Most people aren't so dumb that they can't. Many are so scarred by their experience or learning all of the wierdnesses of Windows, that they don't want to through it again.
If you can come up with a simple start-up situation for them (this is how you save, this is how you restore, and this is how to get a not-so-recent version), then they'll be happy.. When they get used to it, and want the more complicated stuff, then you can teach them that part of what the system is capable of doing for them.
Just don't expect them to learn the whole thing from get-go, or they'll run screaming. Teach them what they ask for, and then shutup.
For the curious few, you can teach them more (as much as they're willing to learn at the time). They'll be happy to teach that their colleagues when the time is right. Just be careful with the dangerous stuff ("this is how to delete an entire branch ---- oops."). --
The BSD license allows you to share your source code.
The GPL licenes requires you to share your source code.
If all of the code that is now GPL code had been originally distributed under BSD, much of the 'new and improved' code would have never gotten out of the companies that took advantage of the original software. Consider, for example how Apple (and, before them, NeXT) have kept a noticable portion of their code private.
I acknowledge that some NeXT and Apple code that was entirely their own might not have needed to be GPLed (much would have, because of the viral nature of the GPL).
In any case: Just think, for a moment, about how much of the NeXT code has (not) made it back out to the public. I believe that much the same would have happened to some of the best Linux improvements if Linux had been released under the GPL.
We also have to consider the infections nature of the GPL idea. There is a lot of code that was released to the public (Darwin), not because it was required under the GPL, but because people were used to the freedom that GPL access gave them and supplied social pressure on suppliers to put an equivalent license on their own code.
I think that I'm trying to say that the GPL has some dogmatic force behind it that does not exist in the space of the BSD's presumptive concessions to commercial interests.
--
It's not illegal to do if you have their permission.
The thing to do is to go in and say "look: they've only done a cursory setup of your system. It looks like it's very insecure. We've tried to warn them about it and they just blew us off. Give me half an hour of your time and I can show you just how easy it is to break into your system as it's currently set up and get an indication of how much of your data is available to the general public".
Let them know that you're not willing to do anything without their permission. Remember that it's their problem and you're essentially doing them a favour (even if you do see the possibility of getting the contract from them). Remember that they may have a contract with your competition that isn't easy to break, so you may never get the full contract from them.
I've seen some really nasty colocation/hosting contracts in my time. I have no idea as to what they've signed.
If they say 'yeah go for it', then you can show them how bad things are. If they blow you off, then there's not much you can do about it.
It would be one of those 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink' things.
Worst case, you can offer to be an expert witness if they get badly hacked and it ends up going to court.
At some point, you do have to put your hands in your pockets and walk away. What you condider 'due dilligence' on your part is up to you. For me, I would definitely contact them and tell them that things look bad.
<rant> I think we've all come across people who've taken an M$ MCSE and think that they know all that they need to know about setting up a good system. Your competition may be one of those. Whether or not your prospective client can be taught to discern that there's a difference between one of those and someone who understands cumputer systems (with or without MCSE training) is another question.
People can only see what they're willing to see.
</rant> --
A friend of mine once had some interesting multi-pinhole glasses (Hundreds of pinholes) you could see out of (a bit darker), but NOBODY could see your eyes. The advertised purpose of them was to sharpen your vision. I think that they were called Eagle-Eyes. --
Well, if you're paying for a clear box for your computer, obviously you're also paying for a maid to clean your place too. Of course what I'd dread would be the day she came to me and said:
Mr. Samuel? This little black thing came loose inside your computer while I was dusting it. It says, uhm. 'NCR 43185'. I
think I can show you where it came of the board, but I'm not entirely sure, and I don't want to break anything. I hope that's OK?
Entrapment is creating a crime that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. It is NOT making oneself the preferential victim, or even being willing to assist
in it's planning/execution (once asked).
My understanding of entrapment would be going to a 'criminal' and saying:
Hey, Mikey. I've got this
huge stash of cocaine that I need to dump. I'll sell it to you for $25/ounce if you'll take it now.
Goading him into buying it and then nailing him for posession, once he buys it. I think that it would still be entrapment if you nailed him for trying to sell the same cocain on the streets, because you provided both the idea and the means to a crime that would otherwise have been a no-op.
If, on the other hand, he came to me, and said
"Hey sam: I hear you've got a line on some coke. If you cut me in, I'll give you a good price.
Then it becomes much easier to prosecute -- especially if I hum and haw, and vaguely try and disuade him before leting him twist my rubber arm.
FOr another analogy, the honeypot is rather like a nice house with a cheap lock. No matter how cheap the lock, it's still illegal to break in. You breaking in is not likely to be entrapment unless I go to you and actually suggest that you break in -- or otherwise goad you into committing a crime which you might not arguably otherwise commit.
If it isn't already slowed down because of slashdotting, It's about to crawl to a screeching halt. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of site that could be easily mirrored somewhere.
--
Democracy and free trade, eh? Just ask any arab in Israel about that one! Those poor bastards only get treated slightly better than the Jews were treated by the Nazis.
No death camps, but that's about it. They're stuck in ghettos (by whatever name), given limited citizenship rights, limited mobility rights and if any one of them gets so desparate as to use violence, the whole community suffers the rage of the military.
Yep. Freedom, human rights and economic rights really might solve the problems of the middle east. Try and explain that the the Israeli government, though, and you might just end up being declared anti-semitic. --
Only if things dont work with./congigure;make do I start trying to figure out anything about how the
program works.
If a piece of code works the way you want it to, there's no real need to look at the source code... I too have downloaded dozens of pieces of source code, and I've only really looked at a small handfull of them. I have, however, looked at a few, and even submitted patches. In truth, that's all that's really needed for the stats to work in favour of the 'all eyes' conjecture.
If every person who uses open software only ever submitted one fix, that would be tens of millions of bug fixes for a few thousand programs -- in other words, thousands of bug fixes per program. --
Back around 1980, the University of Alberta had an experimental microcode machine that got too hot... To run it, you generally had to stick it in the freezer. You had to open the freezer and pull the machine out to get at the front console.
When the winter weather got down around -30C, it probably would have been worthwhile to build a ledge outside someone's window, and put the microcode machine there, but nobody realy thought
about it then.
(un)fortunately, I now live in Vancouver where it rarely goes below freezing. This means that I can't use the weather to help overclock my machine. Such is life. --
Gasoline won't explode "at the slightest spark." Only in the movies.
Hydrogen is much the same. Like most any fuel, it only explodes if it is mixed in with the proper proportion of oxidant (eg. Oxygen). Real explosives, like TNT or plastique have a built-in oxidant.
Even so, one point of the fuel cell, in the article, is that it converts methanol to hydrogen on the fly... The reason for this isn't to avoid the volatility of hydrogen. It's so that you have a liquified source of hydrogen fue,l which is far easier to lug around than a compressed-gas cylinder.Just the packaging difference could save you 1-20 pounds, depending on your fuel load.
About 20 years ago at the Ontario Science center, I remember that they did a demonstration with two baloons. One was filled with pure propane, the other was filled with a 1/3 propane/oxygen mixture. Lighting the pure propane balloon gave a nice big flame for a second or two. Lighting the propane/oxygen mixture gave a nice resounding BOOM. Hydrogen would be the same.
--
Re:I remember something like that...
on
Linux Anecdotes
·
· Score: 4
Similarly for me, doing a backup to rsd1a instead of rst1a (disk instead of tape). I hit 'break' real fast and spent the rest of that night (and much of the following morning) recovering the data on that disk.
It turns out that I didn't actually lose that much, but I had to write my own version of tar to suck off the parts of the disk that I could still reach (I had a terminal open in an affected (the most important!) subdirectory, I just couldn't doi any thing that tried to access the mount point (like 'pwd').
I had a hot date the next evening that didn't turn out that hot, when I pretty much fell flat on my face and didn't get up. --
A few years ago my mother was moving at the beginning of December-- a date that coincided with a course that she really wanted to take... Her solution was to prep the move, very carefully, and leave detailed instructions. The keys for the new house were on a keyrack with a big sign that said
DO NOT PACK THIS
On moving day, the movers came in and blindly packed everything. When it came time to unpack things at the new house, my sister went to the old appartment to pick up the keys...
They had been one of the first things packed... All of mom's stuff -- including plants -- sat in the Edmonton winter while they dug for the key rack with the "DO NOT PACK THIS" sign still on it. She was relieved that the plants didn't completely die from the system shock. --
It was probably some little cubbyhole, with enough space for the box and a little bit more. Chances are that the network cable was punched through the existing (old) wall, and the box was plugged in wherever (some plug in the ceiling or even an available power cord in the cubbyhole.... It's possible that the machine power cord was run through the same rathole as the network cable.
With a setup like that, the installers wouldn't have to ignore any network or power cabling. If they looked into the hole they were patching up, all they'd see would be an 'abandoned' box in the corner (and presume that nobody wanted it).
If it was around a school year boundary, chances are that the old sysadmins are leaving school, and new ones are getting their feet wet. It's also a good time to be doing construction on campus.
The new sysadmin presumes that somebody knows where server #4 is but never gets around to finding it before he leaves. A couple of sysadmins later somebody gets curious.... and slashdot gets called in. --
(I think I'm about to breake another trademark here, but....).
Did anybody notice that their deadline for compliance is Friday The 13'th. They may not come after him with guns blazing (bad PR), but expect them come out with the blades drawn. --
My understanding of the many eyes make bugs shallow quote is that, once you find a problem/bug, the solution is likely to be obvious to one of the many eyes. (my rememberance was more along the lines of 'many eyes make all problems shallow') --
I understand why SGI would want to have that memo pulled. Even though it could describe many other companies' software projects, it had SGI's name on it.
Worse yet, it was being used by enemy salespeople to disparage what SGI was doing. This would have especially hurtful, given that:
SGI engineers were generally speed demons. They prided themselves on their code being both fast and reliable. They were said to have put more than 6 months into cleaning up X-Windows before they would release it on their machines.
The intent (and effect) of the memo was to correct the listed problems -- both in the short term and the long term.
----
That having been said, the following quote tweaked a somewhat fond memory for me:
But bloat isn't the whole story. Rocky Rhodes recently ran a small application on an Indy, and noticed that when he held the
mouse button down and slid it back and forth across the menu bar, the (small) pop-up menus got as much as 25 seconds behind.
He submitted a bug, which was dismissed as paging due to lack of memory. But Rocky was running with 160 megabytes of memory,
so there was no paging. . . ..
Remember that this is 1993, when an 8MB PC was considered big. Even now -- 8 years later, a 256MB home PC can raise eyebrows.
In 1993 we had an IBM RS/6000 named brutus. It was used for volume rendering and we pretty much put as much money as we had left in our IBM account into extra ram for the machine -- 380MB. Quite often, when I mentiond to people that we had a machine with 380MB of memory, people would respond with wide eyes:
Wow! That's a pretty big hard disk!
I didn't always have the heart to correct the misconception. --
It may be that OpenGl is now best known for it's usability in the games market, but that's not where it became famous. SGI's 'GL' was originally used in high-end graphics workstations for modeling and other graphics applications. I first used it in the late '80s in an X-ray Crystalography lab to view models protein molecules.
Granted, one of the best-known GL applications was their demo program called 'flight' or 'dog'. Flight was the single user version. Dog was the multi-user version. However, spending $120K just to play a kick-ass dogfight simulator would strike most people as excessive. ($120K = $60K x 2 workstations. you could use many more workstations, if you wanted.)
Hmm. I wonder if this would count as the first multi-player networked immersive first-person-shooter game? but I digress.
In any case: Dog may have sold many workstations that wouldn't have otherwise been bought from SGI, but I doubt that there were many funding applications that actually said 'play dog' on them at the kinds of prices that an SGI workstation sold for back then. --
I think that you could actually use the fact that they're going after a number of other 'open' users against SGI. You could spin it as they're trying to usurp the 'open' name. Given that 'open' had a meaning before SGI used it (in fact, they used the 'openGL' name to capitalize on the understanding of the meaning of 'open'.
I remember a case making the news (MANY years ago) where Xerox got their hands slapped by a judge for "trying to corner the market on double X's". Trying to corner the market on 'Open' is similarly inane, and should not be countenanced... Especially where 'open' already had a special meaning withing the context.
This is yet another example of a big company asking for a 'voluntary' surrender of something that they're unlikely to be able to get by force.
It's also an example of bulk litigation. The more people that 'roll over' on this, the more bang they get for their legal buck.
In some ways it's not unlike Microsoft going after X-Windows for usurping the 'Windows' name, or trying to claim the 'pc' moniker. Just because a company has become one of the better known members of a group of names, doesn't mean that they can start to claim the whole group.
All you have to do is prove that the 'open' was used for software before OpenGl came out. SImilarly for the '{X}L' for libraries.
What's so nasty about the idea of TCP over HTTP? It's been done with the SSH protocol -- sometimes for similar reasons. (though with SSH, it's a little bit more likely to be done legitimately than I would expect with ssh).
Of course, then I could see encrypting the http stream by encapsulating an ssh stream in it...
Then I'd pick up my email via:
POP over
TCP encoded and encapsulated by
SSH under TCP
encapsulated within HTTP
Transmitted over TCP
And pray that it's not being done on an appletalk or SNA network.
Of course, trying to do UDP under these circumstances would be a travesty. --
If Linux was really based on Minux, it would have had much the same (restrictive) distribution restrictions...
Ah, I found a Linux History page with a copy of Linus's "Historical posting":
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID:
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
; since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on
things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
(same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
among other things). I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40),and
things seem to work.This implies that I'll get something practical within a
few months, andI'd like to know what features most people would want. Any
suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them:-)
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's
all I have:-(.
(bold emphasis mine)
As for Linus being a student of Tanenbaum, Tanenbaum, himself, wrote:
....
Be thankful you are not my
student.
You would not get a high grade for such a design:-)"
(Andrew Tanenbaum to Linus Torvalds)
OK: Granted, I'm not someone who's got a long history with Linux (though I've been using Unix since 1983). My understanding is that Linux was written to replace mini, not based on it.
As I understand it, Minux's licensing was a bit too liiting, and Linus decided that he wanted something similar that he could play with a bit more... (or something like that).
Linux is based on the GNU project (yes, Gnu's Not Unix -- the same way that Super Glue and Crazy Glue aren't the same thing... same purpose, same design same intent, different manufacturers and different names. --
It seems to me that Microsoft licenses are written like their software -- Monolithic monsters with all sorts of add-ons plugged into the system after the fact to solve sometimes contradictory problems. Since the add-ons are attached in isolation, it can take a while to realize that what one allows you to do, the other doesn't.
How many people do you know who've actually read all of their software licenses and attachments/explantions?
It sounds like part of the problem, too, is that Microsoft is enforcing aspects of a contract that aren't necessarily written down when people sign the contract.
I know it says up to 35 simultaneous users, but our internal documents (trade secret, you know) indicate that this means up to 35 UNIQUE simultaneous users. If you have 45 users -- any two of which could be using the system simultaneously, then you have to pay for 45 users.
--
Slashdot Mirror
If you can come up with a simple start-up situation for them (this is how you save, this is how you restore, and this is how to get a not-so-recent version), then they'll be happy.. When they get used to it, and want the more complicated stuff, then you can teach them that part of what the system is capable of doing for them.
Just don't expect them to learn the whole thing from get-go, or they'll run screaming. Teach them what they ask for, and then shutup.
For the curious few, you can teach them more (as much as they're willing to learn at the time). They'll be happy to teach that their colleagues when the time is right. Just be careful with the dangerous stuff ("this is how to delete an entire branch ---- oops.").
--
The GPL licenes requires you to share your source code.
If all of the code that is now GPL code had been originally distributed under BSD, much of the 'new and improved' code would have never gotten out of the companies that took advantage of the original software. Consider, for example how Apple (and, before them, NeXT) have kept a noticable portion of their code private.
I acknowledge that some NeXT and Apple code that was entirely their own might not have needed to be GPLed (much would have, because of the viral nature of the GPL).
In any case: Just think, for a moment, about how much of the NeXT code has (not) made it back out to the public. I believe that much the same would have happened to some of the best Linux improvements if Linux had been released under the GPL.
We also have to consider the infections nature of the GPL idea. There is a lot of code that was released to the public (Darwin), not because it was required under the GPL, but because people were used to the freedom that GPL access gave them and supplied social pressure on suppliers to put an equivalent license on their own code.
I think that I'm trying to say that the GPL has some dogmatic force behind it that does not exist in the space of the BSD's presumptive concessions to commercial interests.
--
The thing to do is to go in and say "look: they've only done a cursory setup of your system. It looks like it's very insecure. We've tried to warn them about it and they just blew us off. Give me half an hour of your time and I can show you just how easy it is to break into your system as it's currently set up and get an indication of how much of your data is available to the general public".
Let them know that you're not willing to do anything without their permission. Remember that it's their problem and you're essentially doing them a favour (even if you do see the possibility of getting the contract from them). Remember that they may have a contract with your competition that isn't easy to break, so you may never get the full contract from them. I've seen some really nasty colocation/hosting contracts in my time. I have no idea as to what they've signed.
If they say 'yeah go for it', then you can show them how bad things are. If they blow you off, then there's not much you can do about it. It would be one of those 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink' things. Worst case, you can offer to be an expert witness if they get badly hacked and it ends up going to court.
At some point, you do have to put your hands in your pockets and walk away. What you condider 'due dilligence' on your part is up to you. For me, I would definitely contact them and tell them that things look bad.
<rant>
I think we've all come across people who've taken an M$ MCSE and think that they know all that they need to know about setting up a good system. Your competition may be one of those. Whether or not your prospective client can be taught to discern that there's a difference between one of those and someone who understands cumputer systems (with or without MCSE training) is another question. People can only see what they're willing to see.
</rant>
--
A friend of mine once had some interesting multi-pinhole glasses (Hundreds of pinholes) you could see out of (a bit darker), but NOBODY could see your eyes.
The advertised purpose of them was to sharpen your vision. I think that they were called Eagle-Eyes.
--
--
If, on the other hand, he came to me, and said
Then it becomes much easier to prosecute -- especially if I hum and haw, and vaguely try and disuade him before leting him twist my rubber arm.FOr another analogy, the honeypot is rather like a nice house with a cheap lock. No matter how cheap the lock, it's still illegal to break in. You breaking in is not likely to be entrapment unless I go to you and actually suggest that you break in -- or otherwise goad you into committing a crime which you might not arguably otherwise commit.
IANAL I just like reading up on the law
--
If it isn't already slowed down because of slashdotting, It's about to crawl to a screeching halt. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of site that could be easily mirrored somewhere.
--
No death camps, but that's about it. They're stuck in ghettos (by whatever name), given limited citizenship rights, limited mobility rights and if any one of them gets so desparate as to use violence, the whole community suffers the rage of the military.
Yep. Freedom, human rights and economic rights really might solve the problems of the middle east. Try and explain that the the Israeli government, though, and you might just end up being declared anti-semitic.
--
If a piece of code works the way you want it to, there's no real need to look at the source code... I too have downloaded dozens of pieces of source code, and I've only really looked at a small handfull of them. I have, however, looked at a few, and even submitted patches. In truth, that's all that's really needed for the stats to work in favour of the 'all eyes' conjecture.
If every person who uses open software only ever submitted one fix, that would be tens of millions of bug fixes for a few thousand programs -- in other words, thousands of bug fixes per program.
--
When the winter weather got down around -30C, it probably would have been worthwhile to build a ledge outside someone's window, and put the microcode machine there, but nobody realy thought about it then.
(un)fortunately, I now live in Vancouver where it rarely goes below freezing. This means that I can't use the weather to help overclock my machine. Such is life.
--
It's possible that the processore would 'burn' the CO with free air to produce CO.
--
Hydrogen is much the same. Like most any fuel, it only explodes if it is mixed in with the proper proportion of oxidant (eg. Oxygen). Real explosives, like TNT or plastique have a built-in oxidant.
Even so, one point of the fuel cell, in the article, is that it converts methanol to hydrogen on the fly... The reason for this isn't to avoid the volatility of hydrogen. It's so that you have a liquified source of hydrogen fue,l which is far easier to lug around than a compressed-gas cylinder.Just the packaging difference could save you 1-20 pounds, depending on your fuel load.
About 20 years ago at the Ontario Science center, I remember that they did a demonstration with two baloons. One was filled with pure propane, the other was filled with a 1/3 propane/oxygen mixture. Lighting the pure propane balloon gave a nice big flame for a second or two. Lighting the propane/oxygen mixture gave a nice resounding BOOM. Hydrogen would be the same.
--
It turns out that I didn't actually lose that much, but I had to write my own version of tar to suck off the parts of the disk that I could still reach (I had a terminal open in an affected (the most important!) subdirectory, I just couldn't doi any thing that tried to access the mount point (like 'pwd').
I had a hot date the next evening that didn't turn out that hot, when I pretty much fell flat on my face and didn't get up.
--
They had been one of the first things packed... All of mom's stuff -- including plants -- sat in the Edmonton winter while they dug for the key rack with the "DO NOT PACK THIS" sign still on it. She was relieved that the plants didn't completely die from the system shock.
--
With a setup like that, the installers wouldn't have to ignore any network or power cabling. If they looked into the hole they were patching up, all they'd see would be an 'abandoned' box in the corner (and presume that nobody wanted it).
If it was around a school year boundary, chances are that the old sysadmins are leaving school, and new ones are getting their feet wet. It's also a good time to be doing construction on campus.
The new sysadmin presumes that somebody knows where server #4 is but never gets around to finding it before he leaves. A couple of sysadmins later somebody gets curious.... and slashdot gets called in.
--
Did anybody notice that their deadline for compliance is Friday The 13'th. They may not come after him with guns blazing (bad PR), but expect them come out with the blades drawn.
--
My understanding of the many eyes make bugs shallow quote is that, once you find a problem/bug, the solution is likely to be obvious to one of the many eyes. (my rememberance was more along the lines of 'many eyes make all problems shallow')
--
- SGI engineers were generally speed demons. They prided themselves on their code being both fast and reliable. They were said to have put more than 6 months into cleaning up X-Windows before they would release it on their machines.
- The intent (and effect) of the memo was to correct the listed problems -- both in the short term and the long term.
----That having been said, the following quote tweaked a somewhat fond memory for me: Remember that this is 1993, when an 8MB PC was considered big. Even now -- 8 years later, a 256MB home PC can raise eyebrows.
In 1993 we had an IBM RS/6000 named brutus. It was used for volume rendering and we pretty much put as much money as we had left in our IBM account into extra ram for the machine -- 380MB. Quite often, when I mentiond to people that we had a machine with 380MB of memory, people would respond with wide eyes:
I didn't always have the heart to correct the misconception.--
Granted, one of the best-known GL applications was their demo program called 'flight' or 'dog'. Flight was the single user version. Dog was the multi-user version. However, spending $120K just to play a kick-ass dogfight simulator would strike most people as excessive. ($120K = $60K x 2 workstations. you could use many more workstations, if you wanted.)
Hmm. I wonder if this would count as the first multi-player networked immersive first-person-shooter game? but I digress.
In any case: Dog may have sold many workstations that wouldn't have otherwise been bought from SGI, but I doubt that there were many funding applications that actually said 'play dog' on them at the kinds of prices that an SGI workstation sold for back then.
--
I remember a case making the news (MANY years ago) where Xerox got their hands slapped by a judge for "trying to corner the market on double X's". Trying to corner the market on 'Open' is similarly inane, and should not be countenanced... Especially where 'open' already had a special meaning withing the context.
This is yet another example of a big company asking for a 'voluntary' surrender of something that they're unlikely to be able to get by force. It's also an example of bulk litigation. The more people that 'roll over' on this, the more bang they get for their legal buck.
In some ways it's not unlike Microsoft going after X-Windows for usurping the 'Windows' name, or trying to claim the 'pc' moniker. Just because a company has become one of the better known members of a group of names, doesn't mean that they can start to claim the whole group.
All you have to do is prove that the 'open' was used for software before OpenGl came out. SImilarly for the '{X}L' for libraries.
IANAL I just like reading court documents.
--
They originally called them Standard Time and Savings Time, but the abbreviations were too confusing.
--
Of course, then I could see encrypting the http stream by encapsulating an ssh stream in it... Then I'd pick up my email via:
- POP over
- TCP encoded and encapsulated by
- SSH under TCP
- encapsulated within HTTP
- Transmitted over TCP
And pray that it's not being done on an appletalk or SNA network.Of course, trying to do UDP under these circumstances would be a travesty.
--
Ah, I found a Linux History page with a copy of Linus's "Historical posting":
(bold emphasis mine)As for Linus being a student of Tanenbaum, Tanenbaum, himself, wrote:
--
As I understand it, Minux's licensing was a bit too liiting, and Linus decided that he wanted something similar that he could play with a bit more ... (or something like that).
Linux is based on the GNU project (yes, Gnu's Not Unix -- the same way that Super Glue and Crazy Glue aren't the same thing... same purpose, same design same intent, different manufacturers and different names.
--
How many people do you know who've actually read all of their software licenses and attachments/explantions?
It sounds like part of the problem, too, is that Microsoft is enforcing aspects of a contract that aren't necessarily written down when people sign the contract.
I know it says up to 35 simultaneous users, but our internal documents (trade secret, you know) indicate that this means up to 35 UNIQUE simultaneous users. If you have 45 users -- any two of which could be using the system simultaneously, then you have to pay for 45 users.
--