For those who don't know, Dan Greer was fired from @Stake Inc for his criticism of Microsoft
Dan Greer was not fired because he criticized Microsoft. He was fired because he published his opinions about the Microsoft monoculture without making it clear that those were his personal opinions and not those of @Stake.
I'm providing binary security updates for FreeBSD. The Project publishes source code patches (and adds them into the CVS tree); I take those and build binaries, in order to help people who cannot or don't want to build updated binaries themselves.
Thousands of people have used updates I've built; nobody has ever emailed to ask "who are you, and why should I trust you?"
We may not be *all* such trusting souls, but there are an awful lot of trusting souls out there.
Section 4.16(b), as cited by Novell ("Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. ") looks much more interesting.
IANAL, and I haven't read the contract... but I'm skeptical about any argument which says "yeah, remember that contract we signed? Well, we're going to unilaterally change the terms."
I know this is common practice with EULAs, but I doubt SCO would have signed anything which was really that one-sided.
If I extract my own insight from that derivative version, such that none of your own words are left, it's no longer a derivative work. It's mine, all mine, and I can do what I bloody well please with it.
Absolutely. However, you haven't signed a contract with me which requires that any derivative works you produce must be treated as if I wrote them. If you had -- as SCO is alleging that IBM &c. did -- then your two derivative works would have to be treated as they were mine, which means that your extracted insight -- a derivative work of your earlier derivative work -- would have to be treated as a derivative work of something I produced, even thought it wasn't.
The word "distribute" appears elsewhere in the standard AT&T license.
Remember the BSD case? Berkeley had been distributing BSD code for a long time, and AT&T had no complaint because the people using it had UNIX licenses. As soon as CSRG started distributing BSD as a complete OS available to people who didn't pay for a UNIX license, AT&T filed suit.
Maybe I misunderstood you. Bringing in $ echo is perfectly valid.
The point I was trying to make is that the constant raving on slashdot about how SCO are litig[b]i[/b]ous bastards, and the rose-tinted goggles through which people view any statement from Novell/IBM/RedHat/Linus/etc. serve no purpose.
Personally, I think student evaluations should be made public. If a student completely fails to grasp even the simplest of concepts, and fails a course as a result, that information should be online as a public record so that people can choose to avoid that student in the future.
Oops. You're talking about the opposite type of student evaluations. My bad.
1. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
To translate: Derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT can only be licensed to people who have licenses to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
2. the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed
To translate: AT&T doesn't own those derivative works -- they're simply restricting licensees' ability to distribute derivative works.
Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds, not Propaganda for Nerds. There are three sides to this story: SCO's side, the anti-SCO side, and the truth. Only one side is appearing anywhere on slashdot, and it isn't the truth.
Wake up guys: Blind cheerleading isn't going to get Linux anywhere. The only way Linux can improve is if people are willing to accept that there might, just possibly, be something wrong with it.
As I pointed out on freebsd-chat (google link since the FreeBSD archives are broken right now), this DDoS attack could be handled relatively easily.
The attacking machines are easily recognizable: They issue distinctive[ly minimalist] HTTP requests. It is therefore easy to build a list of "evil" source IP addresses.
Given these IP addresses, all you have to do is filter those packets and send them to a LaBrea tarpit. Each connection hangs indefinitely at a very low packet rate: If I did my arithmetic right, the expected half a million machines would only require 85 Mbps of bandwidth.
Now, that's hardly a trivial amount, but it shouldn't be too hard for a company SCO's size to buy that sort of capacity. Defending against this attack might cost $100K, but that's still less than the $250K they've already offered as a bounty for catching the worm author.
Well, we have absolutely no information about how WinFS works, nobody here has actually used it, and it isn't even finished yet... but it comes from Microsoft, so it's probably slow, exploitable, and an attempt to abuse their monopoly powers.
It's not just a $5 flash ROM. If they wanted control redundancy, they would need extra flash RAM, RAM, ROM, CPU, motherboard, arbitration hardware, and arbitration software.
Also keep in mind that this isn't a $5 flash ROM chip. When you consider the hostile environment, the testing, the power, and the fuel required to get everything to Mars, that flash ROM probably cost at least fifty thousand dollars.
If I understand this properly, they've got a damaged filesystem on the flash RAM. Not really a big problem, you just have to send someone over to the console to boot it up in single-user mode and run fsck.... oh yeah, sending someone over to the console is a little bit difficult here.:)
Given that this response came after they uploaded new code to help them track down the problems, I'm guessing that the data received back included the string "HELLO WORLD".
Which is unusually appropriate in this case, actually...
OSX has about as much in common with FreeBSD as FreeBSD has with OpenBSD or NetBSD: a common ancestry and a good-sized chunk of similar code.
Not true; OSX recently imported almost all of the FreeBSD 5.x userland. In contrast, Free/Net/Open/DFly BSDs swap bugfixes and feature enhancements, but each have a continuous line of userland code.
Slashdot Mirror
For those who don't know, Dan Greer was fired from @Stake Inc for his criticism of Microsoft
Dan Greer was not fired because he criticized Microsoft. He was fired because he published his opinions about the Microsoft monoculture without making it clear that those were his personal opinions and not those of @Stake.
How does "Engineering" get abbreviated to "Engg."? Where does the second "g" come from?
and we're all such trusting souls
I'm providing binary security updates for FreeBSD. The Project publishes source code patches (and adds them into the CVS tree); I take those and build binaries, in order to help people who cannot or don't want to build updated binaries themselves.
Thousands of people have used updates I've built; nobody has ever emailed to ask "who are you, and why should I trust you?"
We may not be *all* such trusting souls, but there are an awful lot of trusting souls out there.
And then they lost the case.
No, they didn't. The BSD case was settled out of court, because AT&T had stolen BSD code.
Section 4.16(b), as cited by Novell ("Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. ") looks much more interesting.
IANAL, and I haven't read the contract... but I'm skeptical about any argument which says "yeah, remember that contract we signed? Well, we're going to unilaterally change the terms."
I know this is common practice with EULAs, but I doubt SCO would have signed anything which was really that one-sided.
If I extract my own insight from that derivative version, such that none of your own words are left, it's no longer a derivative work. It's mine, all mine, and I can do what I bloody well please with it.
Absolutely. However, you haven't signed a contract with me which requires that any derivative works you produce must be treated as if I wrote them. If you had -- as SCO is alleging that IBM &c. did -- then your two derivative works would have to be treated as they were mine, which means that your extracted insight -- a derivative work of your earlier derivative work -- would have to be treated as a derivative work of something I produced, even thought it wasn't.
The word "distribute" appears elsewhere in the standard AT&T license.
Remember the BSD case? Berkeley had been distributing BSD code for a long time, and AT&T had no complaint because the people using it had UNIX licenses. As soon as CSRG started distributing BSD as a complete OS available to people who didn't pay for a UNIX license, AT&T filed suit.
I meant litigious bastards, of course. Too long on web boards...
Maybe I misunderstood you. Bringing in $ echo is perfectly valid.
The point I was trying to make is that the constant raving on slashdot about how SCO are litig[b]i[/b]ous bastards, and the rose-tinted goggles through which people view any statement from Novell/IBM/RedHat/Linus/etc. serve no purpose.
Nice try. No court is going to interpret a contract based on what a very obviously biased community *wants* it to say.
Personally, I think student evaluations should be made public. If a student completely fails to grasp even the simplest of concepts, and fails a course as a result, that information should be online as a public record so that people can choose to avoid that student in the future.
Oops. You're talking about the opposite type of student evaluations. My bad.
Why can't people learn to read?
1. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
To translate: Derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT can only be licensed to people who have licenses to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
2. the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed
To translate: AT&T doesn't own those derivative works -- they're simply restricting licensees' ability to distribute derivative works.
Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds, not Propaganda for Nerds. There are three sides to this story: SCO's side, the anti-SCO side, and the truth. Only one side is appearing anywhere on slashdot, and it isn't the truth.
Wake up guys: Blind cheerleading isn't going to get Linux anywhere. The only way Linux can improve is if people are willing to accept that there might, just possibly, be something wrong with it.
Duh. Yes, that's on the list as well, I just forgot to mention it.
- GPS
- Mobile phone
- Digital camera
- MP3 player
- Palm pilot / Pocket PC / etc.
When I can have all of those in one unit, I'll think about buying it. Until then, I'm not going to own any of the above.Please demonstrate one species evolving from another.
Corn.
You do realize you've just comitted a pretty serious Federal crime, don't you?
He hasn't, actually -- those laws don't apply extraterritorially, and Tom's in Canada.
I've always wondered why the Gentoo project didn't use a BSD CVSup system
Because they're idiots.
More seriously, what makes you think they have any reason at all? Most things in OSS aren't planned or carefully considered -- they just happen.
As I pointed out on freebsd-chat (google link since the FreeBSD archives are broken right now), this DDoS attack could be handled relatively easily.
The attacking machines are easily recognizable: They issue distinctive[ly minimalist] HTTP requests. It is therefore easy to build a list of "evil" source IP addresses.
Given these IP addresses, all you have to do is filter those packets and send them to a LaBrea tarpit. Each connection hangs indefinitely at a very low packet rate: If I did my arithmetic right, the expected half a million machines would only require 85 Mbps of bandwidth.
Now, that's hardly a trivial amount, but it shouldn't be too hard for a company SCO's size to buy that sort of capacity. Defending against this attack might cost $100K, but that's still less than the $250K they've already offered as a bounty for catching the worm author.
What's your take?
Well, we have absolutely no information about how WinFS works, nobody here has actually used it, and it isn't even finished yet... but it comes from Microsoft, so it's probably slow, exploitable, and an attempt to abuse their monopoly powers.
If people have decided to use broken blacklists, that's their problem.
Stupider? No such word.
The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees.
It's not just a $5 flash ROM. If they wanted control redundancy, they would need extra flash RAM, RAM, ROM, CPU, motherboard, arbitration hardware, and arbitration software.
Also keep in mind that this isn't a $5 flash ROM chip. When you consider the hostile environment, the testing, the power, and the fuel required to get everything to Mars, that flash ROM probably cost at least fifty thousand dollars.
If I understand this properly, they've got a damaged filesystem on the flash RAM. Not really a big problem, you just have to send someone over to the console to boot it up in single-user mode and run fsck. ... oh yeah, sending someone over to the console is a little bit difficult here. :)
Given that this response came after they uploaded new code to help them track down the problems, I'm guessing that the data received back included the string "HELLO WORLD".
Which is unusually appropriate in this case, actually...
OSX has about as much in common with FreeBSD as FreeBSD has with OpenBSD or NetBSD: a common ancestry and a good-sized chunk of similar code.
Not true; OSX recently imported almost all of the FreeBSD 5.x userland. In contrast, Free/Net/Open/DFly BSDs swap bugfixes and feature enhancements, but each have a continuous line of userland code.