Check out CKUA. I listen to them on broadcast FM, but they also do streaming audio. They don't suck. They occasionally play genres that get coverage on other stations, but they play the rare good stuff in those genres.
Hmm. Maybe you need to listen to a better quality of radio station.:-)
Here's a blatant plug.
My station of choice not only plays fantastic music, but lists _all_ of their playlists online afterwards. They also provide streaming audio feeds, and don't play top 40. It's like campus radio that's grown up.
Hmm. I see that companies don't think they can adhere to the GPL, if they're going to incorporate GPL code into their products. On the other hand, I see the GPL as still a paper shark, where violating it gets you nothing but a bunch of nasty emails from geeks.
These are two separate problems with the GPL: Companies can't live with it, and they can't be made to do so. Maybe it's time to accept that the GPL needs some serious reworking if OSS is to be used commercially.
It's the PROBLEMS with the GPL that are driving people, organisations, and countries to use other licenses. The GPL is fatally flawed outside of an academic model.
The source of a language isn't the compiler's code, it's the language specification.
If a language's structure is openly defined, then anyone can build a compiler for it. That *IS* the definition of an open-source compiler!
If OO.o doesn't work well with GCJ because the compiler fails to fully (and efficiently) implement the language standard, the it's the fault of the compiler, not the language.
Is there anything in the OO.o Java code that doesn't follow the published language standard? If there is, it's a bug. If there isn't and gcj doesn't compile it well, then it's a bug in the compiler.
It's a language. The "source" of a language isn't the compiler, it's the code specification.
Welcome! Welcome to a new level of maturity. Soon you will be able to roll your eyes and remain silent when the zealots go off on a rant about your personal sins.
The primary purpose of computing in any form should be to get computing tasks done. Zealotry of any sort damages that.
So nearly a week later, I reply. Don't know if you'll ever see this, but anyhow...
"Your epee' is indeed an awesome duelling option (I've fenced) but not as generally robust as a slightly heavier grade sword (for the occasional horse strike or in a melee scenario). As a utility edge weapon I'd definately go jian."
Well I wasn't necessarily suggesting that a sport epee' would do well against an actual weapon.:-) But given the whole-body target and lack of right of way rules, the epee' form and style is probably closest to real (western) sword combat. I was just thinking that since Europe decided three centuries that an edge was mostly useless in 1:1 combat, that a thrust-based combat with no other considerations (rules, etc.) would probably win out. In 1:1, I think I'd pick a French small sword over a Jian, given equal skills in each weapon.
Of course in a big furball of a fight, who's to say what would be better? Some of the more spectacular weapons (the double-ended light sabre) might prove to be exceedingly useful.
"Of course the trick may be to investigate the development of the lightsabre. Maybe it developed from a single edge weapon and the Jedi style hasn't (yet) evolved?"
That's entirely passible. After all, it was "a long time ago, in a galaxy far away..."
Honestly, I'd expect a style halfway between 19th century European duelling, and modern sport Epee'. In other words, single handed and pure thrusting. The reason for the edge on most duelling weapons for the last three centuries was strictly to prevent your opponent from being tempted to grab your blade. The most effective attack almost invariably turns out to be a thrust.
I agree 100%!...and disagree about 20%. Apparently I have 1.2 opinions on the subject.
There is _some_ merit to claiming that the GPL creates an implicit price-fixing scheme. Maybe not a lot, but the courts will figure it out - which is where we agree. If the GPL is in fact legally defensible, then its supporters should welcome every lawsuit with open arms, as another test case and further step towards critical acceptance.
Really, I don't give a rat's ass about open source solutions. I recommend the best tool for the job, and I VERY VERY STRONGLY recommend the most standards-compliant tool for the job. IE fails both tests. So does Outlook. Windows usually does, but not always--if the 'job' is playing games, then Windows is your best tool. (there are other examples, but games is the easiest one).
Firefox is a great tool. OpenOffice is a great tool for wordprocessing and spreadsheets, as of 1.0.1 (I think--the version that corresponds to StarOffice 6.1). On Windows, Pegasus Mail is the best tool, and it's proprietary. QCD is the best media player, and I have no idea what the license is.
"I think it is self-evident that a much better kernel comes from open source development."
HP-UX. Solaris. AIX. Linux.
Which is the weakest of these? Linux. I think that rigorous development methods and QC/QA are FAR more important in developing a good code. For that you need professional programmers and professional methods. Open or closed source are irrelevant. Picking a company that didn't properly maintain their code is disingenious.
Hmm. If you have a picture in your brain, you should be able to describe it in plain language. If you can't do that, then the code that implements it is of questionable validity. It doesn't make the code bad, but it does imply that the code is going to be difficult to follow.
That's all there is to it. If you don't expand to become a Big Player, you get forced out or bought. There is no more room for independents. There is no more room for niche companies. We're already at the cusp of a world where all niche companies are merely divisions of huge multinationals.
So Adobe could either buy Macromedia, or let someone else do it. If someone else (MS?) did so, then Adobe would be next on the chopping block.
It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, guaranteed by late-stage capitalism.
Cribbing code is only a problem when it begins to supplant actual programming skill and creativity, which is what I'm worried about. Potentially, there could come a point where most programmers _couldn't_ write much of the code that's out there, without having the code, algorithms, and flowcharts to copy from. It's a question much older than computers of course. Calculators in schools is pretty much the same argument, and it goes back centuries.
First of all, the blank media tariff is a pile of shite--As an admin in a large site, we go through hundreds of blank CDRs weekly--all of it for in-house developed software and A/V presentations. The tariff has been a dirty cash crab that should be illegal, from the get go.
In exchange, we can legally burn--for ourselves. We can download, but no one else can allow downloads. We can borrow and burn, but not burn and lend. The law is insane, and badly done. Adding more moneygrubbing to the 'registered download' industry is downright evil.
But it's not likely going to happen anyways. Not yet.
Well my last mod point expired, so I'll post instead of modding you...up!
I agree. Civ is a great game. A free version of it is wonderful. However, there's nothing innovative about it--it's a copy of an old game.
This makes me wonder about open source in general. I've noticed in the last year or so, a steady stream of "Well if your proprietary OS does it better, show us the code!" Directed against Sun, against AIX, and against MS. It seems to me that programmers are getting more and more dependent on having source code available to crib off of, in order to create really good code.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. I'm a bit worried, though.
Others have said it, I'll say it too: You need a formal risk analysis done. Ideally it should be done by the idiots who said you're vulnerable in the first place--make them actually WORK for their money.
Are you at risk? Probably. All companies are based on managing risk, and reaping the rewards. Computers are no different--to have internet access incurs some risk. Your job isn't to ELIMINATE risk, it's to MANAGE it, to reasonable levels. If the consulting company says that you're exposed, it should be up to them to calculate the likelihood of being exploited (i.e. x% chance per year that this exploit will be used), the libility of the exposure (i.e. money lost either directly or indirectly), and the cost to fix. If there's a 0.1% chance per year of someone breaking a server in the DMZ and it will cost your company $10000 to recover from it (lost information, time to rebuild, etc.), then any remedy that closes it will have to be almost free to be worthwhile ($20/year on the outside). On the other hand, something with a 15% chance of being exploited that's going to lose $3MM of market advantage should be fixed ASAP, as long as it costs less than nearly half a million.
Risk analysis. Risk management. Risk containment. NOT risk elimination.
Here's the blunt facts. If you need to destroy the data completely, you can't give reasonably intact platters back to a company for RMA. Period.
However, let's look into this. If your disk is one in a RAID5 or stripeset, then collecting the data off of it intact is only going to be moderately useful at best. How much can someone do with every seventh (or so) block of data?
If you're doing truly sensitive stuff (healthcare, military, etc.) then I don't see any alternative but destruction. If you're dealing with 'typical' corporate security, a narrow-stripe RAID5 (or 0) and a decent wipe utility should be sufficient.
I'll ask my standard question here, 'what qualifies as an SUV?' F'rinstance, I've got a Toyota Rav4, which is in the category. It also has a 4-banger, lower curb weight than many midsized cars, as well as better gas mileage. When we got it, those were major considerations in our purchase. Nissan has since come out with a similar style beast, as have a few others. At another point on the spectrum are the 'cars' which are basically good old fashioned station wagons. Some get good mileage, some don't.
My point is that SUV is a vague or incorrect target. Raise the mileage minima for _all_ vehicles, and quit differentiating between cars and trucks/SUVs. Remove the emissions exemption from diesel engines, so there's no longer an incentive to drive a mistuned diesel over a well-tuned gas engine. Start spending some of the R&D incentive money on alternate fuels, instead of giving it to oil and gas companies.
"Ask them if they will ever open source ZFS and you will find out."
Are you implying that they're not going to release the source for ZFS? Where did you get this idea? ZFS will be part of the OS, and will be entirely clean of encumbered code, which means they'll open source it.
Just a minor nit with the article. It's hard for ESR to have coined the term "open source" in March of 1998, when Bruce Perens had already created the OSI website a month earlier, and ESR had redesigned it once by that point.
Clearly there's at least a small timeline glitch here. Probably nothing more than that.
Someone needs to tell Bush that this is part of the master plan to defend 'Merica against space aliens with big lasers. Then watch the funding triple overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out CKUA. I listen to them on broadcast FM, but they also do streaming audio. They don't suck. They occasionally play genres that get coverage on other stations, but they play the rare good stuff in those genres.
Give 'em a try.
Hmm. Maybe you need to listen to a better quality of radio station. :-)
Here's a blatant plug.
My station of choice not only plays fantastic music, but lists _all_ of their playlists online afterwards. They also provide streaming audio feeds, and don't play top 40. It's like campus radio that's grown up.
No affiliation, but they're great.
Hmm. I see that companies don't think they can adhere to the GPL, if they're going to incorporate GPL code into their products. On the other hand, I see the GPL as still a paper shark, where violating it gets you nothing but a bunch of nasty emails from geeks.
These are two separate problems with the GPL: Companies can't live with it, and they can't be made to do so. Maybe it's time to accept that the GPL needs some serious reworking if OSS is to be used commercially.
The beauty of the GPL?
It's the PROBLEMS with the GPL that are driving people, organisations, and countries to use other licenses. The GPL is fatally flawed outside of an academic model.
Our boy Leo isn't the biggest spammer out there, but he's on the list. Here's some info from ROKSO:
"Russian/American spammer, a spin-off or occasional partner with Alan Ralsky, Igabromiv and also the P/A/Y gang.
Does "OEM CD" pirated software spam, child and animal porn spam, porn payment collection, and others."
So let's see here: Animal porn, CHILD porn, associated with some of the very worst (Ralsky in particular)...
Yep. Hanging's too good for him. A public stoning might be a worthy spectacle for someone like this.
The source of a language isn't the compiler's code, it's the language specification.
If a language's structure is openly defined, then anyone can build a compiler for it. That *IS* the definition of an open-source compiler!
If OO.o doesn't work well with GCJ because the compiler fails to fully (and efficiently) implement the language standard, the it's the fault of the compiler, not the language.
Oh why do I respond to trolls...
Is there anything in the OO.o Java code that doesn't follow the published language standard? If there is, it's a bug. If there isn't and gcj doesn't compile it well, then it's a bug in the compiler.
It's a language. The "source" of a language isn't the compiler, it's the code specification.
Welcome! Welcome to a new level of maturity. Soon you will be able to roll your eyes and remain silent when the zealots go off on a rant about your personal sins.
The primary purpose of computing in any form should be to get computing tasks done. Zealotry of any sort damages that.
So nearly a week later, I reply. Don't know if you'll ever see this, but anyhow...
:-) But given the whole-body target and lack of right of way rules, the epee' form and style is probably closest to real (western) sword combat. I was just thinking that since Europe decided three centuries that an edge was mostly useless in 1:1 combat, that a thrust-based combat with no other considerations (rules, etc.) would probably win out. In 1:1, I think I'd pick a French small sword over a Jian, given equal skills in each weapon.
"Your epee' is indeed an awesome duelling option (I've fenced) but not as generally robust as a slightly heavier grade sword (for the occasional horse strike or in a melee scenario). As a utility edge weapon I'd definately go jian."
Well I wasn't necessarily suggesting that a sport epee' would do well against an actual weapon.
Of course in a big furball of a fight, who's to say what would be better? Some of the more spectacular weapons (the double-ended light sabre) might prove to be exceedingly useful.
"Of course the trick may be to investigate the development of the lightsabre. Maybe it developed from a single edge weapon and the Jedi style hasn't (yet) evolved?"
That's entirely passible. After all, it was "a long time ago, in a galaxy far away..."
Honestly, I'd expect a style halfway between 19th century European duelling, and modern sport Epee'. In other words, single handed and pure thrusting. The reason for the edge on most duelling weapons for the last three centuries was strictly to prevent your opponent from being tempted to grab your blade. The most effective attack almost invariably turns out to be a thrust.
I agree 100%!...and disagree about 20%. Apparently I have 1.2 opinions on the subject.
There is _some_ merit to claiming that the GPL creates an implicit price-fixing scheme. Maybe not a lot, but the courts will figure it out - which is where we agree. If the GPL is in fact legally defensible, then its supporters should welcome every lawsuit with open arms, as another test case and further step towards critical acceptance.
So to the docks we go! Sue away!
Really, I don't give a rat's ass about open source solutions. I recommend the best tool for the job, and I VERY VERY STRONGLY recommend the most standards-compliant tool for the job. IE fails both tests. So does Outlook. Windows usually does, but not always--if the 'job' is playing games, then Windows is your best tool. (there are other examples, but games is the easiest one).
Firefox is a great tool. OpenOffice is a great tool for wordprocessing and spreadsheets, as of 1.0.1 (I think--the version that corresponds to StarOffice 6.1). On Windows, Pegasus Mail is the best tool, and it's proprietary. QCD is the best media player, and I have no idea what the license is.
"I think it is self-evident that a much better kernel comes from open source development."
HP-UX.
Solaris.
AIX.
Linux.
Which is the weakest of these? Linux. I think that rigorous development methods and QC/QA are FAR more important in developing a good code. For that you need professional programmers and professional methods. Open or closed source are irrelevant. Picking a company that didn't properly maintain their code is disingenious.
Did you file a formal bug report with DEC?
Hmm. If you have a picture in your brain, you should be able to describe it in plain language. If you can't do that, then the code that implements it is of questionable validity. It doesn't make the code bad, but it does imply that the code is going to be difficult to follow.
Why? What benefit would this actually serve?
I'm honestly curious. I can't imagine why this would be a worthwhile thing.
That's all there is to it. If you don't expand to become a Big Player, you get forced out or bought. There is no more room for independents. There is no more room for niche companies. We're already at the cusp of a world where all niche companies are merely divisions of huge multinationals.
So Adobe could either buy Macromedia, or let someone else do it. If someone else (MS?) did so, then Adobe would be next on the chopping block.
It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, guaranteed by late-stage capitalism.
Cribbing code is only a problem when it begins to supplant actual programming skill and creativity, which is what I'm worried about. Potentially, there could come a point where most programmers _couldn't_ write much of the code that's out there, without having the code, algorithms, and flowcharts to copy from.
It's a question much older than computers of course. Calculators in schools is pretty much the same argument, and it goes back centuries.
First of all, the blank media tariff is a pile of shite--As an admin in a large site, we go through hundreds of blank CDRs weekly--all of it for in-house developed software and A/V presentations. The tariff has been a dirty cash crab that should be illegal, from the get go.
In exchange, we can legally burn--for ourselves. We can download, but no one else can allow downloads. We can borrow and burn, but not burn and lend. The law is insane, and badly done. Adding more moneygrubbing to the 'registered download' industry is downright evil.
But it's not likely going to happen anyways. Not yet.
Well my last mod point expired, so I'll post instead of modding you...up!
I agree. Civ is a great game. A free version of it is wonderful. However, there's nothing innovative about it--it's a copy of an old game.
This makes me wonder about open source in general. I've noticed in the last year or so, a steady stream of "Well if your proprietary OS does it better, show us the code!" Directed against Sun, against AIX, and against MS. It seems to me that programmers are getting more and more dependent on having source code available to crib off of, in order to create really good code.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't know yet, and neither does anyone else. I'm a bit worried, though.
Others have said it, I'll say it too: You need a formal risk analysis done. Ideally it should be done by the idiots who said you're vulnerable in the first place--make them actually WORK for their money.
Are you at risk? Probably. All companies are based on managing risk, and reaping the rewards. Computers are no different--to have internet access incurs some risk. Your job isn't to ELIMINATE risk, it's to MANAGE it, to reasonable levels. If the consulting company says that you're exposed, it should be up to them to calculate the likelihood of being exploited (i.e. x% chance per year that this exploit will be used), the libility of the exposure (i.e. money lost either directly or indirectly), and the cost to fix. If there's a 0.1% chance per year of someone breaking a server in the DMZ and it will cost your company $10000 to recover from it (lost information, time to rebuild, etc.), then any remedy that closes it will have to be almost free to be worthwhile ($20/year on the outside). On the other hand, something with a 15% chance of being exploited that's going to lose $3MM of market advantage should be fixed ASAP, as long as it costs less than nearly half a million.
Risk analysis. Risk management. Risk containment. NOT risk elimination.
Here's the blunt facts. If you need to destroy the data completely, you can't give reasonably intact platters back to a company for RMA. Period.
However, let's look into this. If your disk is one in a RAID5 or stripeset, then collecting the data off of it intact is only going to be moderately useful at best. How much can someone do with every seventh (or so) block of data?
If you're doing truly sensitive stuff (healthcare, military, etc.) then I don't see any alternative but destruction. If you're dealing with 'typical' corporate security, a narrow-stripe RAID5 (or 0) and a decent wipe utility should be sufficient.
I'll ask my standard question here, 'what qualifies as an SUV?' F'rinstance, I've got a Toyota Rav4, which is in the category. It also has a 4-banger, lower curb weight than many midsized cars, as well as better gas mileage. When we got it, those were major considerations in our purchase. Nissan has since come out with a similar style beast, as have a few others. At another point on the spectrum are the 'cars' which are basically good old fashioned station wagons. Some get good mileage, some don't.
My point is that SUV is a vague or incorrect target. Raise the mileage minima for _all_ vehicles, and quit differentiating between cars and trucks/SUVs. Remove the emissions exemption from diesel engines, so there's no longer an incentive to drive a mistuned diesel over a well-tuned gas engine. Start spending some of the R&D incentive money on alternate fuels, instead of giving it to oil and gas companies.
"Ask them if they will ever open source ZFS and you will find out."
Are you implying that they're not going to release the source for ZFS? Where did you get this idea? ZFS will be part of the OS, and will be entirely clean of encumbered code, which means they'll open source it.
Just a minor nit with the article. It's hard for ESR to have coined the term "open source" in March of 1998, when Bruce Perens had already created the OSI website a month earlier, and ESR had redesigned it once by that point.
Clearly there's at least a small timeline glitch here. Probably nothing more than that.
Someone needs to tell Bush that this is part of the master plan to defend 'Merica against space aliens with big lasers. Then watch the funding triple overnight.