Most are hardware patents, which they are unsurprisingly still in favor of. Most of the remainder are much like Xerox's patents- theoretically defensive, but in practical terms unenforced and perhaps unenforceable.
time to login screen:
vector 1.2ghz athlon highest 32 lowest 23
ubuntu server 3.6ghz dual core highest 24 lowest 17
*note: barebones + hdd only, no NIC*
xandos 900mhz highest 31 lowest 18 *note: Eee*
Now for the school machines:
xp 1.6ghz highest 46 lowest 35
xp 2.4ghz highest 47 lowest 32
2k 1.2ghz highest 54 lowest 40
So, not a slam dunk, but its still pretty solid. Averages on linux are probably closer to the high end than the low end, on windows vice versa. I've tweaked vector to boot more quickly than usual and obviously ubuntu server has no X server, but if you want more generally representative numbers youll have to wait or do it yourself.
Yup. I've got all the torches, can you grab an extra pitchfork? I'll pay you back when we get to the castle.
Seems like the general opinion is that no admin worthy of avoiding the boiling oil treatment wouldn't have applied the patch blindly to a production environment, but it still doesn't let RedHat off the hook.
Well, he's got at least one point- considering Windows opens up a couple of cans of worms, why bother? And I've never timed it, but I'm guessing that the kiosk distros that I've used have booted in 20 to 25 seconds. That's going to be hard to beat, even if you spent quite some time tuning 2k, to say nothing of what you could get if you really pushed those distros on known hardware.
There's no point in dropping windows on them for a business. The risks involved with using unlicensed windows products are pretty nasty, and 98 or ME isn't going to offer the same wide availability of applications that XP is anyway. A specially optimized linux will have wider hardware support, be more future-proof, more secure, and probably involve less maintenance than an imaged 98 or ME, and will run better than XP on older hardware.
If windows was the only option, 2k would be the best; legitimate licenses are still available, hardware support, while more limited than in a modern Linux distro, is probably sufficient for these needs, and if properly patched and maintained it can be kept relatively stable and secure.
All of that having been said, vector boots faster, supports more hardware, is more secure, comes with all of the applications you would need for most business uses, and is free. I don't see the point in mucking around with licensing here unless retraining is a huge issue, which, from the tone of the question, doesn't seem to be the case. Go with what works, but Linux is probably the easiest road in this case.
Ok, I'm not a law student, so help me follow this.
1) Where does "using" attach? Why were they able to go after the developer here (who created a product that could be "used") rather than the actual "users"?
2) If "using" a program is defined as *any* use, does this effect the legality of prefetching and program caching utilities? Many- maybe even most- EULAs reserve all rights not explicitly granted to the user, and I've never seen the right to technical copies in an EULA.
3) an earlier post referenced virus scanners. My understanding of what you are saying is that such utilities would fall into the above category, but what about encryption and compression utilities that preserve modified copies?
4) The sandboxing issue has been raised. Will the legality of virtualization utilities or emulators now be questionable via the "necessary" clause?
5) Along a similar vein, is it possible for a company to sue for using a product in any way not originally intended via the "necessary" clause now? For example, it is possible to use either client A or client B to play media X. Is it possible to claim copyright infringement for using client B, even if the use of a particular client is not mandated by the EULA?
The difference between a kernel space and user space driver is a big deal for servers, but not for desktop usage. Lets put it this way: I doubt it would save you enough seconds in the course of a lifetime to be worth your time even if it only took 1% of the time it would likely take to write the code
Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I actually do this. As part of the networking lab for my school I set up a load balanced cluster of physical boxes to run virtual machines in arbitrary network configurations. It was harder than it needed to be.
Identity theft here. The guy used checks against my account to pay his phone bill, of all things. Cops had NO interest, even though one call would have given them the address.
Theft of services is entirely different from copyright infringement. It is, contrary to your repeated statement, a criminal matter except in Florida. Read title 17 and compare it to your state law on theft of services. They operate under entirely different standards. They require different burdens. They have totally different procedures. They operate in different jurisdictions. In short, you are making a moral rather than legal comparison. You're right that IANAL, but even under my admittedly limited understanding of the law you aren't making a great deal of sense.
No it isn't. You may feel like making a moralistic analogy to stealing, but the law holds a very different view of the matter. That's why copyright infringement is a civil matter, while theft is a criminal one.
I think most of your analysis is on point, but let me just address a pet peeve of mine- being within your rights is not the same thing as being right to do something. Appeals to existing law may be fine in the courtroom, but they don't prove that a given behavior is socially, morally, or ethically correct.
With the caveat that I'm writing this from Xandros (gak!), I've always found the Gentoo ebuilds to be pretty sane. Is there anything in particular that needs changing about them?
Nevertheless, it is widely believed that an RNG of cryptographic strength can still be devised from chaotic effects given that the output length remains finite and of significantly lower magnitude than the internal state of the RNG. This is due to the effectively unlimited periodicity of some chaotic effects. Caution should be advised when using those effects that are easily observable or manipulable, but otherwise, chaotic effects should have sufficient cryptographic strength to render it impossible to build an advantaged distinguisher.
Just saying that there should be some room for common sense and common ground in licensing. Licenses should exist to protect authors and end users, not to crucify the community on some eggheaded notion of total enforcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Most are hardware patents, which they are unsurprisingly still in favor of. Most of the remainder are much like Xerox's patents- theoretically defensive, but in practical terms unenforced and perhaps unenforceable.
Ok- on my machines, 5 runs:
time to login screen:
vector 1.2ghz athlon highest 32 lowest 23
ubuntu server 3.6ghz dual core highest 24 lowest 17 *note: barebones + hdd only, no NIC*
xandos 900mhz highest 31 lowest 18 *note: Eee*
Now for the school machines:
xp 1.6ghz highest 46 lowest 35
xp 2.4ghz highest 47 lowest 32
2k 1.2ghz highest 54 lowest 40
So, not a slam dunk, but its still pretty solid. Averages on linux are probably closer to the high end than the low end, on windows vice versa. I've tweaked vector to boot more quickly than usual and obviously ubuntu server has no X server, but if you want more generally representative numbers youll have to wait or do it yourself.
Yup. I've got all the torches, can you grab an extra pitchfork? I'll pay you back when we get to the castle.
Seems like the general opinion is that no admin worthy of avoiding the boiling oil treatment wouldn't have applied the patch blindly to a production environment, but it still doesn't let RedHat off the hook.
looks like you fell into the sarchasm.
Well, he's got at least one point- considering Windows opens up a couple of cans of worms, why bother? And I've never timed it, but I'm guessing that the kiosk distros that I've used have booted in 20 to 25 seconds. That's going to be hard to beat, even if you spent quite some time tuning 2k, to say nothing of what you could get if you really pushed those distros on known hardware.
There's no point in dropping windows on them for a business. The risks involved with using unlicensed windows products are pretty nasty, and 98 or ME isn't going to offer the same wide availability of applications that XP is anyway. A specially optimized linux will have wider hardware support, be more future-proof, more secure, and probably involve less maintenance than an imaged 98 or ME, and will run better than XP on older hardware.
If windows was the only option, 2k would be the best; legitimate licenses are still available, hardware support, while more limited than in a modern Linux distro, is probably sufficient for these needs, and if properly patched and maintained it can be kept relatively stable and secure.
All of that having been said, vector boots faster, supports more hardware, is more secure, comes with all of the applications you would need for most business uses, and is free. I don't see the point in mucking around with licensing here unless retraining is a huge issue, which, from the tone of the question, doesn't seem to be the case. Go with what works, but Linux is probably the easiest road in this case.
Yeah, but wait until you see the EULA on WoW-XIP edition.
So if Glider loaded the program data prior to the acceptance of the EULA its behavior would be acceptable?
Ok, I'm not a law student, so help me follow this.
1) Where does "using" attach? Why were they able to go after the developer here (who created a product that could be "used") rather than the actual "users"?
2) If "using" a program is defined as *any* use, does this effect the legality of prefetching and program caching utilities? Many- maybe even most- EULAs reserve all rights not explicitly granted to the user, and I've never seen the right to technical copies in an EULA.
3) an earlier post referenced virus scanners. My understanding of what you are saying is that such utilities would fall into the above category, but what about encryption and compression utilities that preserve modified copies?
4) The sandboxing issue has been raised. Will the legality of virtualization utilities or emulators now be questionable via the "necessary" clause?
5) Along a similar vein, is it possible for a company to sue for using a product in any way not originally intended via the "necessary" clause now? For example, it is possible to use either client A or client B to play media X. Is it possible to claim copyright infringement for using client B, even if the use of a particular client is not mandated by the EULA?
Hadn't though of the virus scanner wrinkle. I wonder about compression and encryption tools. If encrypting your hdd is a violation of copyright law...
The difference between a kernel space and user space driver is a big deal for servers, but not for desktop usage. Lets put it this way: I doubt it would save you enough seconds in the course of a lifetime to be worth your time even if it only took 1% of the time it would likely take to write the code
I actually do this. As part of the networking lab for my school I set up a load balanced cluster of physical boxes to run virtual machines in arbitrary network configurations. It was harder than it needed to be.
Identity theft here. The guy used checks against my account to pay his phone bill, of all things. Cops had NO interest, even though one call would have given them the address.
I do ths sometmes. Dont do t n publc.
The odds dont have to be great. The fact that t can be done at all scares the hell out of me.
Theft of services is entirely different from copyright infringement. It is, contrary to your repeated statement, a criminal matter except in Florida. Read title 17 and compare it to your state law on theft of services. They operate under entirely different standards. They require different burdens. They have totally different procedures. They operate in different jurisdictions. In short, you are making a moral rather than legal comparison. You're right that IANAL, but even under my admittedly limited understanding of the law you aren't making a great deal of sense.
Courts should; law shouldn't. If law doesn't respond to more than just itself it is no more than an exercise in political masturbation.
No it isn't. You may feel like making a moralistic analogy to stealing, but the law holds a very different view of the matter. That's why copyright infringement is a civil matter, while theft is a criminal one.
I think most of your analysis is on point, but let me just address a pet peeve of mine- being within your rights is not the same thing as being right to do something. Appeals to existing law may be fine in the courtroom, but they don't prove that a given behavior is socially, morally, or ethically correct.
'cause license infighting is TOTALLY better than license lawyering...
I love gentoo, but damn that's accurate. Makes me wonder whether you're an embittered novice or a seasoned guru.
With the caveat that I'm writing this from Xandros (gak!), I've always found the Gentoo ebuilds to be pretty sane. Is there anything in particular that needs changing about them?
Build a debian repository with performance optimized scientific software for a large number of different architectures.
Nevertheless, it is widely believed that an RNG of cryptographic strength can still be devised from chaotic effects given that the output length remains finite and of significantly lower magnitude than the internal state of the RNG. This is due to the effectively unlimited periodicity of some chaotic effects. Caution should be advised when using those effects that are easily observable or manipulable, but otherwise, chaotic effects should have sufficient cryptographic strength to render it impossible to build an advantaged distinguisher.
Just saying that there should be some room for common sense and common ground in licensing. Licenses should exist to protect authors and end users, not to crucify the community on some eggheaded notion of total enforcement.