Actually, it's kind of odd thinking of Gentoo in an enterprise setting. It's always billed itself as a "meta distribution" in the sense that it's something solid distributions could be culled off of.
Due to it's ever changing and rotating nature, it's about dead opposite the rock solid Debian distribution. While it *could* be a Enterprise distribution, it'd be easier to create a solid locked branch built off Gentoo and kept clean of the nasty problems that tend to have (often) entered the portage tree in the past. And then it wouldn't really be Gentoo proper.
Sun still has their own software, middleware, etc to sell. Ignoring the most profitable parts of their offering, their services, would sure lead you to believe they should fold up shop.
Sun still has a reputation as a world class provider of stuff. They just need to hone down the stuff they provide. Like with their Sun Java Desktop. That way they can grab some of those seats back from Windows clients and provide a full end to end solution
Last I checked, VA-Linux no longer existed. There's this company called VA Software that owns the OSDN, which in turns runs/.
Now, if you think this is some kind of conspiracy against the small and vulnerable Microsoft corporation by they all-encompassing OSDN, I've got a nice tinfoil hat for you. And you might think of living in a Faraday cage. Never know when those "Linux" folk will catch up with you and start reading your thoughts...
Yea, maybe it's not as nasty as I thought. I was thinking more along the lines of using the music as part of a service of some sort.
One of those things where they don't profit directly, but benefit massively from the exposure while stiffing the content producer. On second look it doesn't seem that part in particular would allow for that.
GBC shall also have the right to use the Material for the purpose of promoting GBC products and services
it'd scare the crap out of me to actually *license* anything I produce to someone like that. I'm fine with giving them specified usage rights.. but that's pretty much a writeoff to do what they want with it, as long as it doesn't directly net them income. The second disclaimer is enough to make sure I wouldn't sign this, really.
It's a "here, we'll take this. Oh, and by the way, you can be liable for it too!" license.
and challenges the students involved to build the robots in a limited time enviroment (something like 8 weeks) for competition. No replacements are allowed, iirc, and only reworking can be done on site.
This'd directly refute the poster above, that thinks they're completely built by sponsors. I covered the Connecticut competition at the invitation of a systems operator involved with the event. It looked to me like most of the robots were well constructed home-brew with a competent technician helping the students along, shop teacher style.
Seems to me from being there and looking at the robots that there wouldn't be a huge advantage from designing them in a lab environment. The tasks are more geared toward creative design than sheer money thrown at them.
As far as I know, it's still debatable if you can deny someone the right to copy something they purchased for their own personal use. Unless there's some laws that have been inacted in the meantime that I'm not aware of.
This is an issue of someone trying to impose restrictions on a product I legally purchased, in my personal use of the product. In this case I am not attempting to distribute said product.
My understanding is that any copyright that is imposed on me is still bound to only apply in ways that are legally alowable in the place the copyright is imposed. It can't just contain anything anyone feels like putting in there, regardless of the burdons on my freedoms.
You mean reverse engineer Pentium 4 and GeForce support... wait a minute.. that doesn't sound right:).
It's actually running (as you stated) X86 architecture hardware, so reverse engineering a compatability layer for the hardware is, erm, not really an issue. Unless you're using a Power5 chip, I suppose.
Hacker Crackdown Free E-Text
on
The Zenith Angle
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" got released a bit back as a free e-text. Copyright's in the header, and it's a great read, so go get it:).
What will happen when the Linux project servers for the version you use get breached. Or what if there are exploits that can't be fixed immediatly?
Switching off of Windows sounds great to me, as I really dislike using it, but your reasoning sounds a bit flawed. If it's because the software's buggy and prone to exploitation, great. But if it's just because some code got leaked.. and OSS software generally has all the code available all the time.. then your reasoning sounds a little flawed.
Any software will have flaws. It's inevitable. Knee jerk reactions too those flaws generally aren't a good idea though.
Leon Mandrake was the magician that "Mandrake the Magician" was actually based upon. So it seems kind of odd that a character ripped off from a real life contemporary entertainer would go and sue a totally unrelated product for usage. Check out some history here and search for Mandrake.
It looks like freedesktop.org is going to clean up and re-implement from the second pre-release up at the moment. This will give an alternative to XFree86.org's release of code until a better alternative is mature enough. Continuing on and forking from the last stable snapshot released under the 1.0 license is probably the sanest option.
Changing to a license that breaks many of the current derivative projects isn't a good idea. Especially in light of the fact that XFree86 is made up of many contributions in addition to the core codebase, many of which were added under the spirit of the original license.
At least according to American (and apparently European) courts. Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly.
On a side note. When a monopoly is leveraged it starts affecting other markets, not just the one it currently occupies. Revenues from the Microsoft OS let them loose money everywhere else to stifle competition. Which is why hinging on single issues with a monopoly won't have a detrimental affect to it's continued status as such.
What the chairman of Microsoft believes or doesn't is irrelevant, as the actions of the corporation as a whole are in question.
started to roll out a pervasive registration for their various services (Adsense, Adwords)
I should hope they have registration for those two services. For anyone whom doesn't know those are both back-end advertising services offered by google. Adsense is a way to post ads on websites and Adwords is a service to serve up your ads to google's site and Adsense users.
It'd be pretty hard to pay out on the Adsense or charge for the Adwords without registration.. and there's no sense in registering twice if you'd like to use both. I don't see this as being very ominous.
The biggest benefit of any search engine is of it actually being available for me to search on:). Hopefully the slashdotting won't take out the company so I can try it later..
At any rate, Google is an excellent search engine that is constantly being refined. It's good at what it does. I may consider using something complimentary that does something differently but I think I'd stick with google currently for straight out searching. Anything seeking to supplant it would have to handle more than just raw link feedback to different sites. It would have to take advantage of new forms of information and incorporate more than a huge link database into results.
"Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes?"
Maybe you're just useing the wrong operating system.. mine does boot up in seconds. And yes, if your entire well thought out argument is "but maybe it'll boot faster (insert sparkly eyes)!" I really don't need a redesign with DRM and driver preloading.. which sounds slower.
G4U will actually allow a disk to disk image off a bootable CDRom, which is what we use here for imaging. Just pop in the CDRom with two hard drives hooked up and specify the source and target. Also, it only copies the actual data, not the blank space, so makes for some time saving over a direct dd if= of=.
For instance, if you so much as glanced at the article you'd notice that "Filed: December 20, 2002" appears rather promenantly. Then you wouldn't even have to wonder! Foreign concept, I know...
Crusoe chips, from my understanding, basicly offload many of the previously on-chip architecture-specific routines in order to handle lower power output. If this is the only area in which crusoe is "advanced" (i.e. in that it handles multiple types of architectures with only one chip), I can only see a slight lead in that area, and little else. If a processor has to be an X86 type, and Crusoe isn't the *all around* best X86 type processor for the money, I can't even see where they'd have a slight advantage.
Shouldn't their right to publish any factual data or opinion over at MOSR (providing, of course, it was legally obtained, which it was) be protected by the first ammendment? It's pretty sad when they can't speak freely because somone else has more money.
I really think their should be a special legal venue to handle this type of issue. One that involves the judge, the plaintiffe and the defendent. If their were a authoritative way to handle cases like this, instead of more baffling bullshit, maybe people could actually EXERCISE their freedoms.
The person you're looking to describe when the word's "hacker" and "cracker" are used isn't really either. When the threshold between simply entering a system and actually doing intentional damage is breached, the people doing the damage are considered "vandals", "thiefs", or simply "crooks". Their really isn't any need to redefine something that's ages old.
As for insuring a company against theft and vandalism, the first step is to get the best lock system and security your money can afford, and maybe a little insurance on the side. Especially if you're a target, their's no substitute for properly safeguarding your site.
A better solution is to charge for insurance based on how easily broken into a 'puter may be. Once the company's can get a dollar amount they could save through proper security, their WILL be a stampede to set up better protection.
Microsoft tends to think that litigation is a one sided sword that only cuts at their competition and can't be used against them. They obviously looked at this small, grass-roots group of female programers and decided they had a marketable name. And what's more, that all the work in branding had already been done for them!
Seriously, if these women were using the name Digital Divas and Microsoft registered their domain name, then proceeded to show the ballsy-ness to use the same friggin format as what they (the real Divas) do (only dummed down, what would we-all do w/o WinME? Gawd.) they should be forced to pay for damaging the real Divas good name and reputation, and made to turn over the site their squating on.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's kind of odd thinking of Gentoo in an enterprise setting. It's always billed itself as a "meta distribution" in the sense that it's something solid distributions could be culled off of.
Due to it's ever changing and rotating nature, it's about dead opposite the rock solid Debian distribution. While it *could* be a Enterprise distribution, it'd be easier to create a solid locked branch built off Gentoo and kept clean of the nasty problems that tend to have (often) entered the portage tree in the past. And then it wouldn't really be Gentoo proper.
Sun still has their own software, middleware, etc to sell. Ignoring the most profitable parts of their offering, their services, would sure lead you to believe they should fold up shop.
Sun still has a reputation as a world class provider of stuff. They just need to hone down the stuff they provide. Like with their Sun Java Desktop. That way they can grab some of those seats back from Windows clients and provide a full end to end solution
Last I checked, VA-Linux no longer existed. There's this company called VA Software that owns the OSDN, which in turns runs /.
Now, if you think this is some kind of conspiracy against the small and vulnerable Microsoft corporation by they all-encompassing OSDN, I've got a nice tinfoil hat for you. And you might think of living in a Faraday cage. Never know when those "Linux" folk will catch up with you and start reading your thoughts...
Yea, maybe it's not as nasty as I thought. I was thinking more along the lines of using the music as part of a service of some sort.
One of those things where they don't profit directly, but benefit massively from the exposure while stiffing the content producer. On second look it doesn't seem that part in particular would allow for that.
it'd scare the crap out of me to actually *license* anything I produce to someone like that. I'm fine with giving them specified usage rights.. but that's pretty much a writeoff to do what they want with it, as long as it doesn't directly net them income. The second disclaimer is enough to make sure I wouldn't sign this, really.
It's a "here, we'll take this. Oh, and by the way, you can be liable for it too!" license.
and challenges the students involved to build the robots in a limited time enviroment (something like 8 weeks) for competition. No replacements are allowed, iirc, and only reworking can be done on site.
This'd directly refute the poster above, that thinks they're completely built by sponsors. I covered the Connecticut competition at the invitation of a systems operator involved with the event. It looked to me like most of the robots were well constructed home-brew with a competent technician helping the students along, shop teacher style.
Seems to me from being there and looking at the robots that there wouldn't be a huge advantage from designing them in a lab environment. The tasks are more geared toward creative design than sheer money thrown at them.
As far as I know, it's still debatable if you can deny someone the right to copy something they purchased for their own personal use. Unless there's some laws that have been inacted in the meantime that I'm not aware of.
This is an issue of someone trying to impose restrictions on a product I legally purchased, in my personal use of the product. In this case I am not attempting to distribute said product.
My understanding is that any copyright that is imposed on me is still bound to only apply in ways that are legally alowable in the place the copyright is imposed. It can't just contain anything anyone feels like putting in there, regardless of the burdons on my freedoms.
NMAP Port scanner from insecure.org
SATAN the aformentioned Security Admin Tool for Analyzing Networks.
TripWire for checking when someone's trying to access your system, and stopping them.
Shorewall a relatively easy to set up firewall-in-a-box for Linux.
You mean reverse engineer Pentium 4 and GeForce support... wait a minute.. that doesn't sound right :).
It's actually running (as you stated) X86 architecture hardware, so reverse engineering a compatability layer for the hardware is, erm, not really an issue. Unless you're using a Power5 chip, I suppose.
Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" got released a bit back as a free e-text. Copyright's in the header, and it's a great read, so go get it :).
What will happen when the Linux project servers for the version you use get breached. Or what if there are exploits that can't be fixed immediatly?
Switching off of Windows sounds great to me, as I really dislike using it, but your reasoning sounds a bit flawed. If it's because the software's buggy and prone to exploitation, great. But if it's just because some code got leaked.. and OSS software generally has all the code available all the time.. then your reasoning sounds a little flawed.
Any software will have flaws. It's inevitable. Knee jerk reactions too those flaws generally aren't a good idea though.
Leon Mandrake was the magician that "Mandrake the Magician" was actually based upon. So it seems kind of odd that a character ripped off from a real life contemporary entertainer would go and sue a totally unrelated product for usage. Check out some history here and search for Mandrake.
It looks like freedesktop.org is going to clean up and re-implement from the second pre-release up at the moment. This will give an alternative to XFree86.org's release of code until a better alternative is mature enough. Continuing on and forking from the last stable snapshot released under the 1.0 license is probably the sanest option.
Changing to a license that breaks many of the current derivative projects isn't a good idea. Especially in light of the fact that XFree86 is made up of many contributions in addition to the core codebase, many of which were added under the spirit of the original license.
At least according to American (and apparently European) courts. Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly.
On a side note. When a monopoly is leveraged it starts affecting other markets, not just the one it currently occupies. Revenues from the Microsoft OS let them loose money everywhere else to stifle competition. Which is why hinging on single issues with a monopoly won't have a detrimental affect to it's continued status as such.
What the chairman of Microsoft believes or doesn't is irrelevant, as the actions of the corporation as a whole are in question.
started to roll out a pervasive registration for their various services (Adsense, Adwords)
I should hope they have registration for those two services. For anyone whom doesn't know those are both back-end advertising services offered by google. Adsense is a way to post ads on websites and Adwords is a service to serve up your ads to google's site and Adsense users.
It'd be pretty hard to pay out on the Adsense or charge for the Adwords without registration.. and there's no sense in registering twice if you'd like to use both. I don't see this as being very ominous.
The biggest benefit of any search engine is of it actually being available for me to search on :). Hopefully the slashdotting won't take out the company so I can try it later..
At any rate, Google is an excellent search engine that is constantly being refined. It's good at what it does. I may consider using something complimentary that does something differently but I think I'd stick with google currently for straight out searching. Anything seeking to supplant it would have to handle more than just raw link feedback to different sites. It would have to take advantage of new forms of information and incorporate more than a huge link database into results.
"Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes?"
Maybe you're just useing the wrong operating system.. mine does boot up in seconds. And yes, if your entire well thought out argument is "but maybe it'll boot faster (insert sparkly eyes)!" I really don't need a redesign with DRM and driver preloading.. which sounds slower.
G4U will actually allow a disk to disk image off a bootable CDRom, which is what we use here for imaging. Just pop in the CDRom with two hard drives hooked up and specify the source and target. Also, it only copies the actual data, not the blank space, so makes for some time saving over a direct dd if= of=.
One's a Window Manager, the other's an OS. That's a cat's and oranges comparison.
For instance, if you so much as glanced at the article you'd notice that "Filed: December 20, 2002" appears rather promenantly. Then you wouldn't even have to wonder! Foreign concept, I know...
here in the states, What with everyone being amazingly wealthy. No need for a measily 2000kb/s here when I'm getting a blazing 1200kb/s.. oh.. wait..
Crusoe chips, from my understanding, basicly offload many of the previously on-chip architecture-specific routines in order to handle lower power output. If this is the only area in which crusoe is "advanced" (i.e. in that it handles multiple types of architectures with only one chip), I can only see a slight lead in that area, and little else. If a processor has to be an X86 type, and Crusoe isn't the *all around* best X86 type processor for the money, I can't even see where they'd have a slight advantage.
Shouldn't their right to publish any factual data or opinion over at MOSR (providing, of course, it was legally obtained, which it was) be protected by the first ammendment? It's pretty sad when they can't speak freely because somone else has more money.
I really think their should be a special legal venue to handle this type of issue. One that involves the judge, the plaintiffe and the defendent. If their were a authoritative way to handle cases like this, instead of more baffling bullshit, maybe people could actually EXERCISE their freedoms.
Oh well... it's a thought.
The person you're looking to describe when the word's "hacker" and "cracker" are used isn't really either. When the threshold between simply entering a system and actually doing intentional damage is breached, the people doing the damage are considered "vandals", "thiefs", or simply "crooks". Their really isn't any need to redefine something that's ages old.
As for insuring a company against theft and vandalism, the first step is to get the best lock system and security your money can afford, and maybe a little insurance on the side. Especially if you're a target, their's no substitute for properly safeguarding your site.
A better solution is to charge for insurance based on how easily broken into a 'puter may be. Once the company's can get a dollar amount they could save through proper security, their WILL be a stampede to set up better protection.
Microsoft tends to think that litigation is a one sided sword that only cuts at their competition and can't be used against them. They obviously looked at this small, grass-roots group of female programers and decided they had a marketable name. And what's more, that all the work in branding had already been done for them! Seriously, if these women were using the name Digital Divas and Microsoft registered their domain name, then proceeded to show the ballsy-ness to use the same friggin format as what they (the real Divas) do (only dummed down, what would we-all do w/o WinME? Gawd.) they should be forced to pay for damaging the real Divas good name and reputation, and made to turn over the site their squating on.