I can do a listing like you did simply by double-clicking the mouse. No keyboard needed.
In a race between a command-based OS and a GUI for tasks like a directory listing, a reasonably fast typist at the command line will win. How about copying a file (blah.txt, let's call it) from a 5-layer deep directory to another 6-layer deep directory? First you have to open 5 directories, hunting for the one you need each time, open the other six, and drag the file to the other directory. That vs.:
> I just don't see how an OS-less computer would somehow make things easier for users, when every app would be allowed to have whatever interface it wanted.
Remember the old DOS apps? Most of them had different interfaces (graphical metaphors, keyboard commands, etc.). Most of the apps for it were drop-dead simple to learn and use.
> how many PC interface zealots do you know?
Which interface? MS-DOS, Windows, Linux/BSD, BeOS, V2_OS, etc.? And then do you count various "skins" people can give GUIs? Oh, and what about operating systems that can use different filesystems?
Oooh. Bad luck. I didn't click on the link, but I did type in the address. Should've consulted a lawyer first.
By reading this sentence or any of following sentences, or portions thereof, you agree to this EULA. This comment is the copyrighted intellectual property of Kreeblah. Copying and transmitting by any means, including chemical, electrical, and other means, biological, or otherwise, is permitted, provided the copying party remits one U.S. dollar per copy to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization dedicated to defending freedom from unfair technology-based licensing agreements.
What I was thinking (although I don't really see any use for such an OS . ..) was to distribute an encryption key for the binaries to be encrypted with, and compile the decryption key into the kernel. Kind of like a public-key/private-key system on an operating system level.
On the other hand, if the operating system was open-source, an encryption/decryption key generation prog could be distributed with it for people building their own distros. For security purposes, perhaps, only programs encrypted for that specific distro (perhaps a bank's internal distribution, or a DoD network) would run. And they wouldn't run on other systems.
At any rate, I figured that if the DVD format was upheld by the DMCA, there could be threats from it on the reverse-engineering front.
Re:It's good that the last case was lost.. really
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 1
If the ACLU was unhappy with the results that would have come from a win, they could have appealed the remedy to a higher court.
"Encryption" is simply the word we use to describe information that is stored in an unconventional format. One could conceivably write an operating system that uses Blowfish-encrypted binaries as its standard binary format. It wouldn't be the quickest OS since it wouldn't use processor-native code, but if it were released as binary-only, would it be protected against reverse-engineering under the DMCA?
> Would you be likely to buy a new car from a company that had just "discontinued operations"?
I dunno. It depends on what kind of deal I could get. If I could pick up a top-of-the-line Ferrarri for $10 if they were to ever go out of business (desperate to liquidate their assets), sure. If it doesn't have a use/gets trashed/stolen/etc., I'm not out much money. If I like it, I got a great deal.
I do like Linux, but there is one thing that really bothers me about it. The problem I have with Linux is the monolithic-kernel mindset people have with it. The more you compile into the kernel, the more native support you have, true, but the slower the boot time becomes and the more difficult it becomes to upgrade a specific piece of your operating system. What are the advantages of having a monolithic kernel rather than a microkernel?
I use a web-based e-mail service (AmExMail). I don't have to use a mail reader, and it's available just about anywhere that has a TCP/IP connection (since most people think that the http protocol *is* the Internet). If I want to use a mail reader, my e-mail provider allows me to connect to its POP servers and download my mail.
This follows an alarming trend we've been seeing lately. Companies have been registering patents and/or copyrights on the most absurd things (remember Amazon.com's "one click shopping"?). The only way they'll stop trying to do these things is if people win lawsuits against them. While it's not easy to do so, if a non-profit organization is created for the specific purpose (or if there is one already, perhaps?) of filing (and winning) lawsuits against rediculous patents, we might have a chance at protecting our rights to use existing technology.
Yahoo is not the Internet. Regardless of whether it is acquired, there will always be "unwalled gardens" on the Internet. Granted, an acquisition of Yahoo would be damaging to the free Internet community, but it would not cripple it. For a search engine, people would have Google, for messaging, AIM (yeah, not the best example), ICQ, etc. For e-mail, there are all sorts of providers, such as MyRealBox and a certain "secure" e-mail service that I will not name. News is available everywhere. Stock quotes can be had at the NASDAQ site. I'd go on, but Yahoo has grown to provide everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink.
My point is that there is nothing that Yahoo has that isn't also available elsewhere for free. The free Internet idea would not be destroyed if Yahoo was acquired.
It seems to me that there's a very good reason why Cray chose Linux for this. There is a plethora of source code for Linux apps available for it. Since they chose Alpha processors, they'll need some softwrae for it, and since there are relatively few Alpha binary software distributions, it seems quite logical.
You can bypass all the reg-required NY Times links if you notice that channel.nytimes.com has all the stories, but without the login prompts. Next, notice that channel.nytimes.com has a different IP address than www.nytimes.com and nytimes.com. Do a DNS lookup on channel.nytimes.com and add it to your hosts file, something like this:
There. No more reg links. channel.nytimes.com gives you a directory listing for the root directory, however, so you don't get a flashy intro page. But if you use their page at www.nytimes.com, you probably have an account there anyway.
So, according to you, we'll have moved from a predominantly server/dumb-terminal computing situation to a predominantly desktop computing situation to a predominantly server/dumb-terminal computing situation, but with multiple operating systems (thus requiring non-processor-native, i.e., slow, code)?
> I don't even know if there is something to do makefiles in Windows anyway
Any operating system can have a utility for compiling projects with makefiles. A makefile is, after all, just a set of instructions to be passed along to the compiler about how to compile (what options to use, etc.) the project. Any decent C/C++ compiler will have a make utility (for Windows/DOS, DJGPP comes to mind).
I don't see any mention of whether this is UNIX-specific or all-inclusive. Is a packaging system that uses the same specifications for UNIX/DOS (or Windows, if you prefer)/MacOS/etc. feasable. Certainly it's possible (there's gcc for DOS, for example) to have UNIX tools compiled for filesystems organized in different ways, but this is a packaging specification.
Also, how would it handle dependancies? A widely available version of X11 for BeOS, for example, puts files in different places than X11 for Linux does (AFAIK).
This doesn't sound feasable for anything other than a strictly UNIX platform, and then what do we have? Yet Another Packaging System.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but lawyers can be sued for giving bad legal advice, and doctors can be sued for giving bad medical advice. Nobody forced their clients to do what they said, either. The whole premise behind a consulting company is to receive guidance from a knowledgable, unbiased third party.
Are there any chances that unscrupulous consultants are opening themselves up for lawsuits? It seems to me that if someone could prove that a consulting firm ripped his company off by selling it a product that is far more expensive product than it needed, especially if the firm had an interest in the fact that the particular product was sold, it would be liable for some kind of conflict of interest suit. Any ideas?
> Windows 2000 Server is an entry-level solution for running more reliable and manageable file, print, intranet, communications and infrastructure services. Windows 2000 Advanced Server includes additional functionality to enhance availability and scalability of e-commerce and line-of-business applications.
Really. So, if Windows is the superior operating system, and, by logical extension, Microsoft's code is superior, I have two questions:
1. Why did Microsoft use GPLed code in its FTP.EXE program included with Windows? (Load it into a hex editor and look for Regents)
2. Why is Win2K's TCP/IP stack fingerprint nearly identical to a BSD fingerprint (BSD having been around longer)?
Perhaps this is what will be used to cram Linux into the Brazillian computers mentioned earlier.
If used responsibly, this could have great benefits. But it only takes one unscrupulous person abusing it to offset the benefits. Can we really trust people with things like this nationwide? There are already cameras on many streetcorners. If they can't pick out criminals with those things, maybe they should fight crime the old-fashioned way: logic.
Please don't tell me that we're going to have "Last Post" trolls now . . .
> Where's the step where you entered it into a text document
/usr/docs/misc/mine/stuff/blah.txt /home/me/blah/misc/docs/bio
The > is an output redirector. It redirects the text from the display to a file or other device.
> I can do a listing like you did simply by double-clicking the mouse. No keyboard needed.
In a race between a command-based OS and a GUI for tasks like a directory listing, a reasonably fast typist at the command line will win. How about copying a file (blah.txt, let's call it) from a 5-layer deep directory to another 6-layer deep directory? First you have to open 5 directories, hunting for the one you need each time, open the other six, and drag the file to the other directory. That vs.:
cp
Simple. Quick. No messy windows.
> I just don't see how an OS-less computer would somehow make things easier for users, when every app would be allowed to have whatever interface it wanted.
Remember the old DOS apps? Most of them had different interfaces (graphical metaphors, keyboard commands, etc.). Most of the apps for it were drop-dead simple to learn and use.
> how many PC interface zealots do you know?
Which interface? MS-DOS, Windows, Linux/BSD, BeOS, V2_OS, etc.? And then do you count various "skins" people can give GUIs? Oh, and what about operating systems that can use different filesystems?
what version of gcc was it compiled with?
Oooh. Bad luck. I didn't click on the link, but I did type in the address. Should've consulted a lawyer first.
By reading this sentence or any of following sentences, or portions thereof, you agree to this EULA. This comment is the copyrighted intellectual property of Kreeblah. Copying and transmitting by any means, including chemical, electrical, and other means, biological, or otherwise, is permitted, provided the copying party remits one U.S. dollar per copy to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization dedicated to defending freedom from unfair technology-based licensing agreements.
What I was thinking (although I don't really see any use for such an OS . . .) was to distribute an encryption key for the binaries to be encrypted with, and compile the decryption key into the kernel. Kind of like a public-key/private-key system on an operating system level.
On the other hand, if the operating system was open-source, an encryption/decryption key generation prog could be distributed with it for people building their own distros. For security purposes, perhaps, only programs encrypted for that specific distro (perhaps a bank's internal distribution, or a DoD network) would run. And they wouldn't run on other systems.
At any rate, I figured that if the DVD format was upheld by the DMCA, there could be threats from it on the reverse-engineering front.
If the ACLU was unhappy with the results that would have come from a win, they could have appealed the remedy to a higher court.
"Encryption" is simply the word we use to describe information that is stored in an unconventional format. One could conceivably write an operating system that uses Blowfish-encrypted binaries as its standard binary format. It wouldn't be the quickest OS since it wouldn't use processor-native code, but if it were released as binary-only, would it be protected against reverse-engineering under the DMCA?
> Would you be likely to buy a new car from a company that had just "discontinued operations"?
I dunno. It depends on what kind of deal I could get. If I could pick up a top-of-the-line Ferrarri for $10 if they were to ever go out of business (desperate to liquidate their assets), sure. If it doesn't have a use/gets trashed/stolen/etc., I'm not out much money. If I like it, I got a great deal.
I do like Linux, but there is one thing that really bothers me about it. The problem I have with Linux is the monolithic-kernel mindset people have with it. The more you compile into the kernel, the more native support you have, true, but the slower the boot time becomes and the more difficult it becomes to upgrade a specific piece of your operating system. What are the advantages of having a monolithic kernel rather than a microkernel?
I use a web-based e-mail service (AmExMail). I don't have to use a mail reader, and it's available just about anywhere that has a TCP/IP connection (since most people think that the http protocol *is* the Internet). If I want to use a mail reader, my e-mail provider allows me to connect to its POP servers and download my mail.
Right, but I meant binary-only software. Sorry.
This follows an alarming trend we've been seeing lately. Companies have been registering patents and/or copyrights on the most absurd things (remember Amazon.com's "one click shopping"?). The only way they'll stop trying to do these things is if people win lawsuits against them. While it's not easy to do so, if a non-profit organization is created for the specific purpose (or if there is one already, perhaps?) of filing (and winning) lawsuits against rediculous patents, we might have a chance at protecting our rights to use existing technology.
Yahoo is not the Internet. Regardless of whether it is acquired, there will always be "unwalled gardens" on the Internet. Granted, an acquisition of Yahoo would be damaging to the free Internet community, but it would not cripple it. For a search engine, people would have Google, for messaging, AIM (yeah, not the best example), ICQ, etc. For e-mail, there are all sorts of providers, such as MyRealBox and a certain "secure" e-mail service that I will not name. News is available everywhere. Stock quotes can be had at the NASDAQ site. I'd go on, but Yahoo has grown to provide everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink.
My point is that there is nothing that Yahoo has that isn't also available elsewhere for free. The free Internet idea would not be destroyed if Yahoo was acquired.
It seems to me that there's a very good reason why Cray chose Linux for this. There is a plethora of source code for Linux apps available for it. Since they chose Alpha processors, they'll need some softwrae for it, and since there are relatively few Alpha binary software distributions, it seems quite logical.
You can bypass all the reg-required NY Times links if you notice that channel.nytimes.com has all the stories, but without the login prompts. Next, notice that channel.nytimes.com has a different IP address than www.nytimes.com and nytimes.com. Do a DNS lookup on channel.nytimes.com and add it to your hosts file, something like this:
208.48.26.223 www.nytimes.com
208.48.26.223 nytimes.com
There. No more reg links. channel.nytimes.com gives you a directory listing for the root directory, however, so you don't get a flashy intro page. But if you use their page at www.nytimes.com, you probably have an account there anyway.
That has (in a sense) already been done. Behold, the RPM Browser for Windows.
So, according to you, we'll have moved from a predominantly server/dumb-terminal computing situation to a predominantly desktop computing situation to a predominantly server/dumb-terminal computing situation, but with multiple operating systems (thus requiring non-processor-native, i.e., slow, code)?
> I don't even know if there is something to do makefiles in Windows anyway
Any operating system can have a utility for compiling projects with makefiles. A makefile is, after all, just a set of instructions to be passed along to the compiler about how to compile (what options to use, etc.) the project. Any decent C/C++ compiler will have a make utility (for Windows/DOS, DJGPP comes to mind).
I don't see any mention of whether this is UNIX-specific or all-inclusive. Is a packaging system that uses the same specifications for UNIX/DOS (or Windows, if you prefer)/MacOS/etc. feasable. Certainly it's possible (there's gcc for DOS, for example) to have UNIX tools compiled for filesystems organized in different ways, but this is a packaging specification.
Also, how would it handle dependancies? A widely available version of X11 for BeOS, for example, puts files in different places than X11 for Linux does (AFAIK).
This doesn't sound feasable for anything other than a strictly UNIX platform, and then what do we have? Yet Another Packaging System.