We have a piece of Microsoft software, X. An application Y outputs its data to application X. So far so good...
It does this by (during the export process) loading the software X. Don't ask me why, I didn't write it.
Microsoft app X+1 is now available. App Y *will not export* to app X+1 because the executable has been moved and it can't talk to the new version anyway.
The App Y developers could fix this... but they wont because they have moved onto App Y+1 which we don't want to buy (not yet mature enough). App X is no longer available in the company and we cannot buy licenses for a variety of reasons (mostly due to integration and the fact that version X and X+1 running together cause major problems). There are no other export options except to pay for monkeys to retype all the data - on a weekly basis.
Software upgrades and end of support can attack you in the posterior in unexpected ways, and sticking with old software may not be an option. If you have given away the ability to make your own modifications, or put your data into formats you cannot read, you better make sure it's in your risk register.
::Old-fart
Now while Google's advertising is generally pretty inoffensive what's with the idea of putting adverts on anything that stands still long enough for the paint to dry? There are blogs running on $2/month webhosts that use AdSense. Just because it is possible to make money doesn't mean that it's an appropriate thing to do.
It reeks of the same kind of greed that causes people to put lengthy disclaimers on their naff short stories or trivial programmes (copyleft excepted) just because they can't stand the idea of missing out on 5 cents.::End
As for "online OS", could anyone tell me the benefit of having even less control over the OS I'm running?
I have just as much control over the online OS I use as I do over any other OS... because it's running on my own webserver. I decided to give eyeOS a go after reading about it in the last Slashdot discussion on web based OSes and it's very slick.
Installation was trivial and functionality is pretty amazing. Total cost: $0 ($15/mo for the virtual server but I'm already paying for that).
Now, assuming that you are Joe Average and don't want to run your own webserver... then how is using a hosted virtual OS any worse than using a hosted IM client (instead of Jabber) - plenty of sensitive data available there. How is it worse than using YouTube (have you read the license for that service?) instead of running your own server to host your media. What about web based tax services?
In the end you have to make a judgement call regarding trust. For the average user the tradeoff of trust vs convenience and a well managed (spyware and virus free) system may not be where you think it is.
According to Nintendo anyway. This means that if I got one I'd have to run multiple WiFi networks in my house which seems a bit too much like a pain in the neck for a games console.
Of course the GP2x has no built in WiFi at all, but it does seem like a missed opportunity for a product revision this late in the WEP-is-broken world.
No one has managed to place effectice restrictions on HTTP activities because the protocol is too noisy with legitimate activity. Might this now be the same in the future with BitTorrent?
...that flights will be 1% less awful with uncut films, or will we just be reduced to watching films like the Pink Panther because all the others are deemed too rude?
With more and more announcements like these, does anyone else think it is inevitable that Linux will overtake Microsoft on all bases one day?
Technically - yes. In fact there are very few areas where this is not already the case technically, with only the interface features left to catch up.
While this is not a small problem (in fact it's a huge problem) it's also the case that now the big nuts have been cracked, so to speak, the UI problems are recieving so much attention that they are being dealt with rapidly.
Firefox is one example of such an improvement (vs Mozilla) however I'd say that the single best example is the gnome wifi applet. This is an example of what *used* to be required to set up WPA. On X86 it's now virtually a two-step point and click process using nm-applet which supports roaming and multiple networks and autoswitching between available connections.
At least NTFS is somewhat understood now and drivers (although imperfect) exist and are being improved.
I understand that WinFS was going to have NTFS as the backend but this avoids the necessity to reverse engineer another closed and obfusicated layer of almost-compliant-with-the-spec-which-you-cant-see- anyway rubbish in order to function as well as Microsoft's own offerings.
Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution?
Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.
There are cases where indeed the big fish are required to provide source code hosting for the smaller distributors.
Apparently I am also one of those who did not read the license carefully enough - it's a good job I don't redistribute GPL software.
These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:
(relating to pre-compiled binary distribution) c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't know about you but I would read that as, provided no changes have been made, stating that a link to the MEPIS source code repository was adequate if that was the nature of the offer recieved when the MEPIS binaries were downloaded, provided the sub-distro is non commercial.
In any event for non-commercial sub-distros I cannot see that a violation in word but not spirit of such a minor nature would cause any eyebrows to be raised, generally you have to work quite hard to get sued under the GPL.
For commercial entities then it's an entirley different matter, but if they don't take the time to read and understand the license then, well, words fail me.
But even in the west I feel more comfortable usingTor, a (well, close enough) anonymizing proxy.
I used to use JAP (a similar project but the client was Java based and less transparent) but Tor is considerably faster. Throughput up to 60K/sec on a 512k/sec DSL line (as fast as it ever goes with no proxy) means that it's practical to use for all traffic and makes the needle much harder to find in the haystack.
The consequence was the most bloody war in human history - the US civil war. It was considered the most bloody in human history because they were just beginning to figure out how to use these new technologies to kill people,
Might you have a cite? Accoding to wikipedia it is out by two orders of magnitude. (Circa half a million compared to over 60 million for WW2.)
Neither camp has made any significant effort in making their systems truly interoperable
Becuase OpenOffice, Samba, WINE, the various Exchange connectors and all those Windows ports of OSS software are trivial, right? And that's not even the *start* of a comprehensive list.
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there.
Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products.
Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc.
Step 3) There is no step 3.
OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
Could also be because IIS is easy to get running.
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
Should you have a Windows machine installing IIS is a doddle. (Installing and getting it to display a web page that is - not running it secureley).
Compare this to the
http://www.revis.co.uk/site/?q=node/2 Apache+PHP+MySQL steps that one normally sees. It''s not hard, but its very alien to a Windows user.
Thankfully projects like http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html xampp are making life easier - well, not exactly easier, but rather acting in the way that Windows users expect these things to act. It'll help home users get to grips with it, and a large base of semi-skilled amateurs makes for a bigger pool of potential professionals and higher penetration in the long run.
This brings back a memory of a very, very, very long time ago when I was fortunate enough to get to touch a computer that had its root filesystem on a 250mb solid state disk, so that it only had to touch the much slower mechanical drives infrequently.
For it's day the thing was a monster with speed that made my own systems seem inadequate in every way. So what did we do with all of that raw, untamed power?
Played nethack.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a piece of Microsoft software, X. An application Y outputs its data to application X. So far so good...
It does this by (during the export process) loading the software X. Don't ask me why, I didn't write it.
Microsoft app X+1 is now available. App Y *will not export* to app X+1 because the executable has been moved and it can't talk to the new version anyway.
The App Y developers could fix this... but they wont because they have moved onto App Y+1 which we don't want to buy (not yet mature enough). App X is no longer available in the company and we cannot buy licenses for a variety of reasons (mostly due to integration and the fact that version X and X+1 running together cause major problems). There are no other export options except to pay for monkeys to retype all the data - on a weekly basis.
Software upgrades and end of support can attack you in the posterior in unexpected ways, and sticking with old software may not be an option. If you have given away the ability to make your own modifications, or put your data into formats you cannot read, you better make sure it's in your risk register.
::Old-fart Now while Google's advertising is generally pretty inoffensive what's with the idea of putting adverts on anything that stands still long enough for the paint to dry? There are blogs running on $2/month webhosts that use AdSense. Just because it is possible to make money doesn't mean that it's an appropriate thing to do. It reeks of the same kind of greed that causes people to put lengthy disclaimers on their naff short stories or trivial programmes (copyleft excepted) just because they can't stand the idea of missing out on 5 cents. ::End
As for "online OS", could anyone tell me the benefit of having even less control over the OS I'm running?
I have just as much control over the online OS I use as I do over any other OS... because it's running on my own webserver. I decided to give eyeOS a go after reading about it in the last Slashdot discussion on web based OSes and it's very slick.
Installation was trivial and functionality is pretty amazing. Total cost: $0 ($15/mo for the virtual server but I'm already paying for that).
Now, assuming that you are Joe Average and don't want to run your own webserver... then how is using a hosted virtual OS any worse than using a hosted IM client (instead of Jabber) - plenty of sensitive data available there. How is it worse than using YouTube (have you read the license for that service?) instead of running your own server to host your media. What about web based tax services?
In the end you have to make a judgement call regarding trust. For the average user the tradeoff of trust vs convenience and a well managed (spyware and virus free) system may not be where you think it is.
According to Nintendo anyway. This means that if I got one I'd have to run multiple WiFi networks in my house which seems a bit too much like a pain in the neck for a games console.
Of course the GP2x has no built in WiFi at all, but it does seem like a missed opportunity for a product revision this late in the WEP-is-broken world.
They can rename it the Mozilla Suite and then some people can come along and release a lightweight browser with none of the cruft called Firefox.
No one has managed to place effectice restrictions on HTTP activities because the protocol is too noisy with legitimate activity. Might this now be the same in the future with BitTorrent?
...that flights will be 1% less awful with uncut films, or will we just be reduced to watching films like the Pink Panther because all the others are deemed too rude?
With more and more announcements like these, does anyone else think it is inevitable that Linux will overtake Microsoft on all bases one day?
Technically - yes. In fact there are very few areas where this is not already the case technically, with only the interface features left to catch up.
While this is not a small problem (in fact it's a huge problem) it's also the case that now the big nuts have been cracked, so to speak, the UI problems are recieving so much attention that they are being dealt with rapidly.
Firefox is one example of such an improvement (vs Mozilla) however I'd say that the single best example is the gnome wifi applet. This is an example of what *used* to be required to set up WPA. On X86 it's now virtually a two-step point and click process using nm-applet which supports roaming and multiple networks and autoswitching between available connections.
At least NTFS is somewhat understood now and drivers (although imperfect) exist and are being improved.
- anyway rubbish in order to function as well as Microsoft's own offerings.
I understand that WinFS was going to have NTFS as the backend but this avoids the necessity to reverse engineer another closed and obfusicated layer of almost-compliant-with-the-spec-which-you-cant-see
Personally I'm thinking that the WII with a stand made from $400 in cash seems like a pretty interesting option.
Why should the "upstream" or "bigger" distro supplier be obligated to distribute source code for YOUR particular distribution?
Bear in mind that, although not directly related to cases where changes are made, handing out CDs to friends *is also* distribution, but thanks to section 3(c) of the license you are perfectly able to refer them to the "bigger" distro supplier for the source code.
There are cases where indeed the big fish are required to provide source code hosting for the smaller distributors.
Apparently I am also one of those who did not read the license carefully enough - it's a good job I don't redistribute GPL software.
These projects may be covered under section 3 (c) of the license:
(relating to pre-compiled binary distribution)
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
I don't know about you but I would read that as, provided no changes have been made, stating that a link to the MEPIS source code repository was adequate if that was the nature of the offer recieved when the MEPIS binaries were downloaded, provided the sub-distro is non commercial.
In any event for non-commercial sub-distros I cannot see that a violation in word but not spirit of such a minor nature would cause any eyebrows to be raised, generally you have to work quite hard to get sued under the GPL.
For commercial entities then it's an entirley different matter, but if they don't take the time to read and understand the license then, well, words fail me.
...surprised when their guess as to what is required is not correct. Film at 11.
Wikipedia has a pretty good plain English translation of the requirements to distribute GPL software.
I don't see why not - we have had a Microsoft Comic(al) Licence for years.
But even in the west I feel more comfortable using Tor, a (well, close enough) anonymizing proxy.
I used to use JAP (a similar project but the client was Java based and less transparent) but Tor is considerably faster. Throughput up to 60K/sec on a 512k/sec DSL line (as fast as it ever goes with no proxy) means that it's practical to use for all traffic and makes the needle much harder to find in the haystack.
The consequence was the most bloody war in human history - the US civil war. It was considered the most bloody in human history because they were just beginning to figure out how to use these new technologies to kill people,
Might you have a cite? Accoding to wikipedia it is out by two orders of magnitude. (Circa half a million compared to over 60 million for WW2.)
Placing 5000$ (AUS) on Brasil to win would be a good start.
Neither camp has made any significant effort in making their systems truly interoperable
Becuase OpenOffice, Samba, WINE, the various Exchange connectors and all those Windows ports of OSS software are trivial, right? And that's not even the *start* of a comprehensive list.
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
(Mod company) +1 Not Evil
Should you have a Windows machine installing IIS is a doddle. (Installing and getting it to display a web page that is - not running it secureley).
Compare this to the http://www.revis.co.uk/site/?q=node/2 Apache+PHP+MySQL steps that one normally sees. It''s not hard, but its very alien to a Windows user.
Thankfully projects like http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html xampp are making life easier - well, not exactly easier, but rather acting in the way that Windows users expect these things to act. It'll help home users get to grips with it, and a large base of semi-skilled amateurs makes for a bigger pool of potential professionals and higher penetration in the long run.
But I find that for the best data rate through walls all that one requires is a sledge hammer and a fibre optic cable.
This brings back a memory of a very, very, very long time ago when I was fortunate enough to get to touch a computer that had its root filesystem on a 250mb solid state disk, so that it only had to touch the much slower mechanical drives infrequently. For it's day the thing was a monster with speed that made my own systems seem inadequate in every way. So what did we do with all of that raw, untamed power? Played nethack.