How unusual. So people busy themselves looking at other stuff when there's no action on the video - does that come as any surprise? No. Given the choice of an audio podcast or a talking head to keep me company on the train on the way to work, I'll take the talking head thanks.
Agreed - copyright infringement should be a civil matter (with the possible exception of those who facilitate others for profit - eg commercial pirates).
On the matter of already owning a CD - I would argue that yes, you do have a license so how you use that license (by playing a CD, streaming, downloading, etc.) is irrelevant.
This is an unusual situation though - if I own a CD I'd sooner rip it myself than trust someone else to do it properly, and if I have lost/damaged the CD I should be able to (note that I say 'should' rather than 'can') have it replaced on the basis that it was not the CD I purchased but a license to use its contents. It would be virtually impossible to administer these replacements so as an alternative I should at least be able to back up my valuable collection.
In summary:
- I SHOULD be able to use properly licensed content as I see fit (eg copying it to my iPod, backing it up)
- I SHOULD NOT use unlicensed content; doing so prevents artists from being rewarded for their efforts
- It SHOULD be easy and cheap to obtain music legally (eg $0.10/track rather than $1.00/track)
- My license to use content should be perpetual and SHOULD NOT be dependent on infrastructure which may or may not be available in the future (eg proprietary file formats, music stores like iTMS, etc.)
- Distributors SHOULD NOT be able to restrict my use of licensed content; that is Technical Prevention Measures themselves (rather than the circumvention thereof) should be outlawed (along with Region Coding)
"But yet to be decided is whether a levy will be slapped on the store price of blank CDs and MP3 players, such as iPods, to compensate artists for the revenue they stand to lose under the new laws."
"We should not treat everyday Australians who want to use technology to enjoy copyright material they have obtained legally as infringers where this does not cause harm to our copyright industries."
I wonder who's running around with the cluestick? EFA?
Having spent a fair bit of time eyeballing the intellectual property provisions of the FTA back when I was living in Australia (and thus more concerned about it than I am now), I was pretty sure that we've agreed to criminalise copying CDs (or was that bypassing Technical Prevention Measures (TPMs) which are increasingly common these days). Anyway, we're confusing the issues. We SHOULD be able to copy CDs for our own purposes (I'd much rather carry an iPod with my entire collection than a backpack of CDs, many of which are irreplacible). We SHOULD NOT be able to steal music using P2P software et al. The cost of criminalising the former in the name of preventing the latter is too great.
We also did some other stupid things to ensure 'justice' prevailed, including telling judges how to do their job by insisting that they consider the retail value of copies even if that is not realised (ie if your 10y/o son downloads the latest Disney tripe, selling at the time for AUD50 as a DVD, and it sits in [insert your favourite P2P software here] for 6 months during which time 100,000 copies are made then you are to be tried for AUD5,000,000 of piracy despite having nothing to show for it but an AUD10,000 Telstra bill).
There I go confusing the issues again... downloading from P2P networks IS theft (even in a world where CD/DVD prices are extortionate); making the most of your intellectual property license (ie CD/DVD purchase) by transforming the work into more convenient formats is not.
Were it not for Nessus' roots in open source it (and Tenable) would have been unlikely to have seen the light of day, and the void they filled would have been instead occupied by some other open source project that accomplished the same goals. Instead our security is being adversely affected by greed when others (eg MySQL, RedHat) have proven that there are profits to be had by providing associated services. It is indeed unfortunate that Slashdot is giving them undeserved publicity.
Yes, they provided a lot to the community but they have also reaped the benefits of the associated exposure and are now attempting (hopefully unsuccessfully) to turn that into cash.
The reason I cite is that by using a trusted Kernel, either via a trusted machine, or read only OS, you can be reasonably sure you are getting the real picture from the filesystem.
No you can't. Whether you access the filesystem locally or over the network doesn't matter when this type of root kit is involved - the same APIs are used in both cases. Presumably a user mode root kit works by hooking the APIs in the process's address space (caller) rather than the kernel (callee), which is possibly how you were confused - in that case the kernel and server service are not affected so yes, shares (any share, not just administrative shares) would work, but then again so would another uninfected account on the same machine.
Stating I'm wrong for claiming this without explaining why and backing up your statement, was a pretty pointless waste of a post don't you think?
Viruses which interfere with local virus scanners but which do not interfere with APIs can be detected remotely.
And what is the point in setting me as a foe? You declared yourself an authority on the subject, made a false statement in public about an issue that you did not fully understand and were called on it. Hopefully you've learnt something and will think twice before making potentially dangerous assertions in the future.
More BS: why don't you quit while you're ahead. Why the fsck would administrative shares be handled any differently? The only difference is they are created automatically and end with a '$' - most clients just don't enumerate them - this doesn't mean they behave any differently than 'normal' shares.
If the users want to be compensated they can take on Sony themselves or by starting/joining a class action. The law in question is designed to prevent this type of shenanigans, and like most other punitive penalties will end up serving some purpose other than compensating victims. If it makes companies think twice before distributing spyware then we all benefit. It's similar to expecting drink driving fines to be distributed amongst victims - there are various forms of (state and private) insurance to deal with this and the money is arguably better spent tackling the problem through more police, education, etc.
If you are considering taking this further the following response to a web enquiry may prove useful:
<snip what="full name, which was not provided with the enquiry!?!">,
Thank you for contacting Sony Online Support.
As your email states that may seek financial and/or legal action against Sony BMG, Sony support policy prevents us from further communication via email. Please address any such requests to our corporate offices:
Sony BMG Music 550 Madison Ave, 24th Floor New York, NY 10022-3211
Thank You,
Your Sony Email Response Team CC2S
<snip> Message : Where should customers send invoices for costs associated with rebuilding machines infected by your software?
Those of us involved with IT security [know] a kit can only hide from the PC it is hidden on, not another machine.
This is utter BS. Those os us involved with IT security tend to understand an issue intimately before we offer our advice on it, especially publicly. Scanning 'remotely' (over the network or by booting a trusted OS) can be more secure, but not for the reason you cite.
- America does not 'own' the Internet, nor are they soley responsible for its invention, construction or maintenance
- Each country needs to be satisfied that their ccTLD is in safe, unbiased and reliable hands and it appears the majority consider the UN trumps the US here
- Network Solutions have not proven their trustworthiness, particularly in light of having potentially jeopardised the stability of the Internet by introducing SiteFinder. Such 'live experimentation' would be virtually impossible under UN governance.
- It is not always trivial to determine who should be responsible for a ccTLD, especially in times of political unrest (consider.iq - Iraq)
- America's views on intellectual property are not necessarily shared by those countries who may be affected by them should they retain control
- The Global TLDs (gTLDs) are exactly that: GLOBAL. They are not 'American' despite the fact that Americans typically, for whatever reason, don't tend to use their own ccTLD: '.us'. Their governance should reflect this fact.
- The introduction of new TLDs needs to be carefully considered or deregulated completely, rather than driven by commercial interests
- The Internet will not collapse depending on the outcome of this decision
- The US has little to gain and a lot to lose by forcibly retaining control despite the public perception of the issue
because distributions and vendors should be targeting the Linux Standards Base. IMO announcements like this are a step back for standards and remind me of the days we were hearing similar statements from RedHat.
The sooner the better I say - the confusion between theft and fair use has the potential to inflict a regime of oppressive digital restrictions management on legitimate users (like me) who merely want to take advantage of technology that has been available for at least a decade to make acquiring and using media simple. I want to be able to download tracks for 10c, with most of that going to the artist (that's about what they get currently, only we pay something like an order of magnitude more to the 'legacy music industry'). I want the format to be open so that I can still listen to music I own 20 years later - long after the iTunes music store has been replaced or the format obsoleted. I want it to be lossless and the masters to be of sufficiently high a quality that I *know* that any difference in quality is due to deficiencies in my hearing and equipment rather than some comercially driven decision to use a low quality codec (like 128k AAC). It should be so easy to obtain legitimately that there's no point in downloading it illegally, and value adds like cover art, lyrics, video, etc. should be included. I want at least the same freedoms I have with CDs currently, only without the restrictions imposed by the physical form. In particular, if I buy music I want my whole household to be able to enjoy it, ideally concurrently - not just from my account. I want to be able to use it everywhere - in my car, on the train, at work, etc. and I don't want to have to think about this; I want it to happen quickly, transparently and ideally wirelessly. I also don't want to have to go hunting for nor force fed new music - I want to have suggestions made based on others' collections which are similar to mine; if I like classical and trance surely there's someone else out there who does too, and they might have a few tracks I don't. There's a bunch of other things I want too, but you get the point...
So long as there's large, illegal distribution networks my needs may not be fulfilled.
Re:Debian: The Universal Operating System
on
Debian GNU/Solaris
·
· Score: 1
"At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on."
That doesn't sound like an instruction to me. I do understand that other debian developers have limited (at best) interest in porting 'the universal operating system' to Windows for their own needs but I'm surprised that there hasn't been more interest from an advocacy point of view.
Re:Debian: The Universal Operating System
on
Debian GNU/Solaris
·
· Score: 1
That's exactly right - cygwin is great for a hacker's needs but I don't think it's going to be a clever way to introduce free software to the unwashed masses - if it was it has had plenty of opportunity to do so already. I'm talking about installing the few meg of POSIX subsystem and then dropping a full debian system on it - probably bootstrapped with an MSI. Imagine installing vista, running debian.msi and then using all your favourite apps. Or Samba on Longhorn. The list goes on...
who bought us AutoPlay in the first place. Surely this sort of abuse was concievable back then...
Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc.?
on
Debian GNU/Solaris
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc. (gleaned from the HTML title attribute of http://www.nexenta.com/ anyway, and why do they feel the need to hide their identity (http://whois.sc/nexenta.com)? They're referring to this Debian port as 'Nexenta OS', but then using the domain gnusolaris.org (where they have also hidden their details behind a Domains by Proxy registration). They have this to say on 'the future': "We do hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our changes (so far for the most part just cleanups to build the DEBs in the new Solaris-like environment) will be integrated with the upstream. At the end of the day - this would be the right thing to do." - presumably they mean that they intend for this to become an official Debian port (eg Debian GNU/Solaris)?
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: NEXENTA.COM
Created on: 15-Jul-05
Expires on: 15-Jul-08
Last Updated on: 11-Oct-05
Debian: The Universal Operating System
on
Debian GNU/Solaris
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:
To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)? From: Sam Johnston Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000
Afternoon all,
Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem (Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300 UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems, plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900 UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.". Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.
With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32 mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the archives.
According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have already been ported over and are currently available for download for $30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2' (http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.
While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX' version which will accept localhost connections only (http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm) .
At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete with your favourite window manager.
For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from being a two way street.
RFID has a lot to offer, but we're implementing it left right and centre before we've thought it through properly. We need laws that dictate how these gadgets can and can't be used, probably tied in with our privacy laws, and with big, fat, pointy teeth. If you want RFID on your clothes so you can model them on LCD screens in changerooms then go for your life. Let one walk out the door still activated? Fine. Big fine. Like $10k fine.
Technologically there's a few things that could be done too. I don't know a great deal about the technology itself with respect to frequencies used, etc. but it would seem to me that most of the problems would go away if you implemented two universal, standardised functions:
PING - so you can reliably detect any tag. KILL - so you can reliably and irreversably destroy any tag.
In some cases the KILL command may need to be restricted (for example when the tags are used for security purposes you don't want thieves being able to use their 'KILL wand' on it), but any such restriction would have to be removed the second the device left your posession (e.g. at the point of sale).
You guys really need to take a long, hard look at those intellectual property laws of yours. Unfortunately Australia's tagging along courtesy the Free Trade Agreement, but with any luck the recent attempts in Europe will be the closest we'll ever come to software patents over here.
This is all very nice, but I've been enjoying IP speakers since purchasing an Airport Express a year ago. It works very nicely for my needs, and I'm fairly picky. I don't like the delay between starting the music and hearing it (although I appreciate why it exists, especially over wireless) and I'd like more in the way of synchronisation (eg so I could stream simultaneously to multiple units, play dvds, etc.) and integration (only plays from itunes - being able to play from the OS without AirFoil and maybe from Windows/Linux).
I for one don't believe they own the code. I'd almost bet on it. I only wish I owned a line or two so I could pull a SCO. Fsck it. Maybe I will anyway - didn't stop them:)
Slashdot Mirror
How unusual. So people busy themselves looking at other stuff when there's no action on the video - does that come as any surprise? No. Given the choice of an audio podcast or a talking head to keep me company on the train on the way to work, I'll take the talking head thanks.
Agreed - copyright infringement should be a civil matter (with the possible exception of those who facilitate others for profit - eg commercial pirates).
On the matter of already owning a CD - I would argue that yes, you do have a license so how you use that license (by playing a CD, streaming, downloading, etc.) is irrelevant.
This is an unusual situation though - if I own a CD I'd sooner rip it myself than trust someone else to do it properly, and if I have lost/damaged the CD I should be able to (note that I say 'should' rather than 'can') have it replaced on the basis that it was not the CD I purchased but a license to use its contents. It would be virtually impossible to administer these replacements so as an alternative I should at least be able to back up my valuable collection.
In summary:
- I SHOULD be able to use properly licensed content as I see fit (eg copying it to my iPod, backing it up)
- I SHOULD NOT use unlicensed content; doing so prevents artists from being rewarded for their efforts
- It SHOULD be easy and cheap to obtain music legally (eg $0.10/track rather than $1.00/track)
- My license to use content should be perpetual and SHOULD NOT be dependent on infrastructure which may or may not be available in the future (eg proprietary file formats, music stores like iTMS, etc.)
- Distributors SHOULD NOT be able to restrict my use of licensed content; that is Technical Prevention Measures themselves (rather than the circumvention thereof) should be outlawed (along with Region Coding)
"But yet to be decided is whether a levy will be slapped on the store price of blank CDs and MP3 players, such as iPods, to compensate artists for the revenue they stand to lose under the new laws."
"We should not treat everyday Australians who want to use technology to enjoy copyright material they have obtained legally as infringers where this does not cause harm to our copyright industries."
I wonder who's running around with the cluestick? EFA?
Having spent a fair bit of time eyeballing the intellectual property provisions of the FTA back when I was living in Australia (and thus more concerned about it than I am now), I was pretty sure that we've agreed to criminalise copying CDs (or was that bypassing Technical Prevention Measures (TPMs) which are increasingly common these days). Anyway, we're confusing the issues. We SHOULD be able to copy CDs for our own purposes (I'd much rather carry an iPod with my entire collection than a backpack of CDs, many of which are irreplacible). We SHOULD NOT be able to steal music using P2P software et al. The cost of criminalising the former in the name of preventing the latter is too great.
We also did some other stupid things to ensure 'justice' prevailed, including telling judges how to do their job by insisting that they consider the retail value of copies even if that is not realised (ie if your 10y/o son downloads the latest Disney tripe, selling at the time for AUD50 as a DVD, and it sits in [insert your favourite P2P software here] for 6 months during which time 100,000 copies are made then you are to be tried for AUD5,000,000 of piracy despite having nothing to show for it but an AUD10,000 Telstra bill).
There I go confusing the issues again... downloading from P2P networks IS theft (even in a world where CD/DVD prices are extortionate); making the most of your intellectual property license (ie CD/DVD purchase) by transforming the work into more convenient formats is not.
Were it not for Nessus' roots in open source it (and Tenable) would have been unlikely to have seen the light of day, and the void they filled would have been instead occupied by some other open source project that accomplished the same goals. Instead our security is being adversely affected by greed when others (eg MySQL, RedHat) have proven that there are profits to be had by providing associated services. It is indeed unfortunate that Slashdot is giving them undeserved publicity.
Yes, they provided a lot to the community but they have also reaped the benefits of the associated exposure and are now attempting (hopefully unsuccessfully) to turn that into cash.
No you can't. Whether you access the filesystem locally or over the network doesn't matter when this type of root kit is involved - the same APIs are used in both cases. Presumably a user mode root kit works by hooking the APIs in the process's address space (caller) rather than the kernel (callee), which is possibly how you were confused - in that case the kernel and server service are not affected so yes, shares (any share, not just administrative shares) would work, but then again so would another uninfected account on the same machine.
Viruses which interfere with local virus scanners but which do not interfere with APIs can be detected remotely.
And what is the point in setting me as a foe? You declared yourself an authority on the subject, made a false statement in public about an issue that you did not fully understand and were called on it. Hopefully you've learnt something and will think twice before making potentially dangerous assertions in the future.
More BS: why don't you quit while you're ahead. Why the fsck would administrative shares be handled any differently? The only difference is they are created automatically and end with a '$' - most clients just don't enumerate them - this doesn't mean they behave any differently than 'normal' shares.
If the users want to be compensated they can take on Sony themselves or by starting/joining a class action. The law in question is designed to prevent this type of shenanigans, and like most other punitive penalties will end up serving some purpose other than compensating victims. If it makes companies think twice before distributing spyware then we all benefit. It's similar to expecting drink driving fines to be distributed amongst victims - there are various forms of (state and private) insurance to deal with this and the money is arguably better spent tackling the problem through more police, education, etc.
If you are considering taking this further the following response to a web enquiry may prove useful:
<snip what="full name, which was not provided with the enquiry!?!">,
Thank you for contacting Sony Online Support.
As your email states that may seek financial and/or legal action against Sony BMG, Sony support policy prevents us from further communication via email. Please address any such requests to our corporate offices:
Sony BMG Music
550 Madison Ave, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10022-3211
Thank You,
Your Sony Email Response Team
CC2S
<snip>
Message : Where should customers send invoices for costs associated with rebuilding machines infected by your software?
This is utter BS. Those os us involved with IT security tend to understand an issue intimately before we offer our advice on it, especially publicly. Scanning 'remotely' (over the network or by booting a trusted OS) can be more secure, but not for the reason you cite.
- America does not 'own' the Internet, nor are they soley responsible for its invention, construction or maintenance .iq - Iraq)
- Each country needs to be satisfied that their ccTLD is in safe, unbiased and reliable hands and it appears the majority consider the UN trumps the US here
- Network Solutions have not proven their trustworthiness, particularly in light of having potentially jeopardised the stability of the Internet by introducing SiteFinder. Such 'live experimentation' would be virtually impossible under UN governance.
- It is not always trivial to determine who should be responsible for a ccTLD, especially in times of political unrest (consider
- America's views on intellectual property are not necessarily shared by those countries who may be affected by them should they retain control
- The Global TLDs (gTLDs) are exactly that: GLOBAL. They are not 'American' despite the fact that Americans typically, for whatever reason, don't tend to use their own ccTLD: '.us'. Their governance should reflect this fact.
- The introduction of new TLDs needs to be carefully considered or deregulated completely, rather than driven by commercial interests
- The Internet will not collapse depending on the outcome of this decision
- The US has little to gain and a lot to lose by forcibly retaining control despite the public perception of the issue
because distributions and vendors should be targeting the Linux Standards Base. IMO announcements like this are a step back for standards and remind me of the days we were hearing similar statements from RedHat.
The sooner the better I say - the confusion between theft and fair use has the potential to inflict a regime of oppressive digital restrictions management on legitimate users (like me) who merely want to take advantage of technology that has been available for at least a decade to make acquiring and using media simple. I want to be able to download tracks for 10c, with most of that going to the artist (that's about what they get currently, only we pay something like an order of magnitude more to the 'legacy music industry'). I want the format to be open so that I can still listen to music I own 20 years later - long after the iTunes music store has been replaced or the format obsoleted. I want it to be lossless and the masters to be of sufficiently high a quality that I *know* that any difference in quality is due to deficiencies in my hearing and equipment rather than some comercially driven decision to use a low quality codec (like 128k AAC). It should be so easy to obtain legitimately that there's no point in downloading it illegally, and value adds like cover art, lyrics, video, etc. should be included. I want at least the same freedoms I have with CDs currently, only without the restrictions imposed by the physical form. In particular, if I buy music I want my whole household to be able to enjoy it, ideally concurrently - not just from my account. I want to be able to use it everywhere - in my car, on the train, at work, etc. and I don't want to have to think about this; I want it to happen quickly, transparently and ideally wirelessly. I also don't want to have to go hunting for nor force fed new music - I want to have suggestions made based on others' collections which are similar to mine; if I like classical and trance surely there's someone else out there who does too, and they might have a few tracks I don't. There's a bunch of other things I want too, but you get the point...
So long as there's large, illegal distribution networks my needs may not be fulfilled.
"At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on."
That doesn't sound like an instruction to me. I do understand that other debian developers have limited (at best) interest in porting 'the universal operating system' to Windows for their own needs but I'm surprised that there hasn't been more interest from an advocacy point of view.
That's exactly right - cygwin is great for a hacker's needs but I don't think it's going to be a clever way to introduce free software to the unwashed masses - if it was it has had plenty of opportunity to do so already. I'm talking about installing the few meg of POSIX subsystem and then dropping a full debian system on it - probably bootstrapped with an MSI. Imagine installing vista, running debian.msi and then using all your favourite apps. Or Samba on Longhorn. The list goes on...
who bought us AutoPlay in the first place. Surely this sort of abuse was concievable back then...
Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc. (gleaned from the HTML title attribute of http://www.nexenta.com/ anyway, and why do they feel the need to hide their identity (http://whois.sc/nexenta.com)? They're referring to this Debian port as 'Nexenta OS', but then using the domain gnusolaris.org (where they have also hidden their details behind a Domains by Proxy registration). They have this to say on 'the future': "We do hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our changes (so far for the most part just cleanups to build the DEBs in the new Solaris-like environment) will be integrated with the upstream. At the end of the day - this would be the right thing to do." - presumably they mean that they intend for this to become an official Debian port (eg Debian GNU/Solaris)?
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: NEXENTA.COM
Created on: 15-Jul-05
Expires on: 15-Jul-08
Last Updated on: 11-Oct-05
Why shouldn't Debian run on various kernels - Linux, Hurd, Solaris, Interix... the list goes on. I'd personally like to see Debian running on Microsoft's Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Interix), which will be included with Windows 2003 Server R2 and apparently also future operating systems like Vista. Here's my post to debian-win32 from last week:
) .
To: debian-win32@lists.debian.org
Subject: Debian GNU/Interix (Windows 2003 Server R2)?
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:55:31 +0000
Afternoon all,
Windows 2003 Server R2 is to ship shortly with a POSIX subsystem
(Interix 5.2 of Services for Unix fame) which "includes more than 300
UNIX utilities and tools that behave as they would on UNIX systems,
plus a software development kit (SDK) that supports more than 1,900
UNIX APIs and migration tools, including make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc,
c89, nm, strip, gbd, as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.".
Apparently future versions of Windows (eg Vista) will follow suit.
With a tweak of config.guess I have had no problems compiling
bash-3.0, wget, etc. on Windows 2003 and am now interested in tacking
some more interesting packages, like dpkg and apt, with a view to
getting a full port of Debian running on it. The problem is that I
have limited time and porting experience, and the fact that this was
previously attempted under Cygwin is disconcerting; the debian-win32
mailing list has been around for years and yet there there has only
been one non-spam post in the last 18 months according to the
archives.
According to http://www.interix.com/ many interesting packages have
already been ported over and are currently available for download for
$30 as 'Interop Toolworks 2.2'
(http://www.interix.com/InteropToolworks.htm). Presumably source is
provided/available - I have posted the question in their Unix Tools
forum as I figure this would be a good starting point.
While there's no X server included, the X libraries are and the new
release opens up the Win32 API which should pave the way for someone
to build one. In the mean time Starnet Software do ship a free 'LX'
version which will accept localhost connections only
(http://www.starnet.com/xwin32LX/get_xwin32LX.htm
At this stage I'm looking for feedback about the viability of such a
project, information about why the last one appears to have failed and
any suggestions about what the procedure would be (eg build dpkg, then
debootstrap etc.), how best to ensure its success, and so on. I would
like to think it will be possible to bootstrap a base Debian
installation (Debian GNU/Interix?) from an installer executable, or
possibly even deliver it via ActiveX, eventually getting to the point
where one can log into Windows and get a full Debian desktop complete
with your favourite window manager.
For the time being I'll be happy with bash, OpenSSH, etc. but it's
interesting to consider what is possible... SFU/SUA was meant as a
migration path *to* Windows, but there's nothing stopping it from
being a two way street.
Sam
bring it on I say.
Sounds suspiciously familiar.
RFID has a lot to offer, but we're implementing it left right and centre before we've thought it through properly. We need laws that dictate how these gadgets can and can't be used, probably tied in with our privacy laws, and with big, fat, pointy teeth. If you want RFID on your clothes so you can model them on LCD screens in changerooms then go for your life. Let one walk out the door still activated? Fine. Big fine. Like $10k fine.
Technologically there's a few things that could be done too. I don't know a great deal about the technology itself with respect to frequencies used, etc. but it would seem to me that most of the problems would go away if you implemented two universal, standardised functions:
PING - so you can reliably detect any tag.
KILL - so you can reliably and irreversably destroy any tag.
In some cases the KILL command may need to be restricted (for example when the tags are used for security purposes you don't want thieves being able to use their 'KILL wand' on it), but any such restriction would have to be removed the second the device left your posession (e.g. at the point of sale).
You guys really need to take a long, hard look at those intellectual property laws of yours. Unfortunately Australia's tagging along courtesy the Free Trade Agreement, but with any luck the recent attempts in Europe will be the closest we'll ever come to software patents over here.
This is all very nice, but I've been enjoying IP speakers since purchasing an Airport Express a year ago. It works very nicely for my needs, and I'm fairly picky. I don't like the delay between starting the music and hearing it (although I appreciate why it exists, especially over wireless) and I'd like more in the way of synchronisation (eg so I could stream simultaneously to multiple units, play dvds, etc.) and integration (only plays from itunes - being able to play from the OS without AirFoil and maybe from Windows/Linux).
What we do need though is standards.
I for one don't believe they own the code. I'd almost bet on it. I only wish I owned a line or two so I could pull a SCO. Fsck it. Maybe I will anyway - didn't stop them :)
> The question is, has he either cleared the code, acquired copyright, or licensed it from the authors?
:)
Probably not. I wish I owned a line or two. Can you say SCO?