Slashdot Mirror

This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?

This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?

This is Darl McBride. He hires bodyguards because people infringing on his "intellectual property", while in fact being very nice and harmless scare him. (There are more of them.) Am I really the only one not surprised?

I found it much easier to deal (in hindsight) with the (mostly verbal) abuse I suffered at school when I realised this. In most cases, the kids concerned didn't actually hate me in the way I used to think; they just didn't know what they were doing to me (and didn't care enough to find out). Hanlon's Razor applies, I guess.

I don't think empathy is something you can teach; it either comes naturally to you, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then you have to put some effort into it, and most people don't bother. You can probably teach the need for it, but I doubt that those who most need to learn the lesson will do so.

Anyway, is it me, or is putting a huge number of kids together, in a high-pressure environment with few adults, little room and nowhere to escape to, a poor way to teach them compassion, empathy, and other social skills?

I'm disappointed. This is a KDE application. Why isn't it K-RAD?

So my ISP start blocking all *inbound* traffic on port 25 to avoid the exploit of poorly configured servers. I ran a mailserver for quite some time and without notice I was cut off early August 2002.

My first 'solution' was using Eric S. Raymond's fetchmail. My domain name registrar let me choose to define a MX host for my mail, or to have all mail forwarded to an existing pop account. So I changed it to the latter and let fetchmail empty that pop box on a 15 minute interval from my mailserver. Fetchmail examines the headers of every individual e-mail, rewrites the headers and submit it to localhost which was cut off in the first place.
This works quite nice, but has some side effects like BCC's which couldn't be resolved anymore and ended up in the 'main' account. Still, it works out fine, provided that you have an e-mail account you can use. I had one which came with my ISP.

So I stumbled upon no-ip.com. They provide a mail-reflector which reroutes e-mail to a port of my choosing. So I made them the primary MX host for my domain and let my mailserver listen on a high-port. Works like a charms for over a year no without any problems. I'm sure there are others who provide similar services.

Martijn

If he answered that question with anything other than Mu, his geek cred would immediately be revoked.

There was no 'first' computer - there were actually two identical computers built at the same time during the second world war - the Colossus electronic cryptanalytic machine - used to break the Enigma code used by the Germans - both machines destroyed shortly after the war, under orders from Winston Churchhill to break it up into pieces "not larger than a man's fist". Since they were Top Secret devices, and not disclosed to the public until the 1970s, the British did not get credit for building the first computer.

The Germans also had a device that was very close to being a computer, but did not store its programs - more akin to a Babbage difference engine without conditional branching - built in 1937 by Konrad Zuse. It used Binary arithmetic - an interesting advance for its time; Zuse calculaters were used in the engineering of the V2 rocket.

The computers built after that were one of a kind - there was no 'standard hardware' or 'standard software' floating around from different vendors.

Back in the days of the Dinosaurs, Real Programmers built the first operating systems for the new beasties - and generally ended up rewriting their creations when hardware became obsolete and new equipment entered the data centre. Not until the introduction of the mini-computer did standardization, interoperability and portability start to show up on the radar screen (circa 1960s).

There was no 'first' computer - there were actually two identical computers built at the same time during the second world war - the Colossus electronic cryptanalytic machine - used to break the Enigma code used by the Germans - both machines destroyed shortly after the war, under orders from Winston Churchhill to break it up into pieces "not larger than a man's fist". Since they were Top Secret devices, and not disclosed to the public until the 1970s, the British did not get credit for building the first computer.

The Germans also had a device that was very close to being a computer, but did not store its programs - more akin to a Babbage difference engine without conditional branching - built in 1937 by Konrad Zuse. It used Binary arithmetic - an interesting advance for its time; Zuse calculaters were used in the engineering of the V2 rocket.

The computers built after that were one of a kind - there was no 'standard hardware' or 'standard software' floating around from different vendors.

Back in the days of the Dinosaurs, Real Programmers built the first operating systems for the new beasties - and generally ended up rewriting their creations when hardware became obsolete and new equipment entered the data centre. Not until the introduction of the mini-computer did standardization, interoperability and portability start to show up on the radar screen (circa 1960s).

I should have included the link to The Cathedral And The Bazaar in my original post.

So you think Vidal is an idiot (debatable). What is your position then on Bush's assault on the Constitution?

I believe the correct answer to your question is mu.

We are now at GhandiCon 3

troll

How many software packages does the OSI provide?

The Open Source Initiative doesn't seem to maintain software as such, but its president does. I count at least a couple dozen apps by Mr. Raymond alone; the web pages of other board members show their contributions. Notably, Michael Tiemann wrote G++, and Guido van Rossum wrote Python.

You mean, this

Try looking up Joe Job.

And when you can't afford to put the signal on the air anymore, the ratio balances out perfectly... 0:0

Fortunately, this just isn't true. Your point implies that advertising is the only thing that funds content on the net. Anyone who was around prior to 1993 or so will tell you that while there might not have been as much content available, there was a lot less dross and a much higher signal to noise ratio.

They don't talk about the September that never ended for no reason.

Any software that is sufficiently large is going to have bugs.

Don't be so sure. Look at all the blunders made by corporations when it came to Unix: AT&T, Sun, DEC, etc (see here). History repeats itself, it seems.

(of it's not that simple; there are many forces pushing for such decisions; but the lack of vision and coherent strategy is sad, to say the least).

Microsoft is dead, all hail the true kings of order.

But does it block ESR's site?

...no feature is as important as freedom.

"...After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon."

The Art of Unix Programming

Specifically, rcs systems provide the same functionality, and several allready exist. So why not spend your devlopment time on an interface for Joe Six-pack, rather than re-inventing the wheel.

Especially since we'll probably find out this wheel has a remarkably squarish shape...

the Goat-Foot God?

Of course, they'll think that it's a company or something, maybe even think that it's a new MS logo or something, but then you clarify... "And get this, it's all free and open!"

Damn. I cannot believe I am about to do this...

Ahemm... well, I guess I'll be the first Logo-nazi (think "grammar-nazi"). The term "Hacker" is defined in the Jargon File in such a way that it has nothing to do with open-source, GNU, or for that matter software at all. Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.

Let me refer you to HOWTO Be a Hacker courtesy of ESR.

"Read science fiction. Go to science fiction conventions (a good way to meet hackers and proto-hackers)."

This is under the "Bonus Points for Style" section of the HOWTO. I see nothing about 'Heinlein' mentioned there. Simply a command to go to sci-fi conventions and read sci-fi. The majority of which just plain sucks. Most of the books of that genre I read just outright bite. I won't even get into how much I hate David Weber and some of the other hacks. Of course the diamonds in the rough in this particular genre make it worthwile for me to read it.

My comment was merely a ribbing of the arrogance and ridiculousness of ESR's whole deal. The guy is on a major power-trip.

If you aren't the kind of person that feels this way naturally, you'll need to become one in order to make it as a hacker. Otherwise you'll find your hacking energy is sapped by distractions like sex, money, and social approval.

Not sure where you got your information from...

The Jargon File contains this for the appropriate entry: "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor']."

Moreover, Tanenbaum, whom I would tend to lend a bit more credence to than ESR, but that's another discussion, claims in Modern Opeating Systems that daemon is merely "a variant spelling of 'demon,' which is a self-employed evil spirit."

That's what it stands for now. When the term daemon was first invented it was merely in reference to the mythological form of use. As in a daemon lurking in the background waiting to do something, or doing it behind the scenes.

The adoption of "disk and execution monitor" was a rationalization of the term, as computer geeks always need to do things like that.

Quoth the Jargon File - "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor'] A program that is not invoked explicitly, but lies dormant waiting for some condition(s) to occur."

Why would you want to use their image anyways? A true hacker would just use the source code they provided. Extra hack points if you didn't need the source code either.

I think it might symbolize a flaccid penis since according to his FAQ, you aren't to think about sex if you are a hacker.

Which is funny coming from the author of Sex Tips for Geeks.

The Jargon File contains a bunch of definitions of the term `hacker', most having to do with technical adeptness and a delight in solving problems and overcoming limits. If you want to know how to become a hacker, though, only two are really relevant.

There is a community, a shared culture, of expert programmers and networking wizards that traces its history back through decades to the first time-sharing minicomputers and the earliest ARPAnet experiments. The members of this culture originated the term `hacker'. Hackers built the Internet. Hackers made the Unix operating system what it is today. Hackers run Usenet. Hackers make the World Wide Web work. If you are part of this culture, if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker, you're a hacker.

The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music -- actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them "hackers" too -- and some claim that the hacker nature is really independent of the particular medium the hacker works in. But in the rest of this document we will focus on the skills and attitudes of software hackers, and the traditions of the shared culture that originated the term `hacker'.

There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people `crackers' and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word `hacker' to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.

If you want to be a hacker, keep reading. If you want to be a cracker, go read the alt.2600 newsgroup and get ready to do five to ten in the slammer after finding out you aren't as smart as you think you are. And that's all I'm going to say about crackers.

...a chair in the process of being carved out of a solid block of wood, with an axe embedded in it, a la the original definition: "someone who makes furniture with an axe".

That meme is well ingrained, myself being familiar with it before ever using a modem, and lends itself well to imagery and iconification.

Although I read ESR's How to Become a Hacker, it wasn't until I read his post on the new hacker logo.

I think I'm finally starting to think like a hacker. My wife asked me to stop programming for awhile and help her make dinner. So while helping her make Stroganoff Meatballs, I was able to keep thinking like a hacker.

• Be self a self righteous prick
• Be a total dick

Someone put this madman in a padded cell before he manages to do more damage.

It looks like Eric Raymond is already using the logo to represent hackerdom. Look at the jargon site here.

Why from you?

Because I maintain the How To Become A Hacker document, A Brief History of Hackerdom, the Jargon File, and am more or less the hackers' resident historian. It's my job to think of these things.

Aunt Tillie: n.

[linux-kernel mailing list] The archetypal non-technical user, one's elderly and scatterbrained maiden aunt. Invoked in discussions of usability for people who are not hackers and geeks; one sees references to the "Aunt Tillie test".

Why from you?

Because I maintain the How To Become A Hacker document, A Brief History of Hackerdom, the Jargon File, and am more or less the hackers' resident historian. It's my job to think of these things.

Aunt Tillie: n.

[linux-kernel mailing list] The archetypal non-technical user, one's elderly and scatterbrained maiden aunt. Invoked in discussions of usability for people who are not hackers and geeks; one sees references to the "Aunt Tillie test".

Sure.

Essentially, it's a small electronic device that plugs into your computer (such as into the parallel or serial ports) that some software required to be present in order to function. It's a form of copy protection that, unlike licence keys, is very difficult to duplicate, however can still easily be cracked by anyone competant in the art.

The only software that comes to my mind that required a dongle to function was Autocad (at least in the early 90s).

Where the comma goes in relationship to the closing quotation mark is a mechanics issue about which Eric Raymond seems to think differently. Punctuation goes outside of quotes in hackish style unless the punctuation is part of what is being quoted. Please study the example of the vi command in Raymond's explanation.

printf("Without exception? I can think of at least %d," n_exceptions);
/* Like that one. Putting the comma
before the closing quote mark breaks the code. */

On a larger scale, the responses to my comment raise another question: why did they all have everything to do with my incidental correction of usage (not mechanics) and nothing to do with the paragraph of actual content that followed? I tend to consider the idea most important, then usage, then mechanics, which is why I spent a whole paragraph on idea and as few as three words on usage.

I clicked on prev because I thought it was related. For anyone who didn't follow the FUD link in the grandparent post, the alphabetically previous entry is "fuck me harder"

SCO had the gall to cite ESR's definition of 'FUD,' which at the time related the origin of the acronym as applied to IBM. When their papers were already filed with the court, ESR tacked on a little 'bonus,' which the court will read because SCO cited it:

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html

Furthermore, you could automate the process by writing a script to do things like randomising white space, replacing variable names, and even rewriting simple flow control constructs.

this won't get you anywhere. i had a class on pattern matching software to pick out plagiarism in student submited code at my university, and the guys developing it aren't exactly idiots. things like changing lines around, changing variable names, changing spacing and indentation style didn't do anything. the software caught everything.

i don't know the exact heuristics they use to determine how related two pieces of code are, but it definetly looked more at the underlying pattern than at the surface level code. it always sort of worried me that if you had the same line of thinking as someone else, or you both talked about a way of implementing something and then went off and worked on it separately that the software would catch your code as being related, but it never did. they might have a human scan any positive matches for false negatives though.

see also ESR's comparator that was mentioned here a few months ago. it is supposedly also not fooled by style changes.

Let me get this straight--according to ESR, SCO has become "a nest of liars and thieves compared to which IBM at its historic worst looked positively angelic."

Which IBM is that? You mean, the IBM that built and supplied the technologies enabling Hitler's Germany to systematically slaughter six million innocent human beings?

This is IBM's angelic history compared to SCO's devilry? I think ESR needs to reconsider his priorities.

Yet another off-by-one error!

It seems somehow fitting that SCO would link to FUD in the jargon file, since the previous entry in the jargon file is "fuck me harder". After all, isn't that what SCO is doing to their shareholders?

My assessment of open source is that it is, at its core, a software development methodology; one that is closely related to methodology of science.

Now, if this assessment is even half accurate, it would be quite absurd to blame the failure of a certain business model to the development methodology it favoured above others. In fact, methodologies cannot themselves be attributed any value; they may, at most, have different degrees of fitness for a particular purpose.

I think labeling a certain business model or a company as "open-source" is not only incorrect - it causes a lot of unneeded confusion. It is easy to get the impression that when an "open-source" company fails, it is a blow to the whole "open-source community", when this clearly cannot be the case when we view open source as a development methodology.

I know that Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and others have done a lot of work to make us think warm, fuzzy, positive thoughts when hearing the words "open source", and I understand their reasons for doing it. However, one of the drawbacks of using that kind of tactics is that we will continue to see "open source" applied where it does not belong, taking blame where there is none to be taken.

A monk asked Joshu, "Does this company have the open-source nature?" Joshu retorted, "Mu!"

Isn't that ironic that the term "hacker" originally described someone who makes furniture with an axe? Don't you think?

What next? A boat not sold but licensed with the EULA explicitly prohibiting the very act of abordage? Well, that will stop piracy for sure. "Ahoy, Matey. By saying 'Argh!' ye agree to the terms of the following End User License Agreement..."