I got this thing this morning (along with my dozen or so other morning spam).
Filtering spam is such a hard thing to do. You would think that some creative and talented person would come up with a foolproof way to kill those things before we ever see them.
I suppose the hard part is not letting spam through, but never, ever tossing real mail.
There is a slippery slope here. Once you start using stability as your litmus test, as soon as MS achieves it, Linux has lost the argument.
Excellent point!
However, I have to disagree with your implication that a better argument is that of software morality. People should chose a computer and operating system because it lets them do what they need/want to do.
The best way to convert non-techie users to Linux is to show them that they can do the things they need to do cheaper/better/faster with Linux (or *BSD, or BeOS) than with their current choice.
And, if they can't do what they want better on an alternative OS, then you are doing that person a disservice by "converting" them.
its not the programmers or the people who help them or the people who like their work, its the people who are ingrateful, whether they be programmer or user/marketer, they be ingrateful.
I'm not saying people should not be grateful for those who have given so much time and energy to free software, but there is a fine line between giving thanks and giving worship. And, often that line gets crossed.
I'm particularly thankful for the work of Richard Stallman for his vision, and Linus for starting the project that alerted the masses to the philosophy of free software. But, even these two examples are still just people, and (probably) even aren't perfect, making bad decisions and all.
But, all the various free software "wars" (you know what I'm talking about) seem to indicate egos clashing. There are far too many pissing contests in this culture to believe in pure altrusim.
Besides, it's just software. None of us are curing cancer or feeding babies in Calcutta.
its not the programmers or the people who help them or the people who like their work, its the people who are ingrateful, whether they be programmer or user/marketer, they be ingrateful.
I'm not saying people should be grateful for those who have given so much time and energy to free software, but there is a fine line between giving thanks and giving worship. And, often that line gets crossed.
I'm particularly thankful for the work of Richard Stallman for his vision, and Linus for starting the project that alerted the masses to the philosophy of free software. But, even these two examples are still just people, and (probably) even aren't perfect, making bad decisions and all.
But, all the various free software "wars" (you know what I'm talking about) seem to indicate egos clashing. There are far too many pissing contests in this culture to believe in pure altrusim.
Besides, it's just software. None of us are curing cancer or feeding babies in Calcutta.
As someone who just gave his notice today at a 21000 person company to join a startup, I can understand wanting to vent, but as the cliche says "discretion is the better part of valor".
You don't know what tomorrow brings, and not only burning bridges, but stomping on the smoulering ashes probably isn't the best tactic when leaving a company.
Perhaps it's one of the dangers of instant communication, this ability to instantly blow off steam without anything forcing you to cool down and rethink. Or maybe the infamous programmer temperment combined with this "cult of personality" surrounding the Linux celebrities is pumping egos out of control.
Maybe what's driving the whole free software movement isn't a noble belief in freedom for users, but is instead the chance to have your sense of self-worth blown completely out of porportion with reality.
I'm so glad a less than rave review of a book finally appeared here on slashdot. Maybe it will finally shut up those conspiracy nuts who claim that all book reviews on slashdot are good only to make money off the link to Amazon.
I think the reason most reviews here are positive is because most people won't invest the time to write a review of a book they didn't like.
All I want to do is present my ideas to you people.
In order to effectively present your ideas, you have to be a good communicator. The unwillingness to take the time to spell correctly, or typing out "2" for "to", or "ppl" for people reduces the impact of what you have to say.
Many simply won't bother to read such mess, especially when there is a glut of information to process. There are too many good ideas, and well presented ideas, to try to gleen nuggets of wisdom from things that are so difficult to read.
If you don't take your words seriously, no one else will.
Being from the US, I'm curious about how the "charge for all calls" works. Actually, I'm more frightend by it, but I digress...
So, do you pay a per minute charge for all calls, or are certain calls considered "local" and are only charged a connection fee? And, suppose I'm calling an ISP located 10 miles away, how much does the call cost (per minute or per connection)?
If they did the same thing here in the states, I'd go bankrupt rather quickly.
It's easy and fun! Fool your friends! Win the lottery over and over again!
First, you must accept the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Now that you accept the fact that every quantum action splits the universe into a vast number of alternate universes, the rest is simple.
1. Randomly select your lottery numbers using a quantum process. 2. If numbers do not win, destroy universe. Implementation of step 2 is left as an exercise for the reader.
I've been using Linux off and on since the "Soft Landing" distribution days (kernel.9x.x), and have used it exclusively at home for over two years. I don't care about comparisions to NT, or any other OS. Well, I care only in that if the comparisions point out things that need work in Linux, then that is a good thing. Other than that, they simply don't affect my decision.
Why do I like Linux? Well, it's fun for me. It lets me get my hands dirty, see the code, understand how things work when I want to, but pretty much leaves me alone when I don't want to dive in. It assumes I know what I'm doing, treating me as it's equal. Condesending operating systems are as annoying to me as condesending bosses. And, on the occasion that I do manage to drive a config file to insanity, or delete an essential library, a small rescue floppy with vi on it lets me fix things.
But, this little trumpet blowing of Microsoft isn't about home users, it's about using Linux in the datacenter. Linux does have some problems here, not the least of which is the lack of a log structured, journaling filesystem, as Microsoft legitimatly pointed out. High availability on Linux right now is problematic, but people are working on the situation. The cost of a current project I'm working on is skyrocketing because of the need for true high availabilty, and we simply can't trust it to the alpha level projects that exist now. But, we aren't going to use NT for this application either. Neither is proven.
So, I'm a bit of a pragmatist. I don't hope for Linux to be the be all, end all for every use in every situation, I chose the right tool for the right job. At home, the right tool is Linux, because I like it. For low cost file and print services, general ISP duty, etc, Linux could be the right choice. For instant failover and high availability applications, I'm chosing Solaris.
And, dare I say, some people probably find NT to be the right tool for what they need. NT is geared for the great unwashed, hence Microsoft's critically pointing out the need for "highly trained system administrators" to use Linux. I just hope people aren't basing the choice of tool on that. Personally, I'd rather have a highly trained administrator responsible for running my critical systems than trusting it to a button monkey who doesn't know how to solve a problem that isn't scripted in his NT certification class. But, according to people I've talked to, NT doesn't really make hard things easier, it just makes them seem that way. A dangerous illusion.
To sum up, use Linux (or Be, or MacOS, or whatever) because you LIKE it, or because it solves a particular problem.
Maybe someone else with more information can comment, but I believe the problem with WinModems is not so much in writing the drivers, but in the licensing costs of the V.90 protocol.
Or, if you want to see why most of the real linux kernel guys hate Winmodems, follow this thread.
Alan Cox estimated 200k+ lines of code, running in kernel space.
So, forget about the specs. Even if you had them, they would be either too expensive to use or not worth the impact to the kernel to implement. Better off spending the few extra bucks, and taking a load off your CPU.
how long until somebody creates an interface for exchanging data between mp3 players? I'd like to hook a Rio up to a Lyra (or whatever), and exchange data with it.
You think the RIAA is having fits now, wait until someone comes out with a device that can share MP3's. Most hardware MP3 player makers are going to extreme lengths to make sure what you describe isn't happening. the Empeg car player comes to mind. They explicitly state that you can't send data from the device, because they don't want to encourage piracy.
Sure, you could probably homebrew a player that has upload capability, but don't expect to see it from a consumer electronics maker.
I don't know about the RIO, but I'd imagine it's the same way.
Now, I don't care one way or another about GEM, but maybe this is the start of companies releasing old, obsolete source code into the world, so that it isn't lost.
Once a piece of software clearly has no commercial future, the source should be given away, be it public domain, GPL, BSD license, whatever.
It's just wasteful how much code will be lost, never to see the light of day.
Anyway, maybe if slashdot posted some reviews that less than glowing (trashed the book, in other words), yet still included the link, you would feel better.
Rob's gotta make money to pay for this stuff somehow, and linking into amazon.com from book reviews seems pretty innocent.
Impartiality is one of the things I like about Amazon. You can post a horrendous review of a book, and they leave it up. Why? Because they've got millions of books to sell. It doesn't matter to them if some of them are clunkers, you'll just be glad someone let you know that in advance, and gave you a chance to buy another title (hopefully from them). As someone spends $100-$200 a month on my own books (not counting books my company provides), I'd like to hear bad reviews as well as good ones, and I think a link included with a bad review would keep things balanced.
Since I can only imagine how hard it is for Rob to find ways to make slashdot pay for itself, as well as leave a little bit for himself, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. He really makes an effort to keep the money making parts as unobtrustive as possible.
I respect your complaint, even if I don't completely agree with it, I just had to cough up a hairball at that Microsoft reference.
Would you like to be informed if/. were selling any user information you entered to Microsoft?
This is a fallacious appeal, and an error in logic. It is an appeal to fear fallacy, in that it equates a referral fee with selling personal information to what is generally considered in this forum a malicious company.
It's also a loaded question. It implies that something of yours is being transfered to amazon.com by bringing up the non sequitur of selling your personal information to Microsoft.
One has nothing to do with the other. Your arguement is wrong. Your logic is flawed.
Of course you'd still better "plan to throw one away".
I wish people would respect this principle more. In the corporate world, gone are the days (if they ever existed) of a prototype being used as proof of concept and leading to a real product. Now it seems like if the prototype works, it's good enough to ship.
In my own experience, there have been dozens of times I would like to rewrite some functionality or feature once I proved it could be done, simply because the exercise of making it work the first time showed me a way to make it work right the second time.
But, in the world of deadlines, ship dates, and bean counters, if you can make it work the first time, that's all they want, and all they will allow. That's why I love free software. As Linus often says "It will be ready when it's ready". The pressure to pass through a prototype isn't there, and you can do something just because it's the right thing to do.
Who said SGI has been bought / sold...
on
SGI Name Change
·
· Score: 1
I was merely commenting on how often EITHER a name change OR a merger is an indication of the health of a company.
Anyone who has lived through a merger can attest to the later.
As for the former, name changes are generally an attempt to put distance between a company and mistakes people associate with it. Think ValuJet became AirTran (a combination name change/merger), and the other examples sited.
Companies make huge investments in branding themselves, and making the name they have chosen mean something. When they abandon that name after pouring such resources into a corporate identity, then something is wrong. It isn't done just out of desire for something new.
Seems SGI probably is just removing the "Silicon Graphics" longhand version of the moniker everyone knows them as anyway, "SGI", to indicate they don't just do graphics. That's more a shift in which identity they are focusing on than a complete change. If they were changing the name to "Bedan Systems", or another drastic change, then that would indicate they were abandoning years of imprinting the SGI name on customers, and hence, something really was amiss.
Like, if I see "Inprise", I never think Borland. Borland used to make pretty cool tools. I have no idea what Inprise does.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone have any screenshots of CodeWarrior posted? I couldn't find any on their site, and would like to see the product before I buy it...
Oh, I do smite the scum most heinously. It would just be nicer never to see it.
Man, spam sucks!
I got this thing this morning (along with my dozen or so other morning spam).
Filtering spam is such a hard thing to do. You would think that some creative and talented person would come up with a foolproof way to kill those things before we ever see them.
I suppose the hard part is not letting spam through, but never, ever tossing real mail.
There is a slippery slope here. Once you start using stability as your litmus test, as soon as MS achieves it, Linux has lost the argument.
Excellent point!
However, I have to disagree with your implication that a better argument is that of software morality. People should chose a computer and operating system because it lets them do what they need/want to do.
The best way to convert non-techie users to Linux is to show them that they can do the things they need to do cheaper/better/faster with Linux (or *BSD, or BeOS) than with their current choice.
And, if they can't do what they want better on an alternative OS, then you are doing that person a disservice by "converting" them.
Sorry, venting.
its not the programmers or the people who help them or the people who like their work, its the people who are ingrateful, whether they be programmer or user/marketer, they be ingrateful.
I'm not saying people should not be grateful for those who have given so much time and energy to free software, but there is a fine line between giving thanks and giving worship. And, often that line gets crossed.
I'm particularly thankful for the work of Richard Stallman for his vision, and Linus for starting the project that alerted the masses to the philosophy of free software. But, even these two examples are still just people, and (probably) even aren't perfect, making bad decisions and all.
But, all the various free software "wars" (you know what I'm talking about) seem to indicate egos clashing. There are far too many pissing contests in this culture to believe in pure altrusim.
Besides, it's just software. None of us are curing cancer or feeding babies in Calcutta.
its not the programmers or the people who help them or the people who like their work, its the people who are ingrateful, whether they be programmer or user/marketer, they be ingrateful.
I'm not saying people should be grateful for those who have given so much time and energy to free software, but there is a fine line between giving thanks and giving worship. And, often that line gets crossed.
I'm particularly thankful for the work of Richard Stallman for his vision, and Linus for starting the project that alerted the masses to the philosophy of free software. But, even these two examples are still just people, and (probably) even aren't perfect, making bad decisions and all.
But, all the various free software "wars" (you know what I'm talking about) seem to indicate egos clashing. There are far too many pissing contests in this culture to believe in pure altrusim.
Besides, it's just software. None of us are curing cancer or feeding babies in Calcutta.
As someone who just gave his notice today at a 21000 person company to join a startup, I can understand wanting to vent, but as the cliche says "discretion is the better part of valor".
You don't know what tomorrow brings, and not only burning bridges, but stomping on the smoulering ashes probably isn't the best tactic when leaving a company.
Perhaps it's one of the dangers of instant communication, this ability to instantly blow off steam without anything forcing you to cool down and rethink. Or maybe the infamous programmer temperment combined with this "cult of personality" surrounding the Linux celebrities is pumping egos out of control.
Maybe what's driving the whole free software movement isn't a noble belief in freedom for users, but is instead the chance to have your sense of self-worth blown completely out of porportion with reality.
Wouldn't want to be running it thru some tube amp
DUDE!Tube amps absolutely rock! Why on earth would you not want to run it through a tube amp?
Putting a tube amp in the same category as pc speakers is just wrong.
I'm so glad a less than rave review of a book finally appeared here on slashdot. Maybe it will finally shut up those conspiracy nuts who claim that all book reviews on slashdot are good only to make money off the link to Amazon.
I think the reason most reviews here are positive is because most people won't invest the time to write a review of a book they didn't like.
All I want to do is present my ideas to you people.
In order to effectively present your ideas, you have to be a good communicator. The unwillingness to take the time to spell correctly, or typing out "2" for "to", or "ppl" for people reduces the impact of what you have to say.
Many simply won't bother to read such mess, especially when there is a glut of information to process. There are too many good ideas, and well presented ideas, to try to gleen nuggets of wisdom from things that are so difficult to read.
If you don't take your words seriously, no one else will.
Try Everything And, if a definition doesn't exist, you can write one yourself.
It's a slash-cousin.
Being from the US, I'm curious about how the "charge for all calls" works. Actually, I'm more frightend by it, but I digress...
So, do you pay a per minute charge for all calls, or are certain calls considered "local" and are only charged a connection fee? And, suppose I'm calling an ISP located 10 miles away, how much does the call cost (per minute or per connection)?
If they did the same thing here in the states, I'd go bankrupt rather quickly.
It's easy and fun! Fool your friends! Win the lottery over and over again!
First, you must accept the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Now that you accept the fact that every quantum action splits the universe into a vast number of alternate universes, the rest is simple.
1. Randomly select your lottery numbers using a quantum process. 2. If numbers do not win, destroy universe. Implementation of step 2 is left as an exercise for the reader.
Blatently stolen from the Jargon File .
I've been using Linux off and on since the "Soft Landing" distribution days (kernel .9x.x), and have used it exclusively at home for over two years. I don't care about comparisions to NT, or any other OS. Well, I care only in that if the comparisions point out things that need work in Linux, then that is a good thing. Other than that, they simply don't affect my decision.
Why do I like Linux? Well, it's fun for me. It lets me get my hands dirty, see the code, understand how things work when I want to, but pretty much leaves me alone when I don't want to dive in. It assumes I know what I'm doing, treating me as it's equal. Condesending operating systems are as annoying to me as condesending bosses. And, on the occasion that I do manage to drive a config file to insanity, or delete an essential library, a small rescue floppy with vi on it lets me fix things.
But, this little trumpet blowing of Microsoft isn't about home users, it's about using Linux in the datacenter. Linux does have some problems here, not the least of which is the lack of a log structured, journaling filesystem, as Microsoft legitimatly pointed out. High availability on Linux right now is problematic, but people are working on the situation. The cost of a current project I'm working on is skyrocketing because of the need for true high availabilty, and we simply can't trust it to the alpha level projects that exist now. But, we aren't going to use NT for this application either. Neither is proven.
So, I'm a bit of a pragmatist. I don't hope for Linux to be the be all, end all for every use in every situation, I chose the right tool for the right job. At home, the right tool is Linux, because I like it. For low cost file and print services, general ISP duty, etc, Linux could be the right choice. For instant failover and high availability applications, I'm chosing Solaris.
And, dare I say, some people probably find NT to be the right tool for what they need. NT is geared for the great unwashed, hence Microsoft's critically pointing out the need for "highly trained system administrators" to use Linux. I just hope people aren't basing the choice of tool on that. Personally, I'd rather have a highly trained administrator responsible for running my critical systems than trusting it to a button monkey who doesn't know how to solve a problem that isn't scripted in his NT certification class. But, according to people I've talked to, NT doesn't really make hard things easier, it just makes them seem that way. A dangerous illusion.
To sum up, use Linux (or Be, or MacOS, or whatever) because you LIKE it, or because it solves a particular problem.
Sorry for rambling.
A funky X server can indeed bring down an entire system. Even a funky window manager has been known to do it.
Maybe someone else with more information can comment, but I believe the problem with WinModems is not so much in writing the drivers, but in the licensing costs of the V.90 protocol.
Go see this page for a little more information.
Or, if you want to see why most of the real linux kernel guys hate Winmodems, follow this thread.
Alan Cox estimated 200k+ lines of code, running in kernel space.
So, forget about the specs. Even if you had them, they would be either too expensive to use or not worth the impact to the kernel to implement. Better off spending the few extra bucks, and taking a load off your CPU.
Ken Thomson, author of Unix, recently criticized Linux as "unreliable" and poorly written. What do you think?
When the heck was this? Anybody have links/more info? Was it posted on /. and I slept through it?
how long until somebody creates an interface for exchanging data between mp3 players? I'd like to hook a Rio up to a Lyra (or whatever), and exchange data with it.
You think the RIAA is having fits now, wait until someone comes out with a device that can share MP3's. Most hardware MP3 player makers are going to extreme lengths to make sure what you describe isn't happening. the Empeg car player comes to mind. They explicitly state that you can't send data from the device, because they don't want to encourage piracy.
Sure, you could probably homebrew a player that has upload capability, but don't expect to see it from a consumer electronics maker.
I don't know about the RIO, but I'd imagine it's the same way.
Now, I don't care one way or another about GEM, but maybe this is the start of companies releasing old, obsolete source code into the world, so that it isn't lost.
Once a piece of software clearly has no commercial future, the source should be given away, be it public domain, GPL, BSD license, whatever.
It's just wasteful how much code will be lost, never to see the light of day.
Yup, logic classes are fun.
Anyway, maybe if slashdot posted some reviews that less than glowing (trashed the book, in other words), yet still included the link, you would feel better.
Rob's gotta make money to pay for this stuff somehow, and linking into amazon.com from book reviews seems pretty innocent.
Impartiality is one of the things I like about Amazon. You can post a horrendous review of a book, and they leave it up. Why? Because they've got millions of books to sell. It doesn't matter to them if some of them are clunkers, you'll just be glad someone let you know that in advance, and gave you a chance to buy another title (hopefully from them). As someone spends $100-$200 a month on my own books (not counting books my company provides), I'd like to hear bad reviews as well as good ones, and I think a link included with a bad review would keep things balanced.
Since I can only imagine how hard it is for Rob to find ways to make slashdot pay for itself, as well as leave a little bit for himself, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. He really makes an effort to keep the money making parts as unobtrustive as possible.
I respect your complaint, even if I don't completely agree with it, I just had to cough up a hairball at that Microsoft reference.
Would you like to be informed if /. were selling any user information you entered to Microsoft?
This is a fallacious appeal, and an error in logic. It is an appeal to fear fallacy, in that it equates a referral fee with selling personal information to what is generally considered in this forum a malicious company.
It's also a loaded question. It implies that something of yours is being transfered to amazon.com by bringing up the non sequitur of selling your personal information to Microsoft.
One has nothing to do with the other. Your arguement is wrong. Your logic is flawed.
Of course you'd still better "plan to throw one away".
I wish people would respect this principle more. In the corporate world, gone are the days (if they ever existed) of a prototype being used as proof of concept and leading to a real product. Now it seems like if the prototype works, it's good enough to ship.
In my own experience, there have been dozens of times I would like to rewrite some functionality or feature once I proved it could be done, simply because the exercise of making it work the first time showed me a way to make it work right the second time.
But, in the world of deadlines, ship dates, and bean counters, if you can make it work the first time, that's all they want, and all they will allow. That's why I love free software. As Linus often says "It will be ready when it's ready". The pressure to pass through a prototype isn't there, and you can do something just because it's the right thing to do.
Wasn't much there...
I was merely commenting on how often EITHER a name change OR a merger is an indication of the health of a company.
Anyone who has lived through a merger can attest to the later.
As for the former, name changes are generally an attempt to put distance between a company and mistakes people associate with it. Think ValuJet became AirTran (a combination name change/merger), and the other examples sited.
Companies make huge investments in branding themselves, and making the name they have chosen mean something. When they abandon that name after pouring such resources into a corporate identity, then something is wrong. It isn't done just out of desire for something new.
Seems SGI probably is just removing the "Silicon Graphics" longhand version of the moniker everyone knows them as anyway, "SGI", to indicate they don't just do graphics. That's more a shift in which identity they are focusing on than a complete change. If they were changing the name to "Bedan Systems", or another drastic change, then that would indicate they were abandoning years of imprinting the SGI name on customers, and hence, something really was amiss.
Like, if I see "Inprise", I never think Borland. Borland used to make pretty cool tools. I have no idea what Inprise does.
Doesn't it seem name changes and mergers both mean the same thing... a company is dying?
Look at Borland, er, Inprise.