Yes, but what's your reaction to the people who repeat stories they read in the National Enquirer? If it's anything like mine, you don't worry about these people receiving any special attention from the people who directly influence others.
Am I the only one who doubts whether a person in such a position really does care about the issue if he's not even convinced he wants to attach his name to his sentiment? How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself? If you don't want to be known as the man who opened his mouth, maybe you should keep it shut.
I feel the very same way about the Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot. If you're incapable of logging in, I don't want to read what you have to say. I'm not for disallowing unregistered use, I just want a check-button in my prefs which says "Absolutely never, ever, under any circumstances show me any posts from anonymous contributors [X]". Right now setting a threshold at 1 doesn't cut it; some posts are moderated up because they're "funny" or "insightful". I don't care--I'm not ready to ponder the words of a man who can't be debated, reached for comments, commended, or even identified. Go talk to a tree.
I guess I look at anonymity as a convenience; if it's there you should be able to use it, but what part of "free speech" means "the right to have everyone who might disagree look the other way for a moment?" It's not a right any more than its opposite. Should I appeal to the Supreme Court of my country if I am denied ultimate and relentless _promotion_ of my name with my commentary? Why should we mandate the supression when it happens to be convenient but not the promotion when it's also convenient.
Re:Is there any reason to stay with the 2.0.x seri
on
Linux 2.0.37 Released
·
· Score: 1
Most packages of ipchains comes with an "ipfwadm" wrapper script which works very well. You could at least give the setup a try on a test machine and then route a few test hosts through it and see if it worked. Then just dump the ipchains stuff out for boot scripts.
Yes, and they're all for old kernels, just like the FreeBSD exploits he posted (2.x and 3.0 series).
All software has bugs; responsive developers fix them faster. More frequent releases of fixes means users can have better software at the expense of typing "patch".
Re:When will they learn?
on
Linux 2.2.10
·
· Score: 1
I think you may be confused, sir. In my experience, the boy who pays for a beta release of Windows and the boy who spells his name with numbers are often one in the same. They'll pay for a pre-release of the buggiest, least capable, slowest and most oversized operating system choice out there and claim they can't afford the software they "need"; like AutoCAD, Photoshop, and the latest 3D render studio fad of the week.
But BeOS is a proprietary bicycle. When you get a flat tire, you can't change it yourself. You can't grease the chain yourself, but a spoke wrench to adjust the rims is only $49.95 with a special "developer's discount." Sure, some parts of the bike could be improved--say the seat is too hard, but you can't buy a new seat yourself. You have to wait for next year's relesae of the bicycle.
I think his point was that hiding software negates all the developmental advantages one can gain through sharing information at all stages. "Release early and often" is a tenet of open development models. The project will suffer if it's developed by an individual who can't discuss and share the best techniques because he's afraid to leak secrets.
I tend to agree with Graydon here, bounty software is encouraging sharing as an end only and not a means to better development.
The currency/software connection seems like it's there, but it's not. Currency, in all forms I know of, is a system where a system of material trade (gold, shells, silver, rocks, fruit) was abstracted into generic representative units. Each unit stands for a given real-world quantity of a limited and scarce resource.
Still, the system itself is purely abstract (via electronic banking; we can even leave hard cash out of this since inflation can happen without it and does all the time). A government produces currency to the extent the country can "afford" it. If you inflate the system each unit of the system is worth less compared to the whole--prices go up.
This is a simplified situation, but currency exists to represent a real-world material (the United States follows a gold standard). At any time you can convert your cash to gold, or gold to cash, at a standard and specific rate. These two systems, monetary and gold, are linked at their limits, and one is only good when there is an adequate quantity and value of the other. Software isn't like this at all.
If software were like the monetary system, for each copy you made, all the other copies would then be worth less, in a utilitarian sense. Maybe some bits would fall off?:) The purpose of money is exchange for goods; the purpose of software varies by its nature but is most often to crunch numbers, control hardware, or entertain.
Sneaking into a movie theatre is a bad analogy. When you pay for a ticket to a movie, you pay the theatre. The theatre has _recurring_ operating costs: paying employees for labor, paying for rent or real-estate, paying for seat fabric to replace worn out chairs, paying for mops and water and cleaning solution to mop the floors (they do that, don't they?), electricity to power the projectors, the projectors themselves, the water in the restroom, the food at the concession counter, etc., etc. They pay for material goods which need regular and active maintenance throughout the operation of the theatre.
The act of software production is a single-time cost. It is written, tested--but for that single pattern (release) of software, there is no inherent cost to copy which is directly transfered to the author.
"Lost projected revenue" or "sales I could have had" or "maybe I would have paid for it" are all irrelevent. Software can be effortlessly copied at _no_cost_ to the original holder. Maybe "cost" is the wrong word. People are great at complaining about what they "could have had" or what "might have been" or how they were "cheated by destiny." Why not complain about how we "might have been rich" while we're at it?
The author never hears, feels, smeels, knows, sees, or tastes the copy happening, and there's no reason he should. The laws of physics don't provide for instant notification of the source upon the recognition and automated reproduction of a pattern of numbers at the destination. The "copy" is the simple sharing of a _pattern_ of bits through a machine really good at counting really fast.
You've completely misunderstood the technical term "software." Software can be copied at near zero cost, and additional derivative copies detract nothing form the first. Copying software doesn't damage the "original." Software can't be worn out. Software can be shared by two people or fourty million people at the same time, with absolutely no negative impact on the quality of all the other copies. It can be perfectly and effortlessly replicated ad infinitum. Think about the alphabet, or the integers from 1 to 10--the whole world can count at the same time without "stealing" the numbers from someone else.
Proprietary software as it's sold today is the simple _right_ to route your own electrons (for which you do pay a fee; you're buying mass) through your own computer (for which you paid; it's real-world matter) in a pattern _like_ the original. There is a whole system of laws in place to tell _you_ what order your bits are _prohibited_ from being routed through hardware you already own!
Imagine if you owned your own Abacus Super Turbo 2000, and your local government enforced laws which required you pay a fee to use the integers 1 through 100. Imagine if the license fees doubled as you reached 200! They're just numbers!
Why are certain companies and individuals afforded these "rights" by the government, to reserve an idea for licensed use only by those who can afford it? I don't know.
Interesting point. However, computers would not lead to piracy as easily as you think.
You have to take into account that computers would use a lot of energy and have operating costs. So, when ever you "copy" something, you pay royalties to the "replicator service".
This "service" would supply the "original media," and pay royalties on them to the companies that designed the software.
In the future if you wanted to copy a program, you would select the item, transfer payment to the "John Doe Replication Service", and then the computer would recieve the original medium, produce the copy, then delete it's memory. JDRS would also pay the energy costs of operating the device.
Illegally copying items would be possible, but only if someone re-engineered their computer and had lots of money for the "disk drives".
"anarchy," "gothic," "pierced" and "tattoo?" Yeah, dangerous and harmful words if I ever had to choose them. I had no idea the legislature down there was so backwards; just why, exactly, do they feel the need for these token moral crusades? The policitians admit they know their plans aren't even close to feasable, but they're in it for the press anyway.
When I installed Debian on a Digital UDB, I had no big problems. I simply read the documentation at http://www.alphalinux.org/, the Red Hat install docs as well as the Debian docs. I read all the Alpha-related documentation and notes I could find. I made my boot floppies, used a SCSI Zip drive as my base media, booted into SRM: "boot dva0" and I was off.
And for MILO... The MILO HOWTO gave me plenty of information. MILO works quite logically--you can ls devices, and boot any old file you find, passing kernel parameters like usual. Typing "help", I would hope, would be enough information to at least boot up a kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but what's your reaction to the people who repeat stories they read in the National Enquirer? If it's anything like mine, you don't worry about these people receiving any special attention from the people who directly influence others.
Uhm... why not just turn logs off?
Am I the only one who doubts whether a person in such a position really does care about the issue if he's not even convinced he wants to attach his name to his sentiment? How strongly can you feel about your company, government, or other local opressive body if you're too afraid to say it yourself? If you don't want to be known as the man who opened his mouth, maybe you should keep it shut.
I feel the very same way about the Anonymous Cowards here on Slashdot. If you're incapable of logging in, I don't want to read what you have to say. I'm not for disallowing unregistered use, I just want a check-button in my prefs which says "Absolutely never, ever, under any circumstances show me any posts from anonymous contributors [X]". Right now setting a threshold at 1 doesn't cut it; some posts are moderated up because they're "funny" or "insightful". I don't care--I'm not ready to ponder the words of a man who can't be debated, reached for comments, commended, or even identified. Go talk to a tree.
I guess I look at anonymity as a convenience; if it's there you should be able to use it, but what part of "free speech" means "the right to have everyone who might disagree look the other way for a moment?" It's not a right any more than its opposite. Should I appeal to the Supreme Court of my country if I am denied ultimate and relentless _promotion_ of my name with my commentary? Why should we mandate the supression when it happens to be convenient but not the promotion when it's also convenient.
Most packages of ipchains comes with an "ipfwadm" wrapper script which works very well. You could at least give the setup a try on a test machine and then route a few test hosts through it and see if it worked. Then just dump the ipchains stuff out for boot scripts.
Yes, and they're all for old kernels, just like the FreeBSD exploits he posted (2.x and 3.0 series).
All software has bugs; responsive developers fix them faster. More frequent releases of fixes means users can have better software at the expense of typing "patch".
I think you may be confused, sir. In my experience, the boy who pays for a beta release of Windows and the boy who spells his name with numbers are often one in the same. They'll pay for a pre-release of the buggiest, least capable, slowest and most oversized operating system choice out there and claim they can't afford the software they "need"; like AutoCAD, Photoshop, and the latest 3D render studio fad of the week.
\\/1nd0Wz 2| 0w|\|z j00 -- or something.
An Ultra 5? Reliable? It's a PC with a Sparc--IDE disk, IDE CDROM, Mach64 "framebuffer" and really, really slow with Solaris 7.
Try Junkbuster (www.junkbusters.com). I haven't seen a banner ad since 1998.
I don't know... I hear the Pluto suit is really hot.
"Last time you checked" meaning "last time I couldn't really see, but my guess was" that they were more secure?
You read mail as root?
But BeOS is a proprietary bicycle. When you get a flat tire, you can't change it yourself. You can't grease the chain yourself, but a spoke wrench to adjust the rims is only $49.95 with a special "developer's discount." Sure, some parts of the bike could be improved--say the seat is too hard, but you can't buy a new seat yourself. You have to wait for next year's relesae of the bicycle.
I think his point was that hiding software negates all the developmental advantages one can gain through sharing information at all stages. "Release early and often" is a tenet of open development models. The project will suffer if it's developed by an individual who can't discuss and share the best techniques because he's afraid to leak secrets.
I tend to agree with Graydon here, bounty software is encouraging sharing as an end only and not a means to better development.
The currency/software connection seems like it's there, but it's not. Currency, in all forms I know of, is a system where a system of material trade (gold, shells, silver, rocks, fruit) was abstracted into generic representative units. Each unit stands for a given real-world quantity of a limited and scarce resource.
:) The purpose of money is exchange for goods; the purpose of software varies by its nature but is most often to crunch numbers, control hardware, or entertain.
Still, the system itself is purely abstract (via electronic banking; we can even leave hard cash out of this since inflation can happen without it and does all the time). A government produces currency to the extent the country can "afford" it. If you inflate the system each unit of the system is worth less compared to the whole--prices go up.
This is a simplified situation, but currency exists to represent a real-world material (the United States follows a gold standard). At any time you can convert your cash to gold, or gold to cash, at a standard and specific rate. These two systems, monetary and gold, are linked at their limits, and one is only good when there is an adequate quantity and value of the other. Software isn't like this at all.
If software were like the monetary system, for each copy you made, all the other copies would then be worth less, in a utilitarian sense. Maybe some bits would fall off?
Sneaking into a movie theatre is a bad analogy. When you pay for a ticket to a movie, you pay the theatre. The theatre has _recurring_ operating costs: paying employees for labor, paying for rent or real-estate, paying for seat fabric to replace worn out chairs, paying for mops and water and cleaning solution to mop the floors (they do that, don't they?), electricity to power the projectors, the projectors themselves, the water in the restroom, the food at the concession counter, etc., etc. They pay for material goods which need regular and active maintenance throughout the operation of the theatre.
The act of software production is a single-time cost. It is written, tested--but for that single pattern (release) of software, there is no inherent cost to copy which is directly transfered to the author.
"Lost projected revenue" or "sales I could have had" or "maybe I would have paid for it" are all irrelevent. Software can be effortlessly copied at _no_cost_ to the original holder. Maybe "cost" is the wrong word. People are great at complaining about what they "could have had" or what "might have been" or how they were "cheated by destiny." Why not complain about how we "might have been rich" while we're at it?
The author never hears, feels, smeels, knows, sees, or tastes the copy happening, and there's no reason he should. The laws of physics don't provide for instant notification of the source upon the recognition and automated reproduction of a pattern of numbers at the destination. The "copy" is the simple sharing of a _pattern_ of bits through a machine really good at counting really fast.
You've completely misunderstood the technical term "software." Software can be copied at near zero cost, and additional derivative copies detract nothing form the first. Copying software doesn't damage the "original." Software can't be worn out. Software can be shared by two people or fourty million people at the same time, with absolutely no negative impact on the quality of all the other copies. It can be perfectly and effortlessly replicated ad infinitum. Think about the alphabet, or the integers from 1 to 10--the whole world can count at the same time without "stealing" the numbers from someone else.
Proprietary software as it's sold today is the simple _right_ to route your own electrons (for which you do pay a fee; you're buying mass) through your own computer (for which you paid; it's real-world matter) in a pattern _like_ the original. There is a whole system of laws in place to tell _you_ what order your bits are _prohibited_ from being routed through hardware you already own!
Imagine if you owned your own Abacus Super Turbo 2000, and your local government enforced laws which required you pay a fee to use the integers 1 through 100. Imagine if the license fees doubled as you reached 200! They're just numbers!
Why are certain companies and individuals afforded these "rights" by the government, to reserve an idea for licensed use only by those who can afford it? I don't know.
Interesting point. However, computers would not lead to piracy as easily as you think.
You have to take into account that computers would use a lot of energy and have operating costs. So, when ever you "copy" something, you pay royalties to the
"replicator service".
This "service" would supply the "original media," and pay royalties on them to the companies that designed the software.
In the future if you wanted to copy a program, you would select the item, transfer payment to the "John Doe Replication Service", and then the computer would
recieve the original medium, produce the copy, then delete it's memory. JDRS would also pay the energy costs of operating the device.
Illegally copying items would be possible, but only if someone re-engineered their computer and had lots of money for the "disk drives".
A .nu domain is $25 for one year.
I believe that's a computer RMS uses for correspondence sometimes. I remember seeing santafe.edu addresses in other messages to/from him.
They're expecting people to pay for their software? To pay for a web browser? Some things boggle the mind.
"anarchy," "gothic," "pierced" and "tattoo?" Yeah, dangerous and harmful words if I ever had to choose them. I had no idea the legislature down there was so backwards; just why, exactly, do they feel the need for these token moral crusades? The policitians admit they know their plans aren't even close to feasable, but they're in it for the press anyway.
You should try an operating system that handles multitasking well.
Why withhold it and provide just the motivation I need?
And for MILO... The MILO HOWTO gave me plenty of information. MILO works quite logically--you can ls devices, and boot any old file you find, passing kernel parameters like usual. Typing "help", I would hope, would be enough information to at least boot up a kernel.
Where's the URL to the logos you submitted?