Don't bother. I've read it, and it's just a petition to get SCE to distribute a version of Linux for the PS2 - ie, no firm confirmation that they will do so.
I'm not saying that the developers have to distribute the source - only that they have the right to do so if Sony is supplying them with a Linux-based development environment (as it most certainly is). Of course, as you say, it's fairly likely that all they've done is produced a cross-compiling version of gcc for the PS2, and the development environment itself is nothing special (ie stock kernel and userland running on x86 or whatever).
Ogochan is probably Ogoshi Masami, chairman of the Japan Linux Association, and the other person is Ken Kutaragi, CEO of SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment).
OK, basically what it says is someone on the pslinux mailing list named "Ogochan" (who's almost certainly Ogoshi Masami, the head of the Japan Linux Association, spoke with SCE's president and was told that if SCE decided to distribute Linux for the PS2, they could do it tomorrow (i.e., immediately - so it's definitely running).
One thing that bothers me is that Sony is distributing the Linux-based development environment only to licensed developers (which is not a problem in itself, as long as they give the developers the source - have they?), but none of the developers have re-distributed the source themselves, which would seem to indicate that Sony has placed legal restrictions on them - a definite breach of the GPL.
As noted in this post, the original article poster (Diesel Dave) has a psychosis.com mail address; the company mentioned in the article is owned by the same person as that who owns psychosis.com. I think we can presume that timothy has just been fooled into giving Diesel Dave some free advertising...
Someone please mod the above up - especially since the original poster is named Diesel Dave (i.e. David Cinege himself, presumably). What a loser.
Re:The book was a dissappointment too.
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 1
Just a couple of points:
1) IIRC, the editor of Hannibal (the book) made virtually no changes to the manuscript (in fact, it may have been a condition that no changes be made). This is very unusual for any book.
2) The book took a lot longer to write than it was supposed to have.
Taking these two together, I'd say it'd be hard to say the book was "churned out" in the "commercial spin...of the first". I'm sure the publosher would have loved to have had the book come out a year or two after the first movie, but it was a lot longer than that.
Also, my impression of the book when I read it was that Harris was deliberately trying to make the book as unfilmable as possible - I mean, a person being eaten by trained pigs, someone having their brain carved up for dinner while still alive... I hate to agree with John, but I'm surprised they got away with an R rating.
Unfortunately, many platforms (yes, I'm talking about non-UNIX/Linux platforms) don't have clients readily available for SSH2, and if you take away support for SSH1, you can bet that people will go right back to using telnet. SSH1 is still infinitely better than non-encrypted communications.
I wouldn't say RSA abandoned their patent early to be "polite" - it was more a case of getting some good publicity, and cutting all those potential celebratory parties off at the ankles before they even got started...
I would thus like to ask you to change the name OpenSSH to something else that doesn't infringe the SSH or Secure Shell trademarks, basically to something that is clearly different and doesn't cause confusion.
OK, I can go along with this. He has the trademark, the two applications are very similar, I can see where he's coming from.
The confusion is made even worse by the fact that OpenSSH is also a derivative of my original SSH Secure Shell product, and it still looks
very much like my product (without my approval for any of it, by the way). The old SSH1 protocol and implementation are known to have fundamental security problems, some of which have been described in recent CERT vulnerability notices and various conference papers.
OpenSSH is doing a disservice to the whole Internet security community by lengthing the life cycle of the fundamentally broken SSH1 protocols.
Now this is a completely different kettle of fish.
1) If you didn't want people to hack on the code, why did you initially release it under a license that allowed that? It can't be retroactively retracted, y'know...
2) The OpenSSH team doesn't need your approval; you in effect gave them your approval when you licensed it as you did (see 1).
3) Yes, SSH1 has security problems. WHo developed it? You did. Also, IIRC, OpenSSH was just about the only implementation that wasn't vulnerable to several of the vulnerabilities that have been found so far.
4) OpenSSH supports SSH2 anyway, so I don't see how its existence is encouraging the use of SSH1. More than likely, people who had been put off by your version of SSH2's restrictive licensing terms moved to SSH2 only when OpenSSH provided it.
All in all, it seems a mix of a legitimate claim with some very clumsy revisionism and FUD.
Not to mention that OpenSSH now supports SSH2 protocols. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's that point that has caused SSH Communications to let loose the dogs^H^H^H^Hlawyers.
I think you'll find that with 70s technology, it would be pretty much impossible to analyze natural speech well enough to pick up certain words from a conversation. Whatever Echelon is, it's not an automatic eavesdropping machine.
Heh. I've got one of those early production run SB16s. Big thing with an onboard IDE interface. Of course, I don't actually use it, but it is nice to have around.
Similar pieces of hardware, in terms of size and ugliness, are some of the early graphics accelerators (especially some of the Macintosh ones which used all these little ZIP memory chips), or the original Amiga Video Toaster (now there was a big card).
I don't think he's talking about systems actually required for flying the plane - things such as targeting systems (where information on which locations are planned targets could be valuable to the enemy) or map data (which would tell the enemy how much of their defense system has been located) would be more likely candidates for such treatment.
Then again, it could just be that the Air Force doesn't like sharing its sooper-sekret pr0n files with anybody else.
Hardly, why would I have been asking if I didn't already feel that way. My impressions were already "colored".
In which case, your example of your teacher is rather pointless, since it would seem you had already made up your mind about the GPL - just as he had about the BSD license.
My point with repeating this story, was that most GPL people are like this.
This is a ridiculous generalization. Have you talked with a majority of GPL supporters? Or even a small proportion? This is like me saying, "Most BSD supporters are fascists." No supporting arguments, no personal experience - just a blatantly provocative generalization.
And the GPL itself has the same attitude. You WILL do it our way, or we will find a way to FORCE you to comply.
That's just ridiculous. If you don't use GPL'd code in your own code, you have no problem. If you DO use GPL'd code in your own code, you should at least repect the license the author of that code put on it.
Trying to make me look like a childish person throwing a mindless tantrum is a nice tactic -- but it doesn't work in civilized society.
More than anything, this sentence makes me think of a teenager saying, "I'm not a kid! Don't treat me like one!" Please, grow up and respect the fact that some people like the GPL more than the BSD license, just as you prefer the opposite.
I notice that the home page says that the 64-bit 66MHz PCI connector is "custom". Now, I don't know about you, but every time I see the word "custom" in relation to a connector, it always seems to mean something along the lines of "Proprietary form factor which will only take the expansion options produced by us, which will cost you an arm and a leg and disappear off the market approximately three seconds after we stop production of the main board. Haw haw, sucker!"
I'd have preferred it if they could have just made it into a double drive bay item that allows you to use full-size PCI cards in the extra space.
A year or so ago, I got a PWS600a (that's a 600MHz 21164A) for around $US1200 (not a great bargain, but not bad). That said, although it's great for floating point, it is a little quirky if you're used to Intel.
I also have an old 275MHz PC64 system that I bought as a bare motherboard and built myself two or three years ago. That feels like a slow Pentium (say, around 200-233MHz) for normal use. The board cost me around $200 or so, I think; case, SCSI board, etc., set me back another $300 or so, so it cost ~$500 all up. Whether it's worth it or not is relative, but I've had fun fiddling with it.
The manual update to glibc on slack was enough hassle to convince me of that.
Patrick has almost always recommended a full reformat/reinstall for upgrades across major versions of Slackware. It's just the way it is; if you want (mostly) hassle-free upgrades, you need either Debian or FreeBSD.
(And a full reinstall isn't as bad as it sounds; backup/etc and/home, make a list of the stuff you have installed in/usr/local, and off you go.)
Unfortunately, the optimizations he's talking about there are those done automatically by Compaq's ccc compiler (basically a port of their Tru64 compiler to Linux) with their proprietary math library (cpml). Ignoring the necessity of a proprietary compiler and library for the moment, there's no way you'd be able to use that optimization level for a distribution - he compilee with -ev6 -O4, which would only work on EV6-family Alphas (that's 21264 or better, if my memory isn't failing), which aren't exactly the sort of machines people running Slackware are going to have just lying around the house, if you know what I mean.
That said, if anyone did try recompiling most of userland with ccc (it won't work for the kernel, glibc or some other low-level components), I'd be interested in seeing the results.
I hope so. Telnet should be banished to the furthest reaches of outer space, as far as I'm concerned. Supplying SSH as standard would go a long way towards achieving that.
As I recall, at a FreeBSD conference in California recently, every morning they posted all the user names and passwords that had been sent as clear text across the conference's network. If even people who go to such a gathering still aren't using SSH, how can you expect your average Joe to shift away from Telnet - unless you make them?
You start off by calling Lisp names, then admit that the E theme format is ugly, and go on to say that E isn't slower than other WMs if you compile it right.
And that's supposed to convince people to give it a try?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't bother. I've read it, and it's just a petition to get SCE to distribute a version of Linux for the PS2 - ie, no firm confirmation that they will do so.
I'm not saying that the developers have to distribute the source - only that they have the right to do so if Sony is supplying them with a Linux-based development environment (as it most certainly is). Of course, as you say, it's fairly likely that all they've done is produced a cross-compiling version of gcc for the PS2, and the development environment itself is nothing special (ie stock kernel and userland running on x86 or whatever).
Ogochan is probably Ogoshi Masami, chairman of the Japan Linux Association, and the other person is Ken Kutaragi, CEO of SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment).
OK, basically what it says is someone on the pslinux mailing list named "Ogochan" (who's almost certainly Ogoshi Masami, the head of the Japan Linux Association, spoke with SCE's president and was told that if SCE decided to distribute Linux for the PS2, they could do it tomorrow (i.e., immediately - so it's definitely running).
One thing that bothers me is that Sony is distributing the Linux-based development environment only to licensed developers (which is not a problem in itself, as long as they give the developers the source - have they?), but none of the developers have re-distributed the source themselves, which would seem to indicate that Sony has placed legal restrictions on them - a definite breach of the GPL.
As noted in this post, the original article poster (Diesel Dave) has a psychosis.com mail address; the company mentioned in the article is owned by the same person as that who owns psychosis.com. I think we can presume that timothy has just been fooled into giving Diesel Dave some free advertising...
Someone please mod the above up - especially since the original poster is named Diesel Dave (i.e. David Cinege himself, presumably). What a loser.
Just a couple of points:
1) IIRC, the editor of Hannibal (the book) made virtually no changes to the manuscript (in fact, it may have been a condition that no changes be made). This is very unusual for any book.
2) The book took a lot longer to write than it was supposed to have.
Taking these two together, I'd say it'd be hard to say the book was "churned out" in the "commercial spin...of the first". I'm sure the publosher would have loved to have had the book come out a year or two after the first movie, but it was a lot longer than that.
Also, my impression of the book when I read it was that Harris was deliberately trying to make the book as unfilmable as possible - I mean, a person being eaten by trained pigs, someone having their brain carved up for dinner while still alive... I hate to agree with John, but I'm surprised they got away with an R rating.
You're confusing SSH (the implementation) with SSH (the standard).
Unfortunately, many platforms (yes, I'm talking about non-UNIX/Linux platforms) don't have clients readily available for SSH2, and if you take away support for SSH1, you can bet that people will go right back to using telnet. SSH1 is still infinitely better than non-encrypted communications.
I wouldn't say RSA abandoned their patent early to be "polite" - it was more a case of getting some good publicity, and cutting all those potential celebratory parties off at the ankles before they even got started...
Just to point a few things out...
I would thus like to ask you to change the name OpenSSH to something else that doesn't infringe the SSH or Secure Shell trademarks, basically to something that is clearly different and doesn't cause confusion.
OK, I can go along with this. He has the trademark, the two applications are very similar, I can see where he's coming from.
The confusion is made even worse by the fact that OpenSSH is also a derivative of my original SSH Secure Shell product, and it still looks
very much like my product (without my approval for any of it, by the way). The old SSH1 protocol and implementation are known to have fundamental security problems, some of which have been described in recent CERT vulnerability notices and various conference papers.
OpenSSH is doing a disservice to the whole Internet security community by lengthing the life cycle of the fundamentally broken SSH1 protocols.
Now this is a completely different kettle of fish.
1) If you didn't want people to hack on the code, why did you initially release it under a license that allowed that? It can't be retroactively retracted, y'know...
2) The OpenSSH team doesn't need your approval; you in effect gave them your approval when you licensed it as you did (see 1).
3) Yes, SSH1 has security problems. WHo developed it? You did. Also, IIRC, OpenSSH was just about the only implementation that wasn't vulnerable to several of the vulnerabilities that have been found so far.
4) OpenSSH supports SSH2 anyway, so I don't see how its existence is encouraging the use of SSH1. More than likely, people who had been put off by your version of SSH2's restrictive licensing terms moved to SSH2 only when OpenSSH provided it.
All in all, it seems a mix of a legitimate claim with some very clumsy revisionism and FUD.
Not to mention that OpenSSH now supports SSH2 protocols. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's that point that has caused SSH Communications to let loose the dogs^H^H^H^Hlawyers.
I think you'll find that with 70s technology, it would be pretty much impossible to analyze natural speech well enough to pick up certain words from a conversation. Whatever Echelon is, it's not an automatic eavesdropping machine.
Is Samba a big enough project for you?
Heh. I've got one of those early production run SB16s. Big thing with an onboard IDE interface. Of course, I don't actually use it, but it is nice to have around.
Similar pieces of hardware, in terms of size and ugliness, are some of the early graphics accelerators (especially some of the Macintosh ones which used all these little ZIP memory chips), or the original Amiga Video Toaster (now there was a big card).
I don't think he's talking about systems actually required for flying the plane - things such as targeting systems (where information on which locations are planned targets could be valuable to the enemy) or map data (which would tell the enemy how much of their defense system has been located) would be more likely candidates for such treatment.
Then again, it could just be that the Air Force doesn't like sharing its sooper-sekret pr0n files with anybody else.
Hardly, why would I have been asking if I didn't already feel that way. My impressions were already "colored".
In which case, your example of your teacher is rather pointless, since it would seem you had already made up your mind about the GPL - just as he had about the BSD license.
My point with repeating this story, was that most GPL people are like this.
This is a ridiculous generalization. Have you talked with a majority of GPL supporters? Or even a small proportion? This is like me saying, "Most BSD supporters are fascists." No supporting arguments, no personal experience - just a blatantly provocative generalization.
And the GPL itself has the same attitude. You WILL do it our way, or we will find a way to FORCE you to comply.
That's just ridiculous. If you don't use GPL'd code in your own code, you have no problem. If you DO use GPL'd code in your own code, you should at least repect the license the author of that code put on it.
Trying to make me look like a childish person throwing a mindless tantrum is a nice tactic -- but it doesn't work in civilized society.
More than anything, this sentence makes me think of a teenager saying, "I'm not a kid! Don't treat me like one!" Please, grow up and respect the fact that some people like the GPL more than the BSD license, just as you prefer the opposite.
I notice that the home page says that the 64-bit 66MHz PCI connector is "custom". Now, I don't know about you, but every time I see the word "custom" in relation to a connector, it always seems to mean something along the lines of "Proprietary form factor which will only take the expansion options produced by us, which will cost you an arm and a leg and disappear off the market approximately three seconds after we stop production of the main board. Haw haw, sucker!"
I'd have preferred it if they could have just made it into a double drive bay item that allows you to use full-size PCI cards in the extra space.
A year or so ago, I got a PWS600a (that's a 600MHz 21164A) for around $US1200 (not a great bargain, but not bad). That said, although it's great for floating point, it is a little quirky if you're used to Intel.
I also have an old 275MHz PC64 system that I bought as a bare motherboard and built myself two or three years ago. That feels like a slow Pentium (say, around 200-233MHz) for normal use. The board cost me around $200 or so, I think; case, SCSI board, etc., set me back another $300 or so, so it cost ~$500 all up. Whether it's worth it or not is relative, but I've had fun fiddling with it.
The manual update to glibc on slack was enough hassle to convince me of that.
/etc and /home, make a list of the stuff you have installed in /usr/local, and off you go.)
Patrick has almost always recommended a full reformat/reinstall for upgrades across major versions of Slackware. It's just the way it is; if you want (mostly) hassle-free upgrades, you need either Debian or FreeBSD.
(And a full reinstall isn't as bad as it sounds; backup
Unfortunately, the optimizations he's talking about there are those done automatically by Compaq's ccc compiler (basically a port of their Tru64 compiler to Linux) with their proprietary math library (cpml). Ignoring the necessity of a proprietary compiler and library for the moment, there's no way you'd be able to use that optimization level for a distribution - he compilee with -ev6 -O4, which would only work on EV6-family Alphas (that's 21264 or better, if my memory isn't failing), which aren't exactly the sort of machines people running Slackware are going to have just lying around the house, if you know what I mean.
That said, if anyone did try recompiling most of userland with ccc (it won't work for the kernel, glibc or some other low-level components), I'd be interested in seeing the results.
I hope so. Telnet should be banished to the furthest reaches of outer space, as far as I'm concerned. Supplying SSH as standard would go a long way towards achieving that.
As I recall, at a FreeBSD conference in California recently, every morning they posted all the user names and passwords that had been sent as clear text across the conference's network. If even people who go to such a gathering still aren't using SSH, how can you expect your average Joe to shift away from Telnet - unless you make them?
Ahem... Jubei (or more correctly "Juubee") was the name of an actual person several hundred years before it was the name of an anime character.
Ahem.
You start off by calling Lisp names, then admit that the E theme format is ugly, and go on to say that E isn't slower than other WMs if you compile it right.
And that's supposed to convince people to give it a try?
...because America's largest (sudo) ISP...
It took me a moment, but the word you're looking for there is pseudo, not "sudo".
I was trying to figure out what root permissions had to do with AOL, until I tried reading it aloud...