(I'd written a nice long response in the school's computer lab and Windows went and crashed... Trying again on my Linux machine:)
You write:
Apache, Bind, Sendmail, etc are all very nice pieces of software. What they are not is innovative. They are predominantly all 'open' approaches to the original work for the most part. Granted, they are superior, more efficient, etc. But free/open is not perfect. None of these Open Projects developed all that rapidly. They represent years of work and they are relatively few.
Not innovative? It depends on how you look at it. Apache was based on NCSA's httpd. Bind was written to the DNS specifications in various RFCs. Sendmail, well I'm sure sendmail was based on something. On the other hand, Apache was forked because the authors wanted to make too many changes, add too many new things. Rob's probably glad that someone came up with mod_perl. Bind was one of the first name servers around. Sendmail was one of the first mail-routing programs on the Internet. I think that there's plenty of innovation coming from your examples.
The projects that you mention have been in development for a while. That doesn't imply that they've been unusable for that long. (I get the impression that's what you mean by "None of these Open Projects developed all that rapidly.") The nature of free software means that it's never quite done. Developers tend to be perfectionists. (Given the chance, I know I am.) The programs you mention have been in serious use despite being continually in development.
You go on to ask:
Let us imagine that I have a great idea, and this idea is to create the first MRP system. How would I, an OSS developer, go about recruiting talented people to join my project. How can I get them to put in the majority of their hours to get the product out the door.
Your approach depends on your time schedule. If you have time, start writing. Release the code to the world and let people use it. You'll be doing most of the work, but as more people begin using your program, you'll get bug reports, some of which may even have fixes attached. If interest is wide enough, you could end up with multiple co-developers, and the code will benefit. If you don't have the time for that approach, hire some programmers to work on the program full time. If you're writing the program as an in-house solution, the budget should allow for the salaries. If not, you can pay for the development by means that have been discussed numerous times on Slashdot and elsewhere, including selling support, custom enhancements, or just "official" versions.
(Mini-rant about expecting the "Open Source Community" to write your program included below.)
Finally, you say
Anyhow, I can point out many rational flaws in the free software logic, but I prefer the empirical examples. Commercial software has continued to break ground long before free software has. Where is the free mp3 algorthym. Why is it that a certain commercial firm has a lock on PGP. Why are there no OSS 3d shooters. Why hasn't there been a free GUI spreadsheet program until only recently.......
Let's see... Much of this is because the concept of free software has been spreading fairly slowly, and people are more accustomed to using proprietary methods of software development. The proprietary method still works a bit better in today's economy. (I believe that can be changed.) Let me address your points individually, though. The free mp3-style algorithm? I have no doubt that there are people working on it. Ideas are tricky things, though. You can have a whole community working on something, but ideas come from people. Music compression ideas come from a very narrow subset of people, and there are probably more of them working towards proprietary goals than free ones. As free software spreads, the balance should shift. Why does one company have a death-grip on PGP? Because today's world allows software patents, and companies routinely use them to try to cripple competitors. The free software world has, however, produced a href="http://www.d.shuttle.de/isil/gnupg/">GPG. No free 3D shooters? You've finally found a point I'll concede. From what I've seen, a good game has to be created by a very small group of talented people, and the idea is all it has. The former means that the free software world may not have as many game developers as the proprietary software world does. The latter means that it's hard (AFAIK) to make money from free games. The best solution I've heard is to free the engine and keep the data proprietary. Why no spreadsheet? You mean you don't do your taxes in hex?:) Actually, there have been spreadsheets. Look at what MetaLab has. I think that there's been a lot of work put into gnumeric because people perceive a greater need for a good spreadsheet program now that GNOME and KDE are making Linux "user-friendly" and "bringing Linux to the masses".
I think that free software is a better development model. It allows more "innovation" because people are allowed to share ideas and build on them. I think that companies that decide to "Open Source" their programs in the hopes that the teeming hordes of programmers of the world will write their software for them are missing the point. (Not to mention that they're going to be disappointed.) Free software is (to me, at least) about sharing and writing better software, and maybe making the world just a little better
--Phil (OK, sappiness is over. Thanks for reading this far.)
I'm not sure if they can do this or not. AFAIK, there's no way they can restrict a protocol. Once it's documented, anyone can write an implementation of it. (This probably wouldn't hold if they had a patent (ick), but I don't think they do.) It seems that they're trying to restrict access to their database. That database, however, is composed of entries voluntarily submitted by users of CDDB-aware CD players. Can they claim ownership of data collected from such a wide array of sources?
For the people re-creating the database--please take a look at workman. The reason I don't use CDDB is that workman is far more flexible that the CDDB protocol allows. I can set separate authors for different tracks, which is a lot nicer than having a CD of songs performed by "Various Authors". I can also tell it about musical pieces that span multiple tracks, as is common with classical CDs. I can throw a classical CD in the drive, tell it to play the pieces in random order, and workman will do the Right Thing.
--Phil (I don't develop workman, I just really, really like it.)
You do NOT need to distribute modifications as patches (that was the old licence).
No, it's in the new license, too. Section 3:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
The modifications must be separate from the original work. This makes it really cumbersome for someone other than the original author to distribute massively modified versions of the software.
--Phil (Unless someone can come up with a "form that is separate from the Software" that makes forking easy.)
QPL superior to LGPL, maybe better than GPL
on
QPL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
QPL may even be better than GPL! Read section 6c carefully. People have to disclose in-house software which uses QPL'ed software. This is just beautiful. I have always hated the fact that people can take a GPL'ed app, improve it in-house, use the improvement internally and never return the patches back to the community.
Well, for one thing, I don't think the QPL is as good as the GPL. The QPL still has that patch clause in it, and I don't like that. (And I posted a nice rant about it shortly after the new QPL was announced to be in development, so i don't feel like writing all that again.) As for the in-house releases, I'm not sure if you're right, and I'm not sure if I think that it's an improvement. The GPL mostly concerns itself with the distribution of software. My impression has been that it strives to preovide all users of the software with the same freedoms. If you don't distribute the program, you can't restrict anyone's freedom. That section of the QPL also seems only to apply to distribution. Section 6 states, "These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements". IOW, the restrictions only apply if the programs are distributed. If a QPLed program is distributed to a restricted group of people, they all have permission to modify the program and distribute the program (with patches) to others, but the original author may demand a copy of the modified program for himself. With the GPL, all of the users have the same freedoms granted to the distributor, but the original author cannot demand a copy of the program.
It just feels wrong to me to force someone to give you a program just because that program started life as your idea. The programmer just has to allow the users the same freedoms that he exercized in making his modifications. I suppose the distinction to me is between sharing and demanding. I think it's fair that someone who has benefited from other people sharing give his users that same freedoms he enjoyed. I don't think it's fair for someone to say, "You used my code as a basis for your program, and you gave the users of your program the same freedoms I gave you, but you didn't give my a copy of your program, so I'm going to make you give me one."
I know this is a horribly muddled argument. If anyone has a more concrete argument (either for or against), feel free to post. I do applaud Troll Tech. This is definitely a step in the direction of freedom
--Phil (I bet you're not surprised that I'm sticking with GNOME.) (Actually, I'm using just using GNOME until GnuStep is useable.)
I think this also makes it GPL incompatible, which means distributing KDE binaries will still be illegal. KDE people need to get permission from all the people whose code they've used to make an exception in their license for binary redistribution with QT.
Yes and no. You can distribute KDE binaries, if QT is considered to se something "normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs." That depends on the distribution. Debian will probably include it, since it looks like it's DFSG-free.
OTOH, without that loophole, it's not compatible because of the patch clause. That means you can't share code between GPLed programs and QPLed ones.
--Phil (And I still think GTK looks better, but that's just my own opinion.)
Huh... how does this differ from GPL?
on
QPL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
2) GPL does not allow use in commercial apps. With QPL you can pay USD 1300 or 2000 and use it to make commercial software.
Since when does the GPL disallow commercial applications? There's nothing in there that states that you cannot charge money for your products. The closest I found was, "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee," but I found nothing explicitly disallowing selling the program.
--Phil (Remember, "commercial" and "proprietary" are not the same thing.)
All the patch does is, at bootup, send the CPU the instruction to turn the PSN off. I'm guessing that intercepting the CPU ID instruction would be a little harder. Note that I know very little about the structure of the x86 architecture. The lowest I can go is C.
Someone mentioned above that the CPU ID can be turned back on without rebooting. Is this true? The patch seems to rely on the fact that this bug^H^H^Hfeature can only be altered at boot time.
--Phil (One of these days, I'll get around to learning x86 assembly.)
This is a really interesting idea. Some of the hall of fame entries are really nice. (I especally like the first one.) I wonder what other sorts of areas would yield interesting results when mixed with evolution.
--Phil (I recall reading about someone working on randomly evolving redcode warriors--that was interesting.)
Ah, but people do do this. On Debian's related links page, the first section contains links to distributions based on Debian. I have no idea what any of these distributions do, but they do exist.
--Phil (No other major distros are based on Debian, though.)
It's a little more complicated than that. For onr thing, the packages are often created by people other than the authors of the software. In addition, freedom involves more than just whether thay're free to distribute the software. Debian's definition of free software coincides pretty well with the FSF's definition. In order for a program to be considered free by Debian, it must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines
--Phil (Yes, I'm a little passionate when it comes to free software.)
Debian's goals tent toward the idealistic side, much as RMS's do. As such, they make the system as useable as possible, but pick freedom over useability when a choice must be made. When the GNU project was in its younger stages, it can't have been very useful. Nevertheless, people made every ettempt to use it and also worked at improving it. Linux wasn't very useful when it started, but it's gotten a lot better.
The point is that they have a goal toward which they're working: a useable system composed entirely of free software. I think they're almost there. Personally, the only non-free program I use frequently is Netscape, which will be free once Mozilla finishes and I switch over.
--Phil (For the record, I also have Quake, Snes9x, distributed-net, and xanim installed.)
What's crappy about their politics? They happen to believe that freedom is more important than convenience. If you would prefer to give up your freedoms in exchange for a little convenience, you're welcome to forego Debian's "crappy politics" and use software that restricts your freedoms.
To the poster who complained that Debian doesn't like anything they must be purchased, I must tell you that I believe you have misunderstood. For a program to be included in Debian, it must be free in the 'freedom' sense, not necessarily gratis. In order to be included in the main distribution, a piece of software must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a byproduct, most commercial programs connot be included, but that is because the licensing imposes restrictions on the software (including things like royalties), so the software cannot be considered free.
That wasn't exactly a shining example of journalism, but I suppose it wasn't too bad. I'm only going to comment on one statement:
As with so many other things related to the Net, no one knows where the term ``slashdot effect'' originated.
Actually, it originated (where else?) in a post on Slashdot. I know I read the post where the poster proposed naming the seemingly-inevitable result of pointing the Slashdor readership at an unsuspecting web server. (Often running IIS.) I think it was aroung sometime in the second quarter of 1998, but I don't remember exactly when, and the 'search' feature doesn't go back that far.
--Phil (The earliest article reference I found was this one.)
110GB * 1024 (get MB) - 1024 (allow a GB for the OS (excessive, but it's a nice, round number)) / 2 (rule of thumb is 1MB/min. I'll assume 2MB/min for 256 bit MP3s) / 60 (get number of hours) / 24 (still a big number; let's see how many days) = 38 days (that's continuous playing. subtract 8 hours a day for sleep, and you get 51 days, or almost two months. Encoding at 128 bits gives you about three and a half months of continuous, non-repeating music during your waking hours.)
--Phil (I hope you have something powerful enough to encode all that, though.)
A "flaw in PGP"? This is just another macro virus that has some displeasing side effects. We're just seeing more evidence of that old truism, "If you can run code on a Windows machine, the computer's toast." (Paraphrasing from a statement I saw WRT Back Orifice.) I like the proposed idea of sending randomly generated PGP keys to the virus's delivery point. (Random as in cat </dev/random %gt; mykeys.pgp.)
--Phil (I'll give you my public key if you ask, but you have to ask first.)
Well, OSI as a protocol definition is dead, and has been for a while. As a model for networking layers, I think it does a good job of separating functionality into distinct sections. TCP/IP actually fits into the OSI model. IP is at the network layer, and TCP/UDP are at the transport layer.
--Phil (I first learned the OSI model from W. Richard Stevens' UNIX Network Programming. I thik he know's what he's doing.)
When was the last time that you saw an object move in digital space?
Just now, probably. The best of our current understanding indicates that the universe is, at its basest level, digital, with the "sampling rate" being Planck time. I mappen to think that digital can be better than analog, if the bitrate is such that I can't tell the difference between it and analog.
I do think it'll be a while before we understand how consciousness works.
--Phil ("The Meta-Turning test defines a species as intelligent if it seeks to apply Turing tests to devices of its own creation.")
I have a hunch that many people won't be pleased until the feature is completely removed. Nevertheless, opt-in is a lot better than opt-out. At this point, the only thing that I can see that would make a lot of people turn the ID on would be requirements from vendors for it.
I still don't understand how a CPU ID is supposed to help commerce, though. It's just a number, with little to corroborate if someone spoofs it. Add that to the fun involved with multi-user systems (or even a household PC with a single-user OS), and insecure host identification makes very little sense. A much better solution is for the vendors that need it to use public-key cryptography for verification of identity.
--Phil (Not that this affects me directly--it'll be a while before I can afford a PIII-class processor.)
Well, yes, but that's not where it started. To the best of my knowledge, xyzzy first appeared in The Colossal Cave (aka Adventure), the first text-based adventure game. Xyzzy is a magic word that will move you between the house and a room in the cave. I think that it takes you to Y2, but I don't remember exactly. It's been a while since I've played.
They don't mention anywhere what the system requirements are. I'll wait to play the demo to see if I like it, but if it's a good game and compatible with my system, I'd love bothering the local software shops to get it in.
--Phil (ATI 3D Rage--is that supported by any 3D libraries?)
Under what license is the source distributed? The README says that all modifications are GPLed, but the orig-license.txt has bits in it about not copying the game. Even if the current license is less stringent, is it GPL-compatible?
--Phil (Never played Heretic, but I'll give it a shot.)
I could have sworn that I just saw GNOME 0.99.4 announced on gnome-announce. I think it was the "Preening Bonobo" release. No such mention on the web page, though. Am I mistaken, or have they just not updated things yet?
--Phil (Maybe I shouldn't delete mail after I read it.)
This contest ought to be finished before we have a chance to look at the stats. (Although maybe Nugget'll post the stats after the fact.) The dimishing reward provides a nice incentive to get the contest done quickly. (And shows everyone just how weak DES is.) Distributed.net's stated purpose is "to serve as a gathering point for research and projects related to distributed processing." I'd say that reworking the clients to handle a rapid changeover to a new contest took a lot of thinking and programming.
--Phil (Can't wait until v3. With source available, I might be able to run it at work.)
Slashdot Mirror
(I'd written a nice long response in the school's computer lab and Windows went and crashed... Trying again on my Linux machine:)
You write:
Not innovative? It depends on how you look at it. Apache was based on NCSA's httpd. Bind was written to the DNS specifications in various RFCs. Sendmail, well I'm sure sendmail was based on something. On the other hand, Apache was forked because the authors wanted to make too many changes, add too many new things. Rob's probably glad that someone came up with mod_perl. Bind was one of the first name servers around. Sendmail was one of the first mail-routing programs on the Internet. I think that there's plenty of innovation coming from your examples.The projects that you mention have been in development for a while. That doesn't imply that they've been unusable for that long. (I get the impression that's what you mean by "None of these Open Projects developed all that rapidly.") The nature of free software means that it's never quite done. Developers tend to be perfectionists. (Given the chance, I know I am.) The programs you mention have been in serious use despite being continually in development.
You go on to ask:
Your approach depends on your time schedule. If you have time, start writing. Release the code to the world and let people use it. You'll be doing most of the work, but as more people begin using your program, you'll get bug reports, some of which may even have fixes attached. If interest is wide enough, you could end up with multiple co-developers, and the code will benefit. If you don't have the time for that approach, hire some programmers to work on the program full time. If you're writing the program as an in-house solution, the budget should allow for the salaries. If not, you can pay for the development by means that have been discussed numerous times on Slashdot and elsewhere, including selling support, custom enhancements, or just "official" versions.(Mini-rant about expecting the "Open Source Community" to write your program included below.)
Finally, you say
Let's see... Much of this is because the concept of free software has been spreading fairly slowly, and people are more accustomed to using proprietary methods of software development. The proprietary method still works a bit better in today's economy. (I believe that can be changed.) Let me address your points individually, though. The free mp3-style algorithm? I have no doubt that there are people working on it. Ideas are tricky things, though. You can have a whole community working on something, but ideas come from people. Music compression ideas come from a very narrow subset of people, and there are probably more of them working towards proprietary goals than free ones. As free software spreads, the balance should shift. Why does one company have a death-grip on PGP? Because today's world allows software patents, and companies routinely use them to try to cripple competitors. The free software world has, however, produced a href="http://www.d.shuttle.de/isil/gnupg/">GPG. No free 3D shooters? You've finally found a point I'll concede. From what I've seen, a good game has to be created by a very small group of talented people, and the idea is all it has. The former means that the free software world may not have as many game developers as the proprietary software world does. The latter means that it's hard (AFAIK) to make money from free games. The best solution I've heard is to free the engine and keep the data proprietary. Why no spreadsheet? You mean you don't do your taxes in hex?I think that free software is a better development model. It allows more "innovation" because people are allowed to share ideas and build on them. I think that companies that decide to "Open Source" their programs in the hopes that the teeming hordes of programmers of the world will write their software for them are missing the point. (Not to mention that they're going to be disappointed.) Free software is (to me, at least) about sharing and writing better software, and maybe making the world just a little better
--Phil (OK, sappiness is over. Thanks for reading this far.)
I'm not sure if they can do this or not. AFAIK, there's no way they can restrict a protocol. Once it's documented, anyone can write an implementation of it. (This probably wouldn't hold if they had a patent (ick), but I don't think they do.) It seems that they're trying to restrict access to their database. That database, however, is composed of entries voluntarily submitted by users of CDDB-aware CD players. Can they claim ownership of data collected from such a wide array of sources?
For the people re-creating the database--please take a look at workman. The reason I don't use CDDB is that workman is far more flexible that the CDDB protocol allows. I can set separate authors for different tracks, which is a lot nicer than having a CD of songs performed by "Various Authors". I can also tell it about musical pieces that span multiple tracks, as is common with classical CDs. I can throw a classical CD in the drive, tell it to play the pieces in random order, and workman will do the Right Thing.
--Phil (I don't develop workman, I just really, really like it.)
No, it's in the new license, too. Section 3:
The modifications must be separate from the original work. This makes it really cumbersome for someone other than the original author to distribute massively modified versions of the software.--Phil (Unless someone can come up with a "form that is separate from the Software" that makes forking easy.)
Well, for one thing, I don't think the QPL is as good as the GPL. The QPL still has that patch clause in it, and I don't like that. (And I posted a nice rant about it shortly after the new QPL was announced to be in development, so i don't feel like writing all that again.) As for the in-house releases, I'm not sure if you're right, and I'm not sure if I think that it's an improvement. The GPL mostly concerns itself with the distribution of software. My impression has been that it strives to preovide all users of the software with the same freedoms. If you don't distribute the program, you can't restrict anyone's freedom. That section of the QPL also seems only to apply to distribution. Section 6 states, "These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements". IOW, the restrictions only apply if the programs are distributed. If a QPLed program is distributed to a restricted group of people, they all have permission to modify the program and distribute the program (with patches) to others, but the original author may demand a copy of the modified program for himself. With the GPL, all of the users have the same freedoms granted to the distributor, but the original author cannot demand a copy of the program.
It just feels wrong to me to force someone to give you a program just because that program started life as your idea. The programmer just has to allow the users the same freedoms that he exercized in making his modifications. I suppose the distinction to me is between sharing and demanding. I think it's fair that someone who has benefited from other people sharing give his users that same freedoms he enjoyed. I don't think it's fair for someone to say, "You used my code as a basis for your program, and you gave the users of your program the same freedoms I gave you, but you didn't give my a copy of your program, so I'm going to make you give me one."
I know this is a horribly muddled argument. If anyone has a more concrete argument (either for or against), feel free to post. I do applaud Troll Tech. This is definitely a step in the direction of freedom
--Phil (I bet you're not surprised that I'm sticking with GNOME.)
(Actually, I'm using just using GNOME until GnuStep is useable.)
Yes and no. You can distribute KDE binaries, if QT is considered to se something "normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs." That depends on the distribution. Debian will probably include it, since it looks like it's DFSG-free.
OTOH, without that loophole, it's not compatible because of the patch clause. That means you can't share code between GPLed programs and QPLed ones.
--Phil (And I still think GTK looks better, but that's just my own opinion.)
--Phil (Remember, "commercial" and "proprietary" are not the same thing.)
That'd be Sousa.
--Phil (It wasn't for nothing that I played in marching bands for severl years.)
All the patch does is, at bootup, send the CPU the instruction to turn the PSN off. I'm guessing that intercepting the CPU ID instruction would be a little harder. Note that I know very little about the structure of the x86 architecture. The lowest I can go is C.
Someone mentioned above that the CPU ID can be turned back on without rebooting. Is this true? The patch seems to rely on the fact that this bug^H^H^Hfeature can only be altered at boot time.
--Phil (One of these days, I'll get around to learning x86 assembly.)
This is a really interesting idea. Some of the hall of fame entries are really nice. (I especally like the first one.) I wonder what other sorts of areas would yield interesting results when mixed with evolution.
--Phil (I recall reading about someone working on randomly evolving redcode warriors--that was interesting.)
Ah, but people do do this. On Debian's related links page, the first section contains links to distributions based on Debian. I have no idea what any of these distributions do, but they do exist.
--Phil (No other major distros are based on Debian, though.)
It's a little more complicated than that. For onr thing, the packages are often created by people other than the authors of the software. In addition, freedom involves more than just whether thay're free to distribute the software. Debian's definition of free software coincides pretty well with the FSF's definition. In order for a program to be considered free by Debian, it must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines
--Phil (Yes, I'm a little passionate when it comes to free software.)
Debian's goals tent toward the idealistic side, much as RMS's do. As such, they make the system as useable as possible, but pick freedom over useability when a choice must be made. When the GNU project was in its younger stages, it can't have been very useful. Nevertheless, people made every ettempt to use it and also worked at improving it. Linux wasn't very useful when it started, but it's gotten a lot better.
The point is that they have a goal toward which they're working: a useable system composed entirely of free software. I think they're almost there. Personally, the only non-free program I use frequently is Netscape, which will be free once Mozilla finishes and I switch over.
--Phil (For the record, I also have Quake, Snes9x, distributed-net, and xanim installed.)
What's crappy about their politics? They happen to believe that freedom is more important than convenience. If you would prefer to give up your freedoms in exchange for a little convenience, you're welcome to forego Debian's "crappy politics" and use software that restricts your freedoms.
To the poster who complained that Debian doesn't like anything they must be purchased, I must tell you that I believe you have misunderstood. For a program to be included in Debian, it must be free in the 'freedom' sense, not necessarily gratis. In order to be included in the main distribution, a piece of software must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a byproduct, most commercial programs connot be included, but that is because the licensing imposes restrictions on the software (including things like royalties), so the software cannot be considered free.
--Phil (For more on free software, read The GNU Project.)
--Phil (The earliest article reference I found was this one.)
My back of the envelope calculation runs as such:
110GB
* 1024 (get MB)
- 1024 (allow a GB for the OS (excessive, but it's a nice, round number))
/ 2 (rule of thumb is 1MB/min. I'll assume 2MB/min for 256 bit MP3s)
/ 60 (get number of hours)
/ 24 (still a big number; let's see how many days)
= 38 days (that's continuous playing. subtract 8 hours a day for sleep, and you get 51 days, or almost two months. Encoding at 128 bits gives you about three and a half months of continuous, non-repeating music during your waking hours.)
--Phil (I hope you have something powerful enough to encode all that, though.)
A "flaw in PGP"? This is just another macro virus that has some displeasing side effects. We're just seeing more evidence of that old truism, "If you can run code on a Windows machine, the computer's toast." (Paraphrasing from a statement I saw WRT Back Orifice.) I like the proposed idea of sending randomly generated PGP keys to the virus's delivery point. (Random as in cat < /dev/random %gt; mykeys.pgp.)
--Phil (I'll give you my public key if you ask, but you have to ask first.)
Well, OSI as a protocol definition is dead, and has been for a while. As a model for networking layers, I think it does a good job of separating functionality into distinct sections. TCP/IP actually fits into the OSI model. IP is at the network layer, and TCP/UDP are at the transport layer.
--Phil (I first learned the OSI model from W. Richard Stevens' UNIX Network Programming. I thik he know's what he's doing.)
Is anyone else having difficulty connecting? I can't tell whether the site's down or the firewall here just took a dislike to it.
--Phil (And yes, I'm on lunch break.)
I do think it'll be a while before we understand how consciousness works.
--Phil ("The Meta-Turning test defines a species as intelligent if it seeks to apply Turing tests to devices of its own creation.")
I have a hunch that many people won't be pleased until the feature is completely removed. Nevertheless, opt-in is a lot better than opt-out. At this point, the only thing that I can see that would make a lot of people turn the ID on would be requirements from vendors for it.
I still don't understand how a CPU ID is supposed to help commerce, though. It's just a number, with little to corroborate if someone spoofs it. Add that to the fun involved with multi-user systems (or even a household PC with a single-user OS), and insecure host identification makes very little sense. A much better solution is for the vendors that need it to use public-key cryptography for verification of identity.
--Phil (Not that this affects me directly--it'll be a while before I can afford a PIII-class processor.)
Well, yes, but that's not where it started. To the best of my knowledge, xyzzy first appeared in The Colossal Cave (aka Adventure), the first text-based adventure game. Xyzzy is a magic word that will move you between the house and a room in the cave. I think that it takes you to Y2, but I don't remember exactly. It's been a while since I've played.
--Phil (plugh)
They don't mention anywhere what the system requirements are. I'll wait to play the demo to see if I like it, but if it's a good game and compatible with my system, I'd love bothering the local software shops to get it in.
--Phil (ATI 3D Rage--is that supported by any 3D libraries?)
Under what license is the source distributed? The README says that all modifications are GPLed, but the orig-license.txt has bits in it about not copying the game. Even if the current license is less stringent, is it GPL-compatible?
--Phil (Never played Heretic, but I'll give it a shot.)
I could have sworn that I just saw GNOME 0.99.4 announced on gnome-announce. I think it was the "Preening Bonobo" release. No such mention on the web page, though. Am I mistaken, or have they just not updated things yet?
--Phil (Maybe I shouldn't delete mail after I read it.)
This contest ought to be finished before we have a chance to look at the stats. (Although maybe Nugget'll post the stats after the fact.) The dimishing reward provides a nice incentive to get the contest done quickly. (And shows everyone just how weak DES is.) Distributed.net's stated purpose is "to serve as a gathering point for research and projects related to distributed processing." I'd say that reworking the clients to handle a rapid changeover to a new contest took a lot of thinking and programming.
--Phil (Can't wait until v3. With source available, I might be able to run it at work.)