Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment So Microsoft Edge will finally kill Windows, eh? (Score 1) 255 255

The only things holding back people to Windows, I thought - IE and VB style client server apps. There are still ao many websites, specially banking and so-called inhouse web apps that rely on ActiveX and Craptive things on the Windows Ecosystem. So with Edge, the intrwebs will be forced to support a standards-compliant browser on the Windows desktop. Very good.

Once that is complete, the only reason for Windows on the desktop will be gone, and browsers like Firefox, Chrome and Opera - which are all standards-compliant, more so than IE at any rate; will become first class citizens again. And there will be nothing to hold back Linux in the Enterprises which have moved on from VB crap.

Good to hear.

Comment Can this be installed on a dual-boot machine (Score 1) 314 314

Probably going to be told I am a noob, but:

I have a dual-boot machine. It is an Acer machine and has a legitimate Windows 7 license and I installed Linux, keeping Windows 7 in a resized partition, and occasionally boot into it (it has a bug where it will not boot without a usb keyboard plugged in so I don't do it as often as I thought I would as I have to dig out that keyboard and plug it in). Linux is the default boot. I have no "recovery disk" and I may have lost any paperwork that came with the machine but it is a real legal copy.

So the question is: can I replace 7 with 10? Without damaging the Linux install? If it screws up grub how do I get it back?

Comment Re:Update Clashes (Score 2) 316 316

the most obvious solution is to uninstall third party driver management and hand it all over to Windows Update to avoid clashes.

This is neither obvious nor desirable, never a solution. Windows is an OS written by Microsoft. Generally, Microsoft makes no hardware, yet, the OS runs on hardware.

So the obvious solution is for MS to publish and adhere to standards for device drivers interfacing and integrating with the OS, and keep shut. Otherwise, Microsoft should be the sole mfr. of all hardware that is supported by and on Windows.

H/w vendors aim to make money by making their products superior - faster, better resolution / frame rate / quality etc. So they tend to keep their innovations private. If MS demands all h/w mfrs to send their code to Seattle and get it certified for every version and release, the vendors would be afraid of backstabbing, and code, architecture, design reaching their competitors.

So only obvious way is to release a standards compliance OS and keep shut. Or else, like Linux, MS can open source their OS and allow the distribution makers to bundle the OS, h/w, appln s/w, printer drivers and updates to all of them. Or else MS must put up and shut up while ambitious companies like NVidia, Samsung etc. try to innovate..

Comment Root Cause Analysis report - Greed, Evil (Score 1) 316 316

Question: Who owns the device drivers for hardware?

In the Linux world, the h/w vendor publishes specs, or conforms to standards, so the kernel guys write drivers and merge it. The distributors like RedHat keep sending updated drivers.

In the Windows World, Microsoft seems to have deep distrust of h/w vendors, despite not making any hardware by themselves. MS does not enjoy any h/w vendor having control of the OS internals, but such control is essential for the h/w to work.

If MS published interface or device driver standards, and adhered to them, then again the device mfrs wouldn't have issues. But MS keeps changing WDDM, DirectX and other interfaces, very often and without prior notice to h/w guys.

Atleast in Linux, if somebody wanted to use a display h/w with just some poor standard such as VESA without any fancy acceleration stuff, they can get it without instability and proprietary shims and stuff. Windows users are doomed by design.

Comment Re:Morse Code (Score 1) 617 617

Oh, wait, you didn't need to pass a test for that.

I'm just trying to think how that would have been possible. I think back then there was a medical exception you could plead for. I didn't. I passed the 20 WPM test fair and square and got K6BP as a vanity call, long before there was any way to get that call without passing a 20 WPM test.

Unfortunately, ARRL did fight to keep those code speeds in place, and to keep code requirements, for the last several decades that I know of and probably continuously since 1936. Of course there was all of the regulation around incentive licensing, where code speeds were given a primary role. Just a few years ago, they sent Rod Stafford to the final IARU meeting on the code issue with one mission: preventing an international vote for removal of S25.5 . They lost.

I am not blaming this on ARRL staff and officers. Many of them have privately told me of their support, including some directors and their First VP, now SK. It's the membership that has been the problem.

I am having a lot of trouble believing the government agency and NGO thing, as well. I talked with some corporate emergency managers as part of my opposition to the encryption proceeding (we won that too, by the way, and I dragged an unwilling ARRL, who had said they would not comment, into the fight). Big hospitals, etc.

What I got from the corporate folks was that their management was resistant to using Radio Amateurs regardless of what the law was. Not that they were chomping at the bit waiting to be able to carry HIPAA-protected emergency information via encrypted Amateur radio. Indeed, if you read the encryption proceeding, public agencies and corporations hardly commented at all. That point was made very clearly in FCC's statement - the agencies that were theorized by Amateurs to want encryption didn't show any interest in the proceeding.

So, I am having trouble believing that the federal agency and NGO thing is real because of that.

Comment Re:Morse Code (Score 1) 617 617

The Technican Element 3 test wasn't more difficult than the Novice Element 1 and 2 together, so Technican became the lowest license class when they stopped having to take Element 1.

The change to 13 WPM was in 1936, and was specifically to reduce the number of Amateur applicants. It was 10 WPM before that. ARRL asked for 12.5 WPM in their filing, FCC rounded the number because they felt it would be difficult to set 12.5 on the Instructograph and other equipment available for code practice at the time.

It was meant to keep otherwise-worthy hams out of the hobby. And then we let that requirement keep going for 60 years.

The Indianapolis cop episode was back in 2009. It wasn't the first time we've had intruders, and won't be the last, and if you have to reach back that long for an example, the situation can't be that bad. It had nothing to do with code rules or NGOs getting their operators licenses.

A satphone is less expensive than a trained HF operator. Iridium costs $30 per month and $0.89 per minute to call another Iridium phone. That's the over-the-counter rate. Government agencies get a better rate than that. And the phone costs $1100, again that's retail not the government rate, less than an HF rig with antenna and tower will cost any public agency to install.

You think it's a big deal to lobby against paid operators because there will be objections? How difficult do you think it was to reform the code regulations? Don't you think there were lots of opposing comments?

And you don't care about young people getting into Amateur Radio. That's non-survival thinking.

Fortunately, when the real hams go to get something done, folks like you aren't hard to fight, because you don't really do much other than whine and send in the occassional FCC comment. Do you know I even spoke in Iceland when I was lobbying against the code rules? Their IARU vote had the same power as that of the U.S., and half of the hams in the country came to see me. That's how you make real change.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982