Suffering from little endian? Wish you had a big endian? You should check out these new pills to enlarge your endian!!! Guaranteed results!!! All natural. No excercises. No pain.
You mean like when I throw my copy of Applied Cryptography at people's heads?
Careful! Applied Crypography is a thick book!
I am currently reading that book. (Second Edition) I was amazed at the prophetic words on page 97 (or maybe 99)? The book is discussing Key Escrow and Clipper. He says something to the effect of:
If there were a major terrorist attack on New York what sorts of limits on the police would be thrown aside in the aftermath?
The copyright on the book says 1996. I'm assuming that even in the Second Edition that these words are prophetic. Sorry I don't have the exact quote, and am not positive on the page number because I don't have the book here with me. But you could find the Key Escrew form the TOC.
Are you referring to Stretch? The most powerful computer that IBM never built. (Early 60's if I recall.) All the announcements of how powerful and wonderful Stretch would be managed to successfully kill off any would-be competitors. Meanwhile IBM is able to continue selling their then-current mainframes as inferior solutions to the problems that the upcomming competitors would have been better able to solve.
I was not thinking of this particular example when I said "stifiling innovation".
I guess it's okay then to monopolize an entire industry, stifle innovation, crush competitors, and enrich yourself through monopoly pricing as long as you give lots of money to charities.
Read the book: Big Blue - IBM's Use and Abuse of Power.
This trick of giving lots of money to charities is something IBM figured out in about 1918 or thereabout. That book is quite a lesson on monopoly behavior, and it is amazing how well it describes Microsoft's behavior.
It seems that Microsoft has inadvertently demonstated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom,
It seems that Microsoft has not-so-inadvertently demonstrated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom if someone is absolutely hell-bent on taking away that freedom.
Of course, if you're a Microsoft zealot, then nothing is Microsoft's fault.
People who have no logical argument resort to name calling.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft zealots, using your perferred term, are every bit as fanatical as any open source fanatics here on Slashdot. See the Steve Ballmer "monkey boy dance" video, or the "I LOVE THIS COMPANY" video for reference. Or perhaps interviews where they say they believe that their fair share of the market is 100%, which obviously means that I don't have any business writing software.
If the command line arguements for the independent utility are hard-coded into the OOo binary, doesn't it pretty much constitute 'linking'?
Under most people's notion of "linking", the answer is No.
You didn't bother to define "hard-coded". Let me give you a murky example of "hard-coded".
When you install OOo, it creates a number of configuration files. Obviously the installer (that is the installer executable combined with its "data" files) is hard-coded. The installer, works in several steps. First it dumps bunches of files in an organized tree structure into the target install directory. Then it creates these configuration files. Many of them have pathnames to other parts of the OOo installation. Other things in these configuration files are, well, configuration. Not all configuration settings are brought out into the User Interface. I have, for example, created macros in OOo which alter configuration data which cannot otherwise be altered via. OOo's user interface.
See
this example I posted to OOoForum.org.
Now suppose, the command line options to a BSD style command line tool were stored in the configuration data? Would you define this as "hard-coded"? After all, a stock, standard out of the box install of OOo would immediately work with this hypothetical command line tool.
Now suppose that the command line tool's options were in configuration data, but not brought out to OOo's user interface? Would you call this "hard-coded"?
If you said yes, then I would offer this argument. The size of the "recent files list" in OOo is hardcoded to four items. Yep, that's right, OOo's recent files list only shows four recently opened documents. This is "hard-coded". Yet my simple macro (linked above) changes that setting without altering anything that is stored as binary -- the configuration setting is stored as text.
So again, define "hard-coded"?
It seems to me that any decent sized, perhaps even small sized, open source program could use this definition of "hard-coded".
I sort of agree, kind of. What Linux needs is apps. That is correct.
It really needs something first in order to get those apps. Package and Dependancy management. Get this, and the apps will start trickling in. Right now it is just too hard to develop an app and expect to be able to install it onto anyone's Linux system without providing massive tech. support.
Um, the SCO tax is now $1399. Wake up. It is November. SCO must be properly compensated for their unspecified Intellectual Property which is present in Linux.
Believing that you read things that never happened and were never printed is the sign of a sick mind. You are detached from reality and are clearly in need of help.
You are providing broken links to non-existant text that you claim are "still" provided by other subversive sources. Only a troll would provide broken links to non-existant articles claiming that they once existed. It is all a paranoid delusion.
Nothing Orwellian is going on here. The Ministry of Truth is simply working hard to keep the Internet, Google and other sources accurate and free from your kind of misinformation.
A prerequisite to what you said is that we need to get our Package Management act together. More standardization helps in this regard. LSB, etc. We need a single package management format, and then packages for a single base, such as LSB, with libraries in one place. One standard place where Mozilla or OpenOffice.org are installed, for instance.
Finally, developer's need to support the standard locations for everything, and provide quality packaging in that format.
Until this happens, it is unattractive to port, say Quicken to Linux. There are just too many headaches from distribution to distribution.
I've often thought people were a little over the top about spam, too. Granted, I don't pay for metered bandwidth, but I get lots of spam everyday - it's NEVER made me want to punch anybody.
I don't pay for metered bandwidth. But I do have limited on bandwidth. Maybe you simply don't get enough spam. Please post your e-mail address. Surely you don't mind? It's just an unsolicited message. (Apply all of your arguments here.)
It's just funny. And the bottom line is, if you feel 'harassed' by a text message, you're not yet ready for the real world.
Please. Stop the insults and address the issue.
It's like litter. If just one person does it, there is no real problem. But everyone notices that they can do this behavior at no apparent cost. Now there is a problem.
If bluetooth spamming is allowed to happen, then every business will want to (ab)use it. Everyone's phone will be constantly beeping them. So everyone will turn off their bluetooth -- thus rendering the feature useless. Sort of like e-mail. Entirely defeating the purpose of the feature. To be easily contacted, even by strangers. (Which is NOT what anyone is upset about. Nor over the top about.) In fact, if I "misconfigure" my phone to accept messages from strangers, then maybe I wanted such contact!
The beep of a Bluetooth takes a second from your battery life. The size of an email costs bandwidth.
The battery life or bandwidth are not ethe issues. You obviously do not get enough spam to understand the issue. Or you have too much time on your hands. Or simply place no value on time. (Maybe you have nothing better to do?)
The issue is about TIME. SPAM is an enormous waste of time. And resources. I don't remember the statistics about how many dollars are wasted because of spam. But it is a large number.
My legitimate e-mail gets lost in the noise. Are you simply unable to see why people are upset?
TV commercial.....full page newspaper ad
Irrelevant. Not like spam. Spammers don't pay for my connection to the internet nor the content I get from it.
Advertising makes the (Western) world go 'round, and for all of it's ills, I'd like to see capitalism work.
I'd like to see capitalism work too. Eliminating spam in all its forms, including bluetooth won't prevent this. If you have a shop, you're free to put up a sign. You have no right to bother me as I pass by. If you put up a sign, and it is obnoxious enough (blinking, twitching, jumping, scrolling, seziure inducing), I'll avoid even passing by your shop, and I'll be sure that your neighboring businesses know this too.
Spam has nothing to do with capitalism. Legitimate marketers are interested in a legitimate target market.
Spam whether by mail or bluetooth is NOT advertising.
Mom n' Pop shops need some kinda break from the fear of WalMartopoly.
I agree with your sentiment here. But spamming is not the way to do it. Isn't the walmart-opoly phenomena just part of that wonderful unrestrained unbridled greed of capitalism run amuck that you want? Big powerful interests can mold things to work their way, despite the interests of many shop owners expressed to the city council and zoning commission?
I'll take it one step further and wish that I could make my phone yell "Hey! I'm shopping for shoes!" as I drive TO WalMart.
This is the way it should work. Sort of like an electronic yellow-pages. I should be able to see your ad when I WANT to see it and am looking for it.
Even if my phone/pda could announce what is on my shopping list, it would be abused to the point of uselessness. Everybody just isn't going to play nice. If my pda says I'm looking for shoes, then shops I pass by will try to sell me tennis rackets, sweaters, cameras, etc.
The directory concept would work. Suppose I could pu
The sentiment toward any contact from strangers seems common, and I think it shows how 'on edge' we are as a society if, upon the (one way! we don't even have to respond!) reception of an unsolicited message on a user-misconfigured phone
It is not in response to contact from any random stranger.
My phone is NOT misconfigured. It is configured specifically so that strangers could text me. This is not an invitation for hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of businesses to harass me.
Just try reading your response above in response to SPAM. Why is everyone so riled up? It is just an unsolicited message? Their misconfigured e-mail software allows just any spammer to send them a message.
It can be compiled for multiple architectures. (Opteron, PPC, MIPS, etc.)
It can be compiled with different configuration settings.
It can be compiled using different compilers.
It can be compiled using different compiler options.
It can be compiled on different operating systems. (Solaris, BSD, Linux, OS X, etc.)
While in some sense Apache may be a monoculture, you can clearly see from what I've just stated that in another sense it is far from a monoculture. At least in the sense that matters, in the sense of biological diversity. It is unlikely that one single virus is going to wipe out all Apache installations.
On the other hand, a sophisticated virus could be written based on some as yet undiscovered exploit that tries the attack for each binary variation of Apache. Using platform X, Y, and Z binary code. Compiled using P or Q compiler with A, B or C option settings.
let's think about this: If you're walking in front of my coffee shop and I "bluejack" you with a coupon for a half-price latte
Leave me alone! Leave my phone alone! Put a sign in your window.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Suppose you hire someone to stand out on the sidewalk and harass people that pass by to come into your store. Some people will call the police. Some people will punch that person in the nose. And perhaps there will be other responses as well. Some might try to get you some bad PR on the news.
Wow... does the potential for having someone send a message to your phone really invoke such ire?
<sarcasm>
What if the poor, unloved, misunderstood spammers are the victims of a smear campaign to make them look bad. Innocent businesses merely trying to cram their ad down your throat could be the victim.
Some evil hacker-terrorist, or even worse, an open source advocate, could have written the virus just because (1) they don't like the spam blocklists (see other posts in this discussion), and (2) they want to associate virii with spammers.
</sarcasm>
Of course, even if this were true, the greater good is that spammers will become associated with virus and worms. Microsoft won't be able to blame the open source community as loudly, instead having to blame spammers.
It would be amusing in the end if spammers were actually behind this, and this is what actually got them caught and got some real penalties imposed.
Slashdot Mirror
Big endian, Little endian, Big Little....
Suffering from little endian? Wish you had a big endian? You should check out these new pills to enlarge your endian!!! Guaranteed results!!! All natural. No excercises. No pain.
A programmer needn't spell correctly, just koncistentlee (sic)
Gnot Gnecessarily.
Careful! Applied Crypography is a thick book!
I am currently reading that book. (Second Edition) I was amazed at the prophetic words on page 97 (or maybe 99)? The book is discussing Key Escrow and Clipper. He says something to the effect of:
The copyright on the book says 1996. I'm assuming that even in the Second Edition that these words are prophetic. Sorry I don't have the exact quote, and am not positive on the page number because I don't have the book here with me. But you could find the Key Escrew form the TOC.
Are you referring to Stretch? The most powerful computer that IBM never built. (Early 60's if I recall.) All the announcements of how powerful and wonderful Stretch would be managed to successfully kill off any would-be competitors. Meanwhile IBM is able to continue selling their then-current mainframes as inferior solutions to the problems that the upcomming competitors would have been better able to solve.
I was not thinking of this particular example when I said "stifiling innovation".
I guess it's okay then to monopolize an entire industry, stifle innovation, crush competitors, and enrich yourself through monopoly pricing as long as you give lots of money to charities.
Read the book: Big Blue - IBM's Use and Abuse of Power.
This trick of giving lots of money to charities is something IBM figured out in about 1918 or thereabout. That book is quite a lesson on monopoly behavior, and it is amazing how well it describes Microsoft's behavior.
If a driver only sends an e-mail when you reboot, then they might not get enough e-mails to convince them.
I don't believe they give you a choice in prison.
As another slashdotter said some days ago, we need to send Darl some Vaseline and FSF-logo'ed kneepads.
When do SCOs actions, threats to sue linux customers, and harrassment of linux customers reach the point where they become some kind of illegal thing?
When they do something that Microsoft does not like.
I hope that sufficiently answers your question.
You do realize that Star Wars was a movie, not a documentary, don't you?
Heretic!
Nice troll though.
Have you ever watched Star Wars and wondered why R2D2 could understand speech, but could not speak?
Even in the 70's it was blazingly obvious which one of these two tasks was easy, and which one was difficult.
It seems that Microsoft has inadvertently demonstated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom,
It seems that Microsoft has not-so-inadvertently demonstrated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom if someone is absolutely hell-bent on taking away that freedom.
Of course, if you're a Microsoft zealot, then nothing is Microsoft's fault.
People who have no logical argument resort to name calling.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft zealots, using your perferred term, are every bit as fanatical as any open source fanatics here on Slashdot. See the Steve Ballmer "monkey boy dance" video, or the "I LOVE THIS COMPANY" video for reference. Or perhaps interviews where they say they believe that their fair share of the market is 100%, which obviously means that I don't have any business writing software.
If the command line arguements for the independent utility are hard-coded into the OOo binary, doesn't it pretty much constitute 'linking'?
Under most people's notion of "linking", the answer is No.
You didn't bother to define "hard-coded". Let me give you a murky example of "hard-coded".
When you install OOo, it creates a number of configuration files. Obviously the installer (that is the installer executable combined with its "data" files) is hard-coded. The installer, works in several steps. First it dumps bunches of files in an organized tree structure into the target install directory. Then it creates these configuration files. Many of them have pathnames to other parts of the OOo installation. Other things in these configuration files are, well, configuration. Not all configuration settings are brought out into the User Interface. I have, for example, created macros in OOo which alter configuration data which cannot otherwise be altered via. OOo's user interface. See this example I posted to OOoForum.org.
Now suppose, the command line options to a BSD style command line tool were stored in the configuration data? Would you define this as "hard-coded"? After all, a stock, standard out of the box install of OOo would immediately work with this hypothetical command line tool.
Now suppose that the command line tool's options were in configuration data, but not brought out to OOo's user interface? Would you call this "hard-coded"?
If you said yes, then I would offer this argument. The size of the "recent files list" in OOo is hardcoded to four items. Yep, that's right, OOo's recent files list only shows four recently opened documents. This is "hard-coded". Yet my simple macro (linked above) changes that setting without altering anything that is stored as binary -- the configuration setting is stored as text.
So again, define "hard-coded"?
It seems to me that any decent sized, perhaps even small sized, open source program could use this definition of "hard-coded".
I sort of agree, kind of. What Linux needs is apps. That is correct.
It really needs something first in order to get those apps. Package and Dependancy management. Get this, and the apps will start trickling in. Right now it is just too hard to develop an app and expect to be able to install it onto anyone's Linux system without providing massive tech. support.
Heaven forbid Microsoft does what it wants with a product it owns.
If they do certian things with it, then they have antitrust problems. And rightfully so.
Um, the SCO tax is now $1399. Wake up. It is November. SCO must be properly compensated for their unspecified Intellectual Property which is present in Linux.
Believing that you read things that never happened and were never printed is the sign of a sick mind. You are detached from reality and are clearly in need of help.
You are providing broken links to non-existant text that you claim are "still" provided by other subversive sources. Only a troll would provide broken links to non-existant articles claiming that they once existed. It is all a paranoid delusion.
Nothing Orwellian is going on here. The Ministry of Truth is simply working hard to keep the Internet, Google and other sources accurate and free from your kind of misinformation.
You're right.
A prerequisite to what you said is that we need to get our Package Management act together. More standardization helps in this regard. LSB, etc. We need a single package management format, and then packages for a single base, such as LSB, with libraries in one place. One standard place where Mozilla or OpenOffice.org are installed, for instance.
Finally, developer's need to support the standard locations for everything, and provide quality packaging in that format.
Until this happens, it is unattractive to port, say Quicken to Linux. There are just too many headaches from distribution to distribution.
I've often thought people were a little over the top about spam, too. Granted, I don't pay for metered bandwidth, but I get lots of spam everyday - it's NEVER made me want to punch anybody.
I don't pay for metered bandwidth. But I do have limited on bandwidth. Maybe you simply don't get enough spam. Please post your e-mail address. Surely you don't mind? It's just an unsolicited message. (Apply all of your arguments here.)
It's just funny. And the bottom line is, if you feel 'harassed' by a text message, you're not yet ready for the real world.
Please. Stop the insults and address the issue.
It's like litter. If just one person does it, there is no real problem. But everyone notices that they can do this behavior at no apparent cost. Now there is a problem.
If bluetooth spamming is allowed to happen, then every business will want to (ab)use it. Everyone's phone will be constantly beeping them. So everyone will turn off their bluetooth -- thus rendering the feature useless. Sort of like e-mail. Entirely defeating the purpose of the feature. To be easily contacted, even by strangers. (Which is NOT what anyone is upset about. Nor over the top about.) In fact, if I "misconfigure" my phone to accept messages from strangers, then maybe I wanted such contact!
The beep of a Bluetooth takes a second from your battery life. The size of an email costs bandwidth.
The battery life or bandwidth are not ethe issues. You obviously do not get enough spam to understand the issue. Or you have too much time on your hands. Or simply place no value on time. (Maybe you have nothing better to do?)
The issue is about TIME. SPAM is an enormous waste of time. And resources. I don't remember the statistics about how many dollars are wasted because of spam. But it is a large number.
My legitimate e-mail gets lost in the noise. Are you simply unable to see why people are upset?
TV commercial.....full page newspaper ad
Irrelevant. Not like spam. Spammers don't pay for my connection to the internet nor the content I get from it.
Advertising makes the (Western) world go 'round, and for all of it's ills, I'd like to see capitalism work.
I'd like to see capitalism work too. Eliminating spam in all its forms, including bluetooth won't prevent this. If you have a shop, you're free to put up a sign. You have no right to bother me as I pass by. If you put up a sign, and it is obnoxious enough (blinking, twitching, jumping, scrolling, seziure inducing), I'll avoid even passing by your shop, and I'll be sure that your neighboring businesses know this too.
Spam has nothing to do with capitalism. Legitimate marketers are interested in a legitimate target market.
Spam whether by mail or bluetooth is NOT advertising.
Mom n' Pop shops need some kinda break from the fear of WalMartopoly.
I agree with your sentiment here. But spamming is not the way to do it. Isn't the walmart-opoly phenomena just part of that wonderful unrestrained unbridled greed of capitalism run amuck that you want? Big powerful interests can mold things to work their way, despite the interests of many shop owners expressed to the city council and zoning commission?
I'll take it one step further and wish that I could make my phone yell "Hey! I'm shopping for shoes!" as I drive TO WalMart.
This is the way it should work. Sort of like an electronic yellow-pages. I should be able to see your ad when I WANT to see it and am looking for it.
Even if my phone/pda could announce what is on my shopping list, it would be abused to the point of uselessness. Everybody just isn't going to play nice. If my pda says I'm looking for shoes, then shops I pass by will try to sell me tennis rackets, sweaters, cameras, etc.
The directory concept would work. Suppose I could pu
I'm not sure I agree that having source makes exploits any easier.
Exploits are still in binary. For a particular processor. For a particular compiler, it's calling conventions, stack layout, etc.
The sentiment toward any contact from strangers seems common, and I think it shows how 'on edge' we are as a society if, upon the (one way! we don't even have to respond!) reception of an unsolicited message on a user-misconfigured phone
It is not in response to contact from any random stranger.
My phone is NOT misconfigured. It is configured specifically so that strangers could text me. This is not an invitation for hundreds, thousands, millions or billions of businesses to harass me.
Just try reading your response above in response to SPAM. Why is everyone so riled up? It is just an unsolicited message? Their misconfigured e-mail software allows just any spammer to send them a message.
-
It can be compiled for multiple architectures. (Opteron, PPC, MIPS, etc.)
-
It can be compiled with different configuration settings.
-
It can be compiled using different compilers.
-
It can be compiled using different compiler options.
-
It can be compiled on different operating systems. (Solaris, BSD, Linux, OS X, etc.)
While in some sense Apache may be a monoculture, you can clearly see from what I've just stated that in another sense it is far from a monoculture. At least in the sense that matters, in the sense of biological diversity. It is unlikely that one single virus is going to wipe out all Apache installations.On the other hand, a sophisticated virus could be written based on some as yet undiscovered exploit that tries the attack for each binary variation of Apache. Using platform X, Y, and Z binary code. Compiled using P or Q compiler with A, B or C option settings.
let's think about this: If you're walking in front of my coffee shop and I "bluejack" you with a coupon for a half-price latte
Leave me alone! Leave my phone alone! Put a sign in your window.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Suppose you hire someone to stand out on the sidewalk and harass people that pass by to come into your store. Some people will call the police. Some people will punch that person in the nose. And perhaps there will be other responses as well. Some might try to get you some bad PR on the news.
Wow... does the potential for having someone send a message to your phone really invoke such ire?
Yes. As it should.
What if the spammers didn't write the virus?
<sarcasm>
What if the poor, unloved, misunderstood spammers are the victims of a smear campaign to make them look bad. Innocent businesses merely trying to cram their ad down your throat could be the victim.
Some evil hacker-terrorist, or even worse, an open source advocate, could have written the virus just because (1) they don't like the spam blocklists (see other posts in this discussion), and (2) they want to associate virii with spammers.
</sarcasm>
Of course, even if this were true, the greater good is that spammers will become associated with virus and worms. Microsoft won't be able to blame the open source community as loudly, instead having to blame spammers.
It would be amusing in the end if spammers were actually behind this, and this is what actually got them caught and got some real penalties imposed.
Don't you mean more Spam Resistant? If it were spamproof, then you wouldn't need "more".
Like making a water resistant watch "more waterproof".
More bulletproof.
Foolproof? What about merely Fool Resistant?