Look. I understand your sentiment, and while I can tell you are an insightful person (you have to be otherwise your post wouldn't have scored '2' right?), but you are wrong in this instance.
Some people have seen me posting on/. and debian mailing lists, and know me to be both a regular guy and a law student (soon to be lawyer).
While I can understand your sentiment about lawyers (not liking them), your statement that we have "no valuable skills" is just plain wrong.
What you don't realize is that we have very similar skills. We both are experts in rule sets.
You are an expert in computer rules. I am an expert in government rules. Plain and simple.
Our expertises are implemented in different but complimentary ways. You program something that provides someone with a useful computer service. I advise the programmer as what he or she wants to do with what he or she has produced (i.e., the present legal implications of the production).
I did not create these government rules. I merely memorized them and then understood them for what they are. I have done nothing more than this. In one sense you are right, we do not produce anything, neither do doctors. If someone (or something) sues you we will produce legal documents that advocate legal positions in your defense. You are wrong when you say we have no valuable skills. The only way to get rid of lawyers would be to get rid of governments and social rules. If that were to happen, I would gladly move to Humbolt County California and start cultivating my horticultural talents (think GREEN). (Open Source, Open Mind, Open Universe)
I can completely understand how and why your sentiments have arisen. The reason is not because the concept of 'lawyer' or 'advocate' is flawed. Rather it is because the manner in which our capitalistic system has evolved has created an atmosphere where valuable services must be horded and protected to retain market dominance.
The net result is that fewer people receive the services. In most cases, people do even receive services at all. These things called corporations that we inhereted from jolly-old England have become the main beneficiaries of the legal profession. This obviously must change.
Would your sentiments change if lawyers and government rules experts adopted some of the practices that have benefited the open source community?
What about an LDP (Legal Documentation Project)? Sounds useful. Is there a likelihood that lawyers will start participating in such a project in masse? Not likely so long as no one takes a leadership role much like LT did. However, once a strong leader emerges no one will be speculating and people will be wreaping the benefits of such services.
In other words, lawyers have built a culture of elitism around their profession. I hate elitism as much as the next nerd (unless the elitism is a merit based hierarchy in which case I agree with it [I think]).
Finally, your view is wrong but your sentiment is understandable. Lawyers do provide a valuable service, but the anger towards them is really a relfection of all of our frustration against the system of government rules we have allowed to invade our lives. All we have to do is change the rules. I believe the internet will arise as a virtual world. It will be a model of ideal society. If developed carefully, we can replace our actual rules with the model rules.
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful PROCESS, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter..... may obtain a patent...."
I don't like it either folks. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular claim, software patents are justified by the term 'process' where process means "art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, compositions of matter, or material."
Case law is not going to change that language.
The trend in patent law is toward broader interpretation of process not narrower.
And I challenge any of you to justify copyright at the extent of patent. You really think copyright is better? Try a 70 yr monopoly vs. a 20 yr monopoly. That's right 70. That applies to Mickey Mouse and Mickeysoft.
What you are all really upset about are intellectual property monopolies. Guess what?
They are in Art. I of the US Constitution.
You need a strong lobby. Guess who is going to be strongest in the lobby? BG.
Lawyers did not screw this whole system up. The system did. A lawyer can sue you, a lawyer can defend you.
At a minimum the hacker community needs a rallying point on the legal front. Put yer heads together and make is so #1!
Hmmm... Harvard administrators consented to housing the info.
They aided him in maintaining the site.
Gave him superuser privileges. (Made him a privileged user).
There was a threat of lawsuit, and they destroyed his IP that they allowed him to publish for very long long time.
Depending on the value of the material (which would have to be argued), He may have a claim against Harvard yet for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress (killed is school project with their outrageous response thus depriving him of his educational benefits and expenditures in tuition), perhaps even interference with a contract. All of these are tort (injury) type claims and punitive damages would be available. OOOO He has some reputation damages as well!!! Ha Ha, he's got claims... Harvard will settle on a handsome sum of cash after a little bargaining.
Let's get him a lawyer to represent him on a contingency fee basis in a lawsuit against Harvard! He must be really really pissed.
natedawg to the rescue of all scum-sucking bottom-dwellers...
A scant few of us (lawyer types) actually can use unix/bsd/linux.
I do not agree with the current state of affairs in the on-line world. The problem is not lawyer domination; rather, it is corporate-lawyer domination.
The internet is evolving into a haven for big-biz,and the little-folks are being converted into commodities.
Lawyers are not evil en toto. We all are happy for our lawyers that do a good job to protect our interests.
In the Geocities cases, there is Geocities represented by Yahoo's lawyers, and the other side (the homesteaders) do not have representation (yet). This presents a power imbalance.
Perhaps a new kind of governmental model may help home users to close the power gap.
Never before have so many average people come into direct or indirect contact with lawyers, contracts, and licenses. There must be a way for these people to learn about and receive advice as to courses of action.
Enter the ICP owned by [a] lawyer/s. (Don't get all pissed off yet...) I know that for most people contact with lawyers is anethema. What if the you had a contract with a lawyer for representation in internet related issues; your website and all it's content was housed on the lawyer's servers; and your email etc was also housed there.
By doing this, you can keep or release as much control over your content as you like. You will be covered by the attorney/client privilege and you can waive that privilege to the extent you like. Even the NSA's own tactics will work for you!
This sounds a little far fetched because lawyers are clueless for the most part about computers. But this model will protect content. Hypothetically the lawyer/ICP could charge minimally for the cost because a large volume of people could be serviced. So exorbitant lawyer fees could be a thing of the past.
Well, it is just a dream. And I AM just a law student... But, I'm thoroughly convinced that if the average user doesn't receive legal representation in their everday meanderings on the net, we will all be owned by corporations and corporate lawyers.
Until then... encrypted everything. Set up VPNs. Think security and ownership in everything you do on the internet.
The day may come when your driver's licence number is the property of X.com...
I sincerely believe that we must begin a movement whereby every home houses it's own IP addresses and mail/http/etc servers.
The above poster is quite correct when he says that we ought to be aware that when our mail or any other information for that matter is posted via some corporation's servers, we ought to know that we have impliedly waived some of our personal expectations of privacy.
In fact, the courts have reinforced this notion with several of the cases that have eroded our rights under the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have held that we have given up some of our privacy by driving cars and keeping our private property in public view (plain sight). (This is a simplifications so all the lawyers out there chill out).
The court will likely rule in a similar way in respect to information privacy. The court will protect privacy only insofar as we as the public at large have sought to take measures to protect our own privacy.
Having our information on public servers, or corporate servers is in a sense forfeiting a certain amount of privacy to expediency.
If we as a society are really serious about privacy we need to start to act on it. Most of us are following the internet revolution via commercial television advertisements. This is unacceptable. We need to become educated about the way that our information is used.
We need to take measures to protect our privacy. This means more than PGP. It means we need to house our own email servers, our own httpd servers, irc etc., etc.
The only thing left open to the public ought to be nameservers. Services like dhis.org, ddns.org, tzo.com, etc. allow home users to house their own servers.
At a minimum people who cannot afford the equipment should look seriously into forming organizations to achieve the same result, i.e., information privacy and active protection and maintenance measures.
Every American can afford a $3-400 pc. We need to teach people that they can use that equipment to run their own servers. They need to know what this means, and what it entails. We must inform the government that we are serious about our privacy and independence as a people. If we fail to do this, we will have failed ourselves. We will have subordinated our personal rights as individuals to the government's interests in control.
see what they did to Serbia? They flattened it. It's not just America either. It's NATO. There is no world power that can withstand that kind of punishment. NATO was only using one branch of the armed forces for that too. There are at least three others. No American and other NATO forces will call the shots for at least 20 more years, like it or not. Any country that attempts to challenge that proposition will find itself leveled.
From what I remember, RH sold around 3-400,000 units last year. These are good, but not stellar numbers. Their sales growth over the past 3 years has been very stellar (don't know off the top). But I know it is pretty good, double digit growth at least... While RH may not be a strong stock out of the gate, I think over the next 5 years it will be damn good. Even if open source is just a fad (which a simple analysis of the total technology used on the internet will show that it isn't), but if we assume it is, we can still conclude that from RH's growth compared to the total growth of Linux systems we will find that in the next 5 yrs the stock will grow significantly.
My personal feeling on the long-term linux outlook is not good profit wise. Imagine over the next 5 years every computer desktop has Linux of some version, and RH's is a significant fraction. At that point, every one of those desktops could be upgraded directly over the internet from free servers. In fact, this is the easiest way to upgrade (or burn free cds). Even if most people don't upgrade this way, a downward trend for linux will be in the making. But in 5 years, I suspect an entirely new OS will emerge based on the incredible advances in technology that will inevitably occur within the next 5 years. If the new tech is open source, then RH can benefit.
But Linux itself will have a limited life. Even Linus has said that the 2.2.x tree pretty much has all the features a kernel could have (give or take a few). His view is that Linux will progress significantly in the userland stuff (not kernel stuff). M$ also knows that W2000 and Office 2000 will pretty much max out the potential utility of PC and Office software (Which is why BG bought a little boy genius to design M$ "AGENT" (my name) a face and voice recognition interface.
Linux is a good investment in the short-term, and M$ is way to rich to die. (I use Debian/GNU Linux, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD so don't call me a M$ advocate; I'm just realistic). Finally, the wrong-headed opinion writer was right about one thing: Linux is not the object of total loyalty. However, Open Source IS and WILL BE. I remember reading the article about M$'s next gen kiddie and his work describing a usenet that M$ killed b/c M$ employees were trying to convince the child to license his work under the GPL. THE SAGA CONTINUES...
Although intuition does not allow one necessarily to communicate the findings, the realizations are a kind of knowledge. One gains inarticulable information, but that does not mean the information does not have a source. The questions is: at what rate does the information pass from the source to the person? If you believe the materialist scientists the answer is 'not at all.' If you believe ancient mysticism, it is described as appearing like oil pouring from one vessel to another, an instant connection, a constant and simultaneous flow. These concepts are very difficult to articulate so we use poetry. In scientific terms it would be characterized like the previous poster did: two particles seem to join when observed but move apart when not. We come to know things from out of thin air (seemingly); rather, we cannot identify the source. When we do, the physical world and the source are indistinguishable; rather the source appears more real. This effect causes the physical world to appear as an illusion. It really isn't, the physical world is the hardware conforming to the rules set by the source. Thus, it subordinates to it. I believe that the ancient mystics were mistaken when they said the physical world is illusory. It is real (i.e., in existence) at some level; it is easy to become overwhelmed by the information transfered by concentration on the intuitive capacity. That is why Western science has rejected mysticism and now (later) they approach parity. In the evolution of knowledge, we had to iron out the kinks. Until now the kinds were "what is this physical thing all about." We come to find that the core of morality (rules divined by intuition and experience) i.e, growth, nurturing, death are part and parcel of the physical reality. The physical law of order from chaos is reflected in our society from nature. Behind the apparent chaos is the underlying order, the rules that govern the formation.
I hear Roxen Challenger and Xitami are pretty fast too. Roxen's on Linux. I don't know about Xitami. FreeBSD has a Xitami port. It's supposed to be fast. I like apache just fine.
Remember why we all use linux folks: because it runs on our puny little PCs and gives us the same reach as the big boys. NT is aimed at the big boys. They can spend $5K on it if they want. I don't.
considering the speed with which linux has progressed in the past year, is there any reason to think it cannot achieve many of the attributes that make the other 'specialty' OS's prominent in their respective areas? With corps like SGI behind the platform imagine the speed of development?
As of today, I would have to agree with you. But Linux is not at it's apex. Other OSs may be.
Linux has wiggle room.
OpenBSD v. Debian's non-US security apps
on
*BSD News
·
· Score: 1
I'm very interested in security stuff.
I currently use debian's non-US security stuff; primarily, ssh, ssl, apache-ssl, ssltelnet, etc.
"It's just that the country itself is *so* uncivilized."
This would make the US 'civilized' in comparison?
India is poor, unsanitary and crowded. But Indian families are strong and spiritual. They value education and moral living. So India might not be Westernized or fully industrialized, but it is civilized.
While America is Westernized and industrialized, recent events lead me to believe that it may not be entirely civilized. (see Jerry Springer Show)...
That would be $350 million people who are middle class by American standards.
These people have VCRs, telephones, cell phones, and yes PCs. They would love to do business on a network environment.
In addition, the Indian government has opened the ISP market up for competition.
I know I'm scrambling to think of ways of cashing in on this huge market. Yes India is poor, but with a middle class population equivalent to the entire US, that's a lot of growth. If only 12% Indians purchase computers that would be about 120,000,000 new computer users who would choose linux over windows.
I don't know stats about China, but I bet they are not much different.
Slashdot Mirror
Look. I understand your sentiment, and while I can tell you are an insightful person (you have to be otherwise your post wouldn't have scored '2' right?), but you are wrong in this instance.
/. and debian mailing lists, and know me to be both a regular guy and a law student (soon to be lawyer).
Some people have seen me posting on
While I can understand your sentiment about lawyers (not liking them), your statement that we have "no valuable skills" is just plain wrong.
What you don't realize is that we have very similar skills. We both are experts in rule sets.
You are an expert in computer rules. I am an expert in government rules. Plain and simple.
Our expertises are implemented in different but complimentary ways. You program something that provides someone with a useful computer service. I advise the programmer as what he or she wants to do with what he or she has produced (i.e., the present legal implications of the production).
I did not create these government rules. I merely memorized them and then understood them for what they are. I have done nothing more than this. In one sense you are right, we do not produce anything, neither do doctors. If someone (or something) sues you we will produce legal documents that advocate legal positions in your defense. You are wrong when you say we have no valuable skills. The only way to get rid of lawyers would be to get rid of governments and social rules. If that were to happen, I would gladly move to Humbolt County California and start cultivating my horticultural talents (think GREEN). (Open Source, Open Mind, Open Universe)
I can completely understand how and why your sentiments have arisen. The reason is not because the concept of 'lawyer' or 'advocate' is flawed. Rather it is because the manner in which our capitalistic system has evolved has created an atmosphere where valuable services must be horded and protected to retain market dominance.
The net result is that fewer people receive the services. In most cases, people do even receive services at all. These things called corporations that we inhereted from jolly-old England have become the main beneficiaries of the legal profession. This obviously must change.
Would your sentiments change if lawyers and government rules experts adopted some of the practices that have benefited the open source community?
What about an LDP (Legal Documentation Project)? Sounds useful. Is there a likelihood that lawyers will start participating in such a project in masse? Not likely so long as no one takes a leadership role much like LT did. However, once a strong leader emerges no one will be speculating and people will be wreaping the benefits of such services.
In other words, lawyers have built a culture of elitism around their profession. I hate elitism as much as the next nerd (unless the elitism is a merit based hierarchy in which case I agree with it [I think]).
Finally, your view is wrong but your sentiment is understandable. Lawyers do provide a valuable service, but the anger towards them is really a relfection of all of our frustration against the system of government rules we have allowed to invade our lives. All we have to do is change the rules. I believe the internet will arise as a virtual world. It will be a model of ideal society. If developed carefully, we can replace our actual rules with the model rules.
Section 101 of the Cright Act says...
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
PROCESS, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter..... may obtain a patent...."
I don't like it either folks. Notwithstanding the merits of this particular claim, software patents are justified by the term 'process' where process means "art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, compositions of matter, or material."
Case law is not going to change that language.
The trend in patent law is toward broader interpretation of process not narrower.
And I challenge any of you to justify copyright at the extent of patent. You really think copyright is better? Try a 70 yr monopoly vs. a 20 yr monopoly. That's right 70. That applies to Mickey Mouse and Mickeysoft.
What you are all really upset about are intellectual property monopolies. Guess what?
They are in Art. I of the US Constitution.
You need a strong lobby. Guess who is going to be strongest in the lobby? BG.
Lawyers did not screw this whole system up. The system did. A lawyer can sue you, a lawyer can defend you.
At a minimum the hacker community needs a rallying point on the legal front. Put yer heads together and make is so #1!
Hmmm... Harvard administrators consented to housing the info.
They aided him in maintaining the site.
Gave him superuser privileges. (Made him a privileged user).
There was a threat of lawsuit, and they destroyed his IP that they allowed him to publish for very long long time.
Depending on the value of the material (which would have to be argued), He may have a claim against Harvard yet for conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress (killed is school project with their outrageous response thus depriving him of his educational benefits and expenditures in tuition), perhaps even interference with a contract. All of these are tort (injury) type claims and punitive damages would be available. OOOO He has some reputation damages as well!!! Ha Ha, he's got claims... Harvard will settle on a handsome sum of cash after a little bargaining.
Let's get him a lawyer to represent him on a contingency fee basis in a lawsuit against Harvard! He must be really really pissed.
As long as litigation remains only a threat
they can destroy the material that is their property.
I'm sure there are agreements present where this
guy waived ownership rights to his work while
employed there.
Whatever the case, Harvard has no worries.
For penalties to arise from destroying evidence
there must be a lawsuit filed already, and a mere threat will not do.
natedawg to the rescue of all scum-sucking bottom-dwellers...
A scant few of us (lawyer types) actually can use unix/bsd/linux.
I do not agree with the current state of affairs in the on-line world. The problem is not lawyer domination; rather, it is corporate-lawyer domination.
The internet is evolving into a haven for big-biz,and the little-folks are being converted into commodities.
Lawyers are not evil en toto. We all are happy for our lawyers that do a good job to protect our interests.
In the Geocities cases, there is Geocities represented by Yahoo's lawyers, and the other side (the homesteaders) do not have representation (yet). This presents a power imbalance.
Perhaps a new kind of governmental model may help home users to close the power gap.
Never before have so many average people come into direct or indirect contact with lawyers, contracts, and licenses. There must be a way for these people to learn about and receive advice as to courses of action.
Enter the ICP owned by [a] lawyer/s. (Don't get all pissed off yet...) I know that for most people contact with lawyers is anethema. What if the you had a contract with a lawyer for representation in internet related issues; your website and all it's content was housed on the lawyer's servers; and your email etc was also housed there.
By doing this, you can keep or release as much control over your content as you like. You will be covered by the attorney/client privilege and you can waive that privilege to the extent you like. Even the NSA's own tactics will work for you!
This sounds a little far fetched because lawyers are clueless for the most part about computers. But this model will protect content. Hypothetically the lawyer/ICP could charge minimally for the cost because a large volume of people could be serviced. So exorbitant lawyer fees could be a thing of the past.
Well, it is just a dream. And I AM just a law student... But, I'm thoroughly convinced that if the average user doesn't receive legal representation in their everday meanderings on the net, we will all be owned by corporations and corporate lawyers.
Until then... encrypted everything. Set up VPNs. Think security and ownership in everything you do on the internet.
The day may come when your driver's licence number is the property of X.com...
has been drawn. Who drew it?
Where is it?
Who are you?
Who is that?
What did he say?
What does he want?
Who is he with?
Did you hear?
Did you hear that?
"I am a law student. I spend a lot of time on this new communications medium that no one owns yet.
"The men are trying to buy it. If they can't buy it, they want to control it. If they can't control it, they will make the speakers fear.
"I believe war has been declared against me. They want me to tell them how to break into my network and monitor my friends.
"Attorney-client privilege mutha fucka; just like the NSA mutha fucka, attorney-client privilege!!!"
You right that many Americans may not try to purchase something which costs that much.
But I believe that the Internet will become so pervasive that they will wish they had.
I sincerely believe that we must begin a movement whereby every home houses it's own IP addresses and mail/http/etc servers.
The above poster is quite correct when he says that we ought to be aware that when our mail or any other information for that matter is posted via some corporation's servers, we ought to know that we have impliedly waived some of our personal expectations of privacy.
In fact, the courts have reinforced this notion with several of the cases that have eroded our rights under the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have held that we have given up some of our privacy by driving cars and keeping our private property in public view (plain sight). (This is a simplifications so all the lawyers out there chill out).
The court will likely rule in a similar way in respect to information privacy. The court will protect privacy only insofar as we as the public at large have sought to take measures to protect our own privacy.
Having our information on public servers, or corporate servers is in a sense forfeiting a certain amount of privacy to expediency.
If we as a society are really serious about privacy we need to start to act on it. Most of us are following the internet revolution via commercial television advertisements. This is unacceptable. We need to become educated about the way that our information is used.
We need to take measures to protect our privacy. This means more than PGP. It means we need to house our own email servers, our own httpd servers, irc etc., etc.
The only thing left open to the public ought to be nameservers. Services like dhis.org, ddns.org, tzo.com, etc. allow home users to house their own servers.
At a minimum people who cannot afford the equipment should look seriously into forming organizations to achieve the same result, i.e., information privacy and active protection and maintenance measures.
Every American can afford a $3-400 pc. We need to teach people that they can use that equipment to run their own servers. They need to know what this means, and what it entails. We must inform the government that we are serious about our privacy and independence as a people. If we fail to do this, we will have failed ourselves. We will have subordinated our personal rights as individuals to the government's interests in control.
said "I am the body." Krishna said, "You are that."
The personality fills the body. Life fills the cosmos. These are not different.
*IT* all began... with a distinction.
is life? What is creation?
see what they did to Serbia? They flattened it. It's not just America either. It's NATO. There is no world power that can withstand that kind of punishment. NATO was only using one branch of the armed forces for that too. There are at least three others. No American and other NATO forces will call the shots for at least 20 more years, like it or not. Any country that attempts to challenge that proposition will find itself leveled.
Postilion has a pgp autosiging option. That's a GPL app so you need linux or a *BSD.
From what I remember, RH sold around 3-400,000 units last year. These are good, but not stellar numbers. Their sales growth over the past 3 years has been very stellar (don't know off the top). But I know it is pretty good, double digit growth at least... While RH may not be a strong stock out of the gate, I think over the next 5 years it will be damn good. Even if open source is just a fad (which a simple analysis of the total technology used on the internet will show that it isn't), but if we assume it is, we can still conclude that from RH's growth compared to the total growth of Linux systems we will find that in the next 5 yrs the stock will grow significantly.
My personal feeling on the long-term linux outlook is not good profit wise. Imagine over the next 5 years every computer desktop has Linux of some version, and RH's is a significant fraction. At that point, every one of those desktops could be upgraded directly over the internet from free servers. In fact, this is the easiest way to upgrade (or burn free cds). Even if most people don't upgrade this way, a downward trend for linux will be in the making. But in 5 years, I suspect an entirely new OS will emerge based on the incredible advances in technology that will inevitably occur within the next 5 years. If the new tech is open source, then RH can benefit.
But Linux itself will have a limited life. Even Linus has said that the 2.2.x tree pretty much has all the features a kernel could have (give or take a few). His view is that Linux will progress significantly in the userland stuff (not kernel stuff). M$ also knows that W2000 and Office 2000 will pretty much max out the potential utility of PC and Office software (Which is why BG bought a little boy genius to design M$ "AGENT" (my name) a face and voice recognition interface.
Linux is a good investment in the short-term, and M$ is way to rich to die. (I use Debian/GNU Linux, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD so don't call me a M$ advocate; I'm just realistic). Finally, the wrong-headed opinion writer was right about one thing: Linux is not the object of total loyalty. However, Open Source IS and WILL BE. I remember reading the article about M$'s next gen kiddie and his work describing a usenet that M$ killed b/c M$ employees were trying to convince the child to license his work under the GPL. THE SAGA CONTINUES...
I've been looking very hard into Open BSD lately.
We need strong encryption down to the OS
level. If I have to move out of the US to do it,
then so be it!
I will not sacrifice my privacy for government
interests!
Let's do it!
Hey what's the Nasdaq symbol going to be?
When can the rest of us buy in?
My Dell Inspiron 3000 runs Debian and X just fine
at 800x600 at 24bpp. It's quite useable.
Although intuition does not allow one necessarily to communicate the findings, the realizations are a kind of knowledge. One gains inarticulable information, but that does not mean the information does not have a source. The questions is: at what rate does the information pass from the source to the person? If you believe the materialist scientists the answer is 'not at all.' If you believe ancient mysticism, it is described as appearing like oil pouring from one vessel to another, an instant connection, a constant and simultaneous flow. These concepts are very difficult to articulate so we use poetry. In scientific terms it would be characterized like the previous poster did: two particles seem to join when observed but move apart when not. We come to know things from out of thin air (seemingly); rather, we cannot identify the source. When we do, the physical world and the source are indistinguishable; rather the source appears more real. This effect causes the physical world to appear as
an illusion. It really isn't, the physical world is the hardware conforming to the rules set by the source. Thus, it subordinates to it. I believe that the ancient mystics were mistaken when they said the physical world is illusory. It is real (i.e., in existence) at some level; it is easy to become overwhelmed by the information transfered by concentration on the intuitive capacity. That is why Western science has rejected mysticism and now (later) they approach parity. In the evolution of knowledge, we had to iron out the kinks. Until now the kinds were "what is this physical thing all about." We come to find that the core of morality (rules divined by intuition and experience) i.e, growth, nurturing, death are part and parcel of the physical reality. The physical law of order from chaos is reflected in our society from nature. Behind the apparent chaos is the underlying order, the rules that govern the formation.
I hear Roxen Challenger and Xitami are pretty
fast too. Roxen's on Linux. I don't know
about Xitami. FreeBSD has a Xitami port.
It's supposed to be fast. I like apache just
fine.
Remember why we all use linux folks: because
it runs on our puny little PCs and gives us
the same reach as the big boys. NT is aimed at
the big boys. They can spend $5K on it if they want. I don't.
Debian is at 2.1. Then there's Potato, which
has not been versionized yet. Later...
The mailing lists for debian and the irc help is more or less the best there is for any OS.
Go to www.debian.org and learn more. It's a great user supported system.
considering the speed with which linux has progressed in the past year, is there any reason to think it cannot achieve many of the attributes that make the other 'specialty' OS's prominent in their respective areas? With corps like SGI behind the platform imagine the speed of development?
As of today, I would have to agree with you. But Linux is not at it's apex. Other OSs may be.
Linux has wiggle room.
I'm very interested in security stuff.
I currently use debian's non-US security stuff; primarily, ssh, ssl, apache-ssl, ssltelnet, etc.
What can OpenBSD offer over what I already have?
"It's just that the country itself is *so* uncivilized."
This would make the US 'civilized' in comparison?
India is poor, unsanitary and crowded. But Indian families are strong and spiritual. They value education and moral living. So India might not be Westernized or fully industrialized, but it is civilized.
While America is Westernized and industrialized, recent events lead me to believe that it may not be entirely civilized. (see Jerry Springer Show)...
That would be $350 million people who are middle class by American standards.
These people have VCRs, telephones, cell phones, and yes PCs. They would love to do business on a network environment.
In addition, the Indian government has opened the ISP market up for competition.
I know I'm scrambling to think of ways of cashing in on this huge market. Yes India is poor, but with a middle class population equivalent to the entire US, that's a lot of growth. If only 12% Indians purchase computers that would be about 120,000,000 new computer users who would choose linux over windows.
I don't know stats about China, but I bet they are not much different.