When updating from 7.2 to 8.0, I had the fun of not having enough disk space. So I went through the package list, and tried to remove some stuff. However, it could not be removed because it was already installed. What I'd like to see is the ability for the installer to remove already-installed packages. Instead, I had to boot into the old system, remove packages, and re-install the update.
I sent this request to the Mandrake developers at 8.0. As of 9.0, this feature was still not available. Probably won't be there for 9.1, but I can hope.
Many people equate configure;make;make install with Linux. However, this is not true.
The purpose behind these steps is to allow portability among Unix platforms. The configure step does a number of things, including determining what OS you are using.
However, I think there is a place for a standard install tool. Perhaps one that can understand enough Autoconf to give the user a selection of options, then do configure;make;make install. Then the user can use any autoconfiscated software, and have a nice graphical interface.
That's about where I sit, too. I don't see anything inherently wrong with screen-scraping for personal use. My problem is trying to make money off someone elses work, without their permission.
And there's the crux of the issue. Unknowingly violating patents is one thing. I know that what I am being asked to do is probably illegal. Therefore, I cannot honestly say that I have done it unknowingly. My boss knows that I know it's probably illegal, as I told him. He told me to do it anyway and let the lawyers handle it.
I am looking for something to show my boss and the lawyers to show why we shouldn't do it. Period.
Mostly, legality is important so I can show it to my boss. I want to convince them not to do it, not just to farm it off to someone else with different ethical guidelines.
OK, Was going to Ask Slashdot this, but since it's already sorta on topic...
My employer has "requested" that I write a screen scraper to grab information from a competitor's site. The data will then be put into our databases, and sold as our own. This is in violation of the competitor's terms of agreement, and I have thus far not done this.
I am unable to find anything on Google relating to the legality of this, but I believe that it is probably not legal. However, I was told to "do it and let the lawyers deal with it".
Whether it is legal or not, I do not feel that it is ethical, and may leave the company if I am pushed to do this.
Does anybody know where I can read any case law on screen scraping? Aside from the current article, that is.
I had the same problem (funnily enough, also looking for the Jargon file). Google didn't help at first, but eventually it indexed this for "Eric Raymond". Nothing that I can find there or on the new site says anything about the reasons for changing without telling anybody.
For some reason, tuxedo.org randomly forwards you to other sites. However, ESR's page is alive and well at http://www.catb.org/~esr/. I can't find any reason for the change on the website, though.
Nope. If I use a CD-ROM to distribute my resume and code samples, I still get burnt by the media levy, even though I'm not distributing music. So there's no exceptions for intended media use.
True, you can't control the recorder. However, you can control the player, which can check for the DRM track, then check for signatures in the music. No signatures on a DRM disc, no playing on a DRM player.
So don't use them in DRM-compliant operating systems. Put a label on them, clearly stating that they don't work in broken-by-design systems. Say why they don't work on DRM-compliant machines. Raise public awareness.
I wonder how blank it would have to be to work? Could you just have a single file that says "Blank-media levies suck. Go to http://www.ccfda.ca/ for more info"? Or would they decide that it's still predominantly blank media?
Why would they need to? What if everybody knew how to do it? Maybe it was obvious to them. You show children how to do it in the bazaar. There's no patent office that needs the minute details. And they don't care what future civilizations will think.
When you use sudo, you will be asked for a password. But it's your own password, not the admin password. Also, you'll have to be configured with sudo access to run the command you're requesting. And your admin will be emailed if you try to do something you're not allowed to do.
It wasn't until the 1700's that Western civilization documented the discovery of electricity. There are many civilizations more mature than the West, especially at that time. They all had their own discoveries that surpassed ours.
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
The difference is that the recovery console is supposed to give you access. That's the point of a recovery system. If you can't access it, you can't recover it. Microsoft considered the options, and decided that administrators would be more upset if they couldn't access their machines when they fucked up than if someone else got access after coming on-site.
In order to use the recovery console, you have to boot the machine, and make it read the CD-ROM or a floppy. The BIOS should prevent that.
For the record, I don't believe that just because physical access guarantees software access, I shouldn't worry about physical access. I have a bootloader password, and a recovery password. My BIOS is passworded and will only boot from the hard drive. Yes, this will prevent casual attacks. It will slow down real attacks. But it won't completely eliminate them, and that is what administrators have to know.
There are enough people here who will say that Microsoft is the problem. It's been said many times, many ways. It's repetitive. I think that both reasons are true, but I didn't want to say the one that will already be covered by everybody else.
If an attacker has access to your computer, then the OS's security won't help. They can take your hard drive and move it to another computer, then read your data. Unless you use encryption (assuming your attacker can't break it), the attacker is guaranteed to succeed with full physical access.
Most of "us" (slashdotters, geeks in general) know that physical security is at least as important as network security. Joe Sixpack doesn't. What are the odds that Joe Sixpack is using OpenBSD? How quickly would your "security vulnerability" hit the media if the general public were to find out about it?
As I said in a previous comment, once the rumour gets out there, it will hit the media.
The problem is that the "bug" was posted once. From there, it spread a bit. Once enough people heard it, it was stated as fact, even though it was nothing.
Once the general populace knows about a problem, the media has to say something, because how would it look if they didn't report on a new trend? Suddenly everybody "knows" about the problem, even though it does not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on how difficult/expensive it is to make this stuff, it could be used on money as an anti-counterfeit measure.
I sent this request to the Mandrake developers at 8.0. As of 9.0, this feature was still not available. Probably won't be there for 9.1, but I can hope.
The purpose behind these steps is to allow portability among Unix platforms. The configure step does a number of things, including determining what OS you are using.
However, I think there is a place for a standard install tool. Perhaps one that can understand enough Autoconf to give the user a selection of options, then do configure;make;make install. Then the user can use any autoconfiscated software, and have a nice graphical interface.
The ToS is a click-thru to the script that has the info. No click-thru, no data access.
That's about where I sit, too. I don't see anything inherently wrong with screen-scraping for personal use. My problem is trying to make money off someone elses work, without their permission.
I am looking for something to show my boss and the lawyers to show why we shouldn't do it. Period.
I am not wealthy. Yet I still will not do this task that has been assigned to me.
Mostly, legality is important so I can show it to my boss. I want to convince them not to do it, not just to farm it off to someone else with different ethical guidelines.
My employer has "requested" that I write a screen scraper to grab information from a competitor's site. The data will then be put into our databases, and sold as our own. This is in violation of the competitor's terms of agreement, and I have thus far not done this.
I am unable to find anything on Google relating to the legality of this, but I believe that it is probably not legal. However, I was told to "do it and let the lawyers deal with it".
Whether it is legal or not, I do not feel that it is ethical, and may leave the company if I am pushed to do this.
Does anybody know where I can read any case law on screen scraping? Aside from the current article, that is.
I had the same problem (funnily enough, also looking for the Jargon file). Google didn't help at first, but eventually it indexed this for "Eric Raymond". Nothing that I can find there or on the new site says anything about the reasons for changing without telling anybody.
For some reason, tuxedo.org randomly forwards you to other sites. However, ESR's page is alive and well at http://www.catb.org/~esr/. I can't find any reason for the change on the website, though.
Nope. If I use a CD-ROM to distribute my resume and code samples, I still get burnt by the media levy, even though I'm not distributing music. So there's no exceptions for intended media use.
True, you can't control the recorder. However, you can control the player, which can check for the DRM track, then check for signatures in the music. No signatures on a DRM disc, no playing on a DRM player.
So don't use them in DRM-compliant operating systems. Put a label on them, clearly stating that they don't work in broken-by-design systems. Say why they don't work on DRM-compliant machines. Raise public awareness.
I wonder how blank it would have to be to work? Could you just have a single file that says "Blank-media levies suck. Go to http://www.ccfda.ca/ for more info"? Or would they decide that it's still predominantly blank media?
But I don't use my writer to install from, so it wouldn't affect me.
Why would they need to? What if everybody knew how to do it? Maybe it was obvious to them. You show children how to do it in the bazaar. There's no patent office that needs the minute details. And they don't care what future civilizations will think.
When you use sudo, you will be asked for a password. But it's your own password, not the admin password. Also, you'll have to be configured with sudo access to run the command you're requesting. And your admin will be emailed if you try to do something you're not allowed to do.
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
In order to use the recovery console, you have to boot the machine, and make it read the CD-ROM or a floppy. The BIOS should prevent that.
For the record, I don't believe that just because physical access guarantees software access, I shouldn't worry about physical access. I have a bootloader password, and a recovery password. My BIOS is passworded and will only boot from the hard drive. Yes, this will prevent casual attacks. It will slow down real attacks. But it won't completely eliminate them, and that is what administrators have to know.
There are enough people here who will say that Microsoft is the problem. It's been said many times, many ways. It's repetitive. I think that both reasons are true, but I didn't want to say the one that will already be covered by everybody else.
If an attacker has access to your computer, then the OS's security won't help. They can take your hard drive and move it to another computer, then read your data. Unless you use encryption (assuming your attacker can't break it), the attacker is guaranteed to succeed with full physical access.
As I said in a previous comment, once the rumour gets out there, it will hit the media.
Once the general populace knows about a problem, the media has to say something, because how would it look if they didn't report on a new trend? Suddenly everybody "knows" about the problem, even though it does not exist.