You take a changeset file, and you take a set of patches that produced the cnangeset. All that is just files which you can get anywhere. Look at them, then get another set of files... repeat until you understand how the changeset file is constructed. And you don't need to run BK at all.
If someone were to pay for a commercial Bitkeeper license and reverse-engineer, then there would probably be little that McVoy could do about it
You'd have your license cancelled, since the terms of BK license explicitly forbid reverse engineering. If you work for a large company (OSDL or IBM, for example) the whole company will be denied the license (as it happened.)
No need. Any anti-tank weapon made in last 50 years will do the job. For example, PTRS (designed in 1941) fired a steel-cored 14.5 mm round from a five-round box magazine and could penetrate 25 mm armor at 500 meters. Modern weapons are much more powerful, but even with that PTRS, what is the chance that the robot will recognize a green-painted and green-clothed soldier laying in grass 500 meters away? And what is the chance that the robot wears 25mm armor?
Many battles were won against a stronger enemy, and many other battles were lost against a weaker foe. Brute force is absolutely not enough for a victory. To prove that you only need to open a newspaper.
Anybody else have other examples of a company refusing to sell a product to a certain customer?
Sure. You can't purchase explosives without a license. You can't buy many drugs without a prescription. You can't buy many weapons in USA, and in other countries you can't buy any weapons period. These are external restrictions imposed on the company, but the company refuses to sell you just the same.
But if you want an example of company's own decision, a most obvious is when the company refuses to sell itself to a potential buyer.
Finally, every store owner reserves the right to refuse the sale to anyone for any reason (read the fine print somewhere in the corner.) Even big stores, like Wal-Mart, have this rule, and some even put it to use. Try to buy something expensive and return it after 29 days; do it again and again and again, and see for how long the store will allow you to take advantage of them.
But I must admit that BK went farther than anyone else. I haven't heard before of a company that refuses to sell the product on basis of other activities of the buyer, or on basis of his employment. Still, the free market, as it is, permits even such unreasonable conditions. But you are also free to not use BK - and that's what I did on behalf of the business I work for.
It took 3 years of the most devistating attack on a city (Stalingrad) by the most powerful army ever to kill 2 million.
You have your dates slightly wrong. "The Stalingrad Battle lasted 200 days and nights - since July, 17 of 1942 up to February, 2 of 1943." - here The Soviet Army lost 1.1 million over all this time.
current intel is that the can hit Seoul from behind lines...
Actually, the current intel is that NK can hit California from behind the lines. In this light Seoul doesn't have a chance, not even against World War II artillery. It still exists only because NK has no good reason to wage a war (and hopefully it never will.)
wouldnt it be logical to think that Robots will be put to offence as well?
No. Defensive positions can be prepared and equipped for robot patrols (such as predefined routes, 802.11, visible nav markers, clear direction of permissible fire etc.) None of that will exist in an offensive scenario, and efficiency of robots may be well negative.
More importantly I tend to think the accountant doesn't need to justify himself to me.
True if you are her peer, untrue if you are her boss. The manager has to know what's going on, that's his primary duty.
I believe you are of opinion that the boss must allow complete freedom to employees lest they become unhappy. Well, I subscribe to a slightly different set of teachings: "Here is the workplace, and here you work, and here are your tools, let me know if you need anything else to do your job better." If the employee needs that something else, it will be provided. We don't monitor Internet browsing, for example, for any purpose, and I believe it is essential for relaxation. But the policy does not allow installation of any unapproved software, since it comes with way too many problems.
Are you saying it doesn't happen or it shouldn't happen?
Shouldn't. How can I claim that it doesn't happen if clearly facts exist that it does?
People don't like being bossed around.
That includes bosses, who don't like when an employee tells them what privileges he decided to take today. Cooperation is the key, where everyone understands that he is not the center of the Universe. Some bosses and some employees, however, believe that they are such a center.
rebellion against rules is probably a good indication that the rules are either flawed or poorly justified.
I agree to that.
Valve doesn't exclusively own the source code, rather its a common property between...
I believe Valve is all that that you listed and I replaced with an ellipsis. It's not the building, and not an employee, and not the CEO but all of them plus their cash reserves, their stock, their ideas etc. That combined entity - which is exactly called a corporation - owns the source code (at least the portion that they wrote themselves; I of course exclude 3rd party code.) The test for that is simple: ask yourself who has right to license this code, or to sell it in any form? That entity is the owner.
So no I think Valve should be creating a reasonable security policy
We agree here.
I don't think your method where some network/system/helpdesk admin unilaterally makes these choices...
I see where the misunderstanding is. You think I believe a sysadmin (of BOFH type) is entitled to set up such a policy? No, of course not. This is done as part of standard company policies that you read and sign off when you get hired. It's the same Employee's Handbook where you promise not to harass people, not to take drugs at workplace - and in particular not to remove items from the premises without proper authorization.
And some people, those who travel, do get the authorization implicitly - because their whole purpose is to take the source somewhere on the company-owned laptop, and to work with it there. These people are instructed about proper encryption methods, so that if the laptop is lost the code does not automatically get disclosed.
However if an employee decides to copy a product source tree onto his home computer, without permission, for any purpose, this clearly raises some brows. His home computer is not secured, and who knows what friends he invites? If I were one of shareholders, for example, I would definitely say no to such copying - because it does not serve any legitimate business purpose, and presents obvious dangers. If an employee signed off on a company policy that forbids such things and then he did it - let me tell you, he is in trouble.
Use of BK probably stimulated the development of a free software alternative. Back then SVN was in early betas, arch was convoluted (some say it still is) monotone did not exist, and there was nothing else. But today, after BK has proven what feature set is necessary, some alternatives do exist.
Re:Mindshare and image bloodbath for BitKeeper
on
Linus Drops BitKeeper
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, you can do that. You can do anything you want with your own product. Exceptions are very rare.
Also, you indeed were living in a shoebox:-) because BK was always licensed on a condition that the licensee does not work for a competitor, and does not work on a competing product. The definition of "competing" was at BK owner's discretion, and a lot of Subversion folks were denied the license two years ago. This was a bad deal from the start, and quite a few people said so on LKML. They were right. Search Google or LKML archives, they should have lots of discussion about that.
Joe average users wants the ability to install his own software and use particular apps as much as the technical people do.
They can want all they want, but they are not allowed to. The reasons are many, such as licensing, and possible conflicts with other business-critical applications. They can go home and play sysadmin there.
work tends to migrate off the locked down environment to a completely uncontrolled environment (home systems, personal laptops, PDA's, physical notebooks...)
One can be easily fired for copying company's files onto employee's own media and taking it home. Do you really think the company's property (Valve's source code, as an example) should be laying around on personal computers, where anyone can help himself to it?
There is no getting around high support costs and a high admin:employee ratio to actually support the business.
That's defeatism. Give every employee the s/w that s/he needs and lock it down. Let them then explain why an accountant needs PhotoGallery or Microsoft Messenger.
Changing from whatever to OpenOffice Writer (which IMHO, sucks) should be no worse then upgrading from Word 97 to Word 2000.
It is much worse, in particular with graphics. Word anchors graphics as a character, but OOo has three modes, and the default one (which you can't change) is to anchor to a paragraph - which requires a good understanding of DTP to understand what you are getting.
The main question here is where the average document the user interacts with is going.
You often don't know that until much later. What I do is I send only PDFs to the outside people; but that is not always good enough. Some of my new business contacts need the source document to edit it, for example. Later today, for example, I need to explain to a completely computer-illiterate person how to install OOo.
There is no way in hell *anyone* can trust WINE to run such a business-critical application. A failure of a database that runs the factory or the warehouse can easily cost $100,000 per hour. Cost of Windows OS is not even a factor here.
I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint
You were lied to. A citizen was as free to travel across the whole USSR as you are free to travel USA.
There were no borders between republics, and even if the borders somehow did exist there wouldn't be enough people in the whole Soviet Union to guard them.
The only thing you needed to have with you when you bought an airplane ticket was a valid photo ID, of which the most convenient one was given to everyone at the age of 16 (an internal passport.) Trains and buses (and small ships) did not require any ID whatsoever. Don't know about oceangoing ships, this kind of travel is too obsolete.
Also, it's important to keep in mind that MAPS is voluntary. If anyone is not receiving mail from someone listed in the database, it's because someone made a conscious decision to use it
The problem here is that the person who loses his legitimate email is not the one who made the decision to use MAPS. The whole thread is about how difficult it is to chase down the right people, regardless of where they are and who they work for.
Slashdot Mirror
Would a broken down, 30 year old rusty car be of any use to you, in your home improvement project?
The question really is, whether NASA has to have another shuttle lost before it realizes the obvious.
You take a changeset file, and you take a set of patches that produced the cnangeset. All that is just files which you can get anywhere. Look at them, then get another set of files... repeat until you understand how the changeset file is constructed. And you don't need to run BK at all.
You'd have your license cancelled, since the terms of BK license explicitly forbid reverse engineering. If you work for a large company (OSDL or IBM, for example) the whole company will be denied the license (as it happened.)
The developer never accepted that license (RTFA).
You know that Berlin Wall had remote-controlled and/or automated machine guns? This development has deeper roots than one would think.
No need. Any anti-tank weapon made in last 50 years will do the job. For example, PTRS (designed in 1941) fired a steel-cored 14.5 mm round from a five-round box magazine and could penetrate 25 mm armor at 500 meters. Modern weapons are much more powerful, but even with that PTRS, what is the chance that the robot will recognize a green-painted and green-clothed soldier laying in grass 500 meters away? And what is the chance that the robot wears 25mm armor?
Many battles were won against a stronger enemy, and many other battles were lost against a weaker foe. Brute force is absolutely not enough for a victory. To prove that you only need to open a newspaper.
Sure. You can't purchase explosives without a license. You can't buy many drugs without a prescription. You can't buy many weapons in USA, and in other countries you can't buy any weapons period. These are external restrictions imposed on the company, but the company refuses to sell you just the same.
But if you want an example of company's own decision, a most obvious is when the company refuses to sell itself to a potential buyer.
Finally, every store owner reserves the right to refuse the sale to anyone for any reason (read the fine print somewhere in the corner.) Even big stores, like Wal-Mart, have this rule, and some even put it to use. Try to buy something expensive and return it after 29 days; do it again and again and again, and see for how long the store will allow you to take advantage of them.
But I must admit that BK went farther than anyone else. I haven't heard before of a company that refuses to sell the product on basis of other activities of the buyer, or on basis of his employment. Still, the free market, as it is, permits even such unreasonable conditions. But you are also free to not use BK - and that's what I did on behalf of the business I work for.
You have your dates slightly wrong. "The Stalingrad Battle lasted 200 days and nights - since July, 17 of 1942 up to February, 2 of 1943." - here The Soviet Army lost 1.1 million over all this time.
Actually, the current intel is that NK can hit California from behind the lines. In this light Seoul doesn't have a chance, not even against World War II artillery. It still exists only because NK has no good reason to wage a war (and hopefully it never will.)
No. Defensive positions can be prepared and equipped for robot patrols (such as predefined routes, 802.11, visible nav markers, clear direction of permissible fire etc.) None of that will exist in an offensive scenario, and efficiency of robots may be well negative.
True if you are her peer, untrue if you are her boss. The manager has to know what's going on, that's his primary duty.
I believe you are of opinion that the boss must allow complete freedom to employees lest they become unhappy. Well, I subscribe to a slightly different set of teachings: "Here is the workplace, and here you work, and here are your tools, let me know if you need anything else to do your job better." If the employee needs that something else, it will be provided. We don't monitor Internet browsing, for example, for any purpose, and I believe it is essential for relaxation. But the policy does not allow installation of any unapproved software, since it comes with way too many problems.
Are you saying it doesn't happen or it shouldn't happen?
Shouldn't. How can I claim that it doesn't happen if clearly facts exist that it does?
People don't like being bossed around.
That includes bosses, who don't like when an employee tells them what privileges he decided to take today. Cooperation is the key, where everyone understands that he is not the center of the Universe. Some bosses and some employees, however, believe that they are such a center.
rebellion against rules is probably a good indication that the rules are either flawed or poorly justified.
I agree to that.
Valve doesn't exclusively own the source code, rather its a common property between...
I believe Valve is all that that you listed and I replaced with an ellipsis. It's not the building, and not an employee, and not the CEO but all of them plus their cash reserves, their stock, their ideas etc. That combined entity - which is exactly called a corporation - owns the source code (at least the portion that they wrote themselves; I of course exclude 3rd party code.) The test for that is simple: ask yourself who has right to license this code, or to sell it in any form? That entity is the owner.
So no I think Valve should be creating a reasonable security policy
We agree here.
I don't think your method where some network/system/helpdesk admin unilaterally makes these choices...
I see where the misunderstanding is. You think I believe a sysadmin (of BOFH type) is entitled to set up such a policy? No, of course not. This is done as part of standard company policies that you read and sign off when you get hired. It's the same Employee's Handbook where you promise not to harass people, not to take drugs at workplace - and in particular not to remove items from the premises without proper authorization.
And some people, those who travel, do get the authorization implicitly - because their whole purpose is to take the source somewhere on the company-owned laptop, and to work with it there. These people are instructed about proper encryption methods, so that if the laptop is lost the code does not automatically get disclosed.
However if an employee decides to copy a product source tree onto his home computer, without permission, for any purpose, this clearly raises some brows. His home computer is not secured, and who knows what friends he invites? If I were one of shareholders, for example, I would definitely say no to such copying - because it does not serve any legitimate business purpose, and presents obvious dangers. If an employee signed off on a company policy that forbids such things and then he did it - let me tell you, he is in trouble.
Use of BK probably stimulated the development of a free software alternative. Back then SVN was in early betas, arch was convoluted (some say it still is) monotone did not exist, and there was nothing else. But today, after BK has proven what feature set is necessary, some alternatives do exist.
Also, you indeed were living in a shoebox :-) because BK was always licensed on a condition that the licensee does not work for a competitor, and does not work on a competing product. The definition of "competing" was at BK owner's discretion, and a lot of Subversion folks were denied the license two years ago. This was a bad deal from the start, and quite a few people said so on LKML. They were right. Search Google or LKML archives, they should have lots of discussion about that.
They can want all they want, but they are not allowed to. The reasons are many, such as licensing, and possible conflicts with other business-critical applications. They can go home and play sysadmin there.
work tends to migrate off the locked down environment to a completely uncontrolled environment (home systems, personal laptops, PDA's, physical notebooks...)
One can be easily fired for copying company's files onto employee's own media and taking it home. Do you really think the company's property (Valve's source code, as an example) should be laying around on personal computers, where anyone can help himself to it?
There is no getting around high support costs and a high admin:employee ratio to actually support the business.
That's defeatism. Give every employee the s/w that s/he needs and lock it down. Let them then explain why an accountant needs PhotoGallery or Microsoft Messenger.
There is no need to remove the quote, it is correct. The BK software works fine. The problem is that Linus is not happy about BK licensing any more.
It is much worse, in particular with graphics. Word anchors graphics as a character, but OOo has three modes, and the default one (which you can't change) is to anchor to a paragraph - which requires a good understanding of DTP to understand what you are getting.
The main question here is where the average document the user interacts with is going.
You often don't know that until much later. What I do is I send only PDFs to the outside people; but that is not always good enough. Some of my new business contacts need the source document to edit it, for example. Later today, for example, I need to explain to a completely computer-illiterate person how to install OOo.
There is no way in hell *anyone* can trust WINE to run such a business-critical application. A failure of a database that runs the factory or the warehouse can easily cost $100,000 per hour. Cost of Windows OS is not even a factor here.
The same law which doesn't knowingly imprison you for a crime that your brother committed.
You were lied to. A citizen was as free to travel across the whole USSR as you are free to travel USA.
There were no borders between republics, and even if the borders somehow did exist there wouldn't be enough people in the whole Soviet Union to guard them.
The only thing you needed to have with you when you bought an airplane ticket was a valid photo ID, of which the most convenient one was given to everyone at the age of 16 (an internal passport.) Trains and buses (and small ships) did not require any ID whatsoever. Don't know about oceangoing ships, this kind of travel is too obsolete.
Watching CNN is not supposed to make evil deeds suddenly good. But apparently it does, in minds of people who are very far from the scene.
The problem here is that the person who loses his legitimate email is not the one who made the decision to use MAPS. The whole thread is about how difficult it is to chase down the right people, regardless of where they are and who they work for.
Collective punishments are illegal and amoral (in most morality codes at least.)