This would be the worst thing imaginable to DeBeers. The only reason diamonds are valuable is because they are "scarce", and the only reason they are "scarce" is because of DeBeers.
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (foldoc) has a "free software" entry:
According to {Richard Stallman} and the {Free Software Foundation}, free software is software that everyone is free to copy, redistribute and modify. That implies it must be available as source code. It does not imply that it is free of charge, so anyone can sell free software so long as they don't impose any new restrictions on its redistribution or use.
{This dictionary} is free in this sense, though it is not really {software}.
There are many other kinds of "free software" in the more obvious sense of "free of charge". See "{-ware}".
> Maybe I'm busy and don't keep up on the latest bug reports.
Than why on Earth are you a system administrator?
> The point is, this isn't something I should have to deal with.
What, exactly, do you think systems administrators should do?
You have the same attitude that ebay had when Sun gave them a patch to keep their database from being corrupted. Your A-number-1 top job is to keep the system up and keep crackers out.
> It used to be that when someone pointed out a flaw, it was put on a TODO
This was not only on a TODO list, it was DONE.
> PCWeek installed a default RedHat system and it got cracked.
They didn't use the default NT though.
> Much like the Mindcraft tests
Where the tests themselves were cooked to show that NT can saturate a T1 line with static content better than Linux.
> These things should be addressed, not spun.
Please tell me how to "address" a security hole that was already plugged?
> There is nothing about relicensing linux on that site
The author also doesn't retreat on his idea for a Christian Software Public License (CSPL). He says, "This is not different in any way to the BSD licenses, except for the text of the message. It is perfectly in line with all of the principles of the Open Source Definition."
This, I believe, was what the prior poster was referring to. And he's right, you can't take GPL'ed software and slap on a BSD-like license.
The same reason to use any domain name... so people will go there. If someone is interested in find pictures of people having sex, www.fuck.com is a pretty obvious place to go searching.
In fact, fuck.com seems to advertise what you'll find better than "extremehope.com" does.
Why must anyone demonstrate their intelligence to get a domain name? Why should people not be allowed to "shock" someone? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of domain names at all? (And who, in 1999, is "shocked" by a dirty word, anyways?)
Censoring never stops at the seven dirty words, either. There are just as many people who have an axe to grind over religion as there are those who can't handle a good "fuck" now and then. What are you gonna do when self-proclaimed "rationalists" take back your domain because religion offends them?
Well, I think that will pretty much assure them of a loss in court. You can't patent something "obvious". Considering how many e-commerce sites there are, all completely unaware of their secret invention, it's gonna be hard for them to prove that this one wasn't obvious.
Of course, the prior art will kill them as well. Before the web, there was CompuServe, and CompuServe had an online mall in the 80's.
My organization recently migrated from NCDs connected to Solaris servers to NTs w/Exceed. The theory was that with Exceed, the NT would behave just like the NCD, but would also have the ability to run everything from Redmond. Sadly, reliabilty was apparently NOT a top concern.
Unlike Windows 95/98, NT pretty much requires the network to be up, at least during your login. You also have a network drive, so even accessing your own documents may be dependent on the network. So instead of relying on the Sun servers to be up, we are ALSO now dependent on an NT server being up.
In addition, our desktop PCs are now a new point of failure. It was rare for an NCD to crash, but due to NT memory leaks, you can't leave an X session running for more than about a week on NT without suffering a crash (on an NCD, the session could survive as long as the server, which was typically over 6 months).
For KDE, just install kpackage. Clicking on an RPM or DEB will show you the package info, let you inspect the files, and offer an inviting "INSTALL" button. Clicking "INSTALL" will ask for a root password, offer to check dependencies, etc.
Check a dictionary. The possessive form of "it" is "its", not "it's". It's weird, but no one ever said English was a sensible language. Correct English is most certainly NOT "obvious".
> you could have stopped reading it if you thought it was too long.
Oh, believe me, I did. But I'm interested in the book. I'd like to know more. Maybe someone can post a REAL review here...
I've never flamed Katz for being long-winded in his features. It's kind of expected there. But come on, this is a review. Who write reviews this long? Crazy.
Re:is anyone else bothered by this?
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 1
> I guess if I were going to reproduce something verbatim like this, I would say so at the top
Slashdot Mirror
cgi let him on the machine as nobody, cron (1 of the 21 unpatched holes) let him become root.
Prohibited Content
> I'm perfectly allowed to trash the country's name any way I like.
As long as you don't use the f-word.
This would be the worst thing imaginable to DeBeers. The only reason diamonds are valuable is because they are "scarce", and the only reason they are "scarce" is because of DeBeers.
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (foldoc) has a "free software" entry:
According to {Richard Stallman} and the {Free Software
Foundation}, free software is software that everyone is free
to copy, redistribute and modify. That implies it must be
available as source code. It does not imply that it is free
of charge, so anyone can sell free software so long as they
don't impose any new restrictions on its redistribution or
use.
{This dictionary} is free in this sense, though it is not
really {software}.
There are many other kinds of "free software" in the more
obvious sense of "free of charge". See "{-ware}".
We've discussed this EXACT article in the past. See: The Myth of QWERTY.
> Maybe I'm busy and don't keep up on the latest bug reports.
Than why on Earth are you a system administrator?
> The point is, this isn't something I should have to deal with.
What, exactly, do you think systems administrators should do?
You have the same attitude that ebay had when Sun gave them a patch to keep their database from being corrupted. Your A-number-1 top job is to keep the system up and keep crackers out.
> It used to be that when someone pointed out a flaw, it was put on a TODO
This was not only on a TODO list, it was DONE.
> PCWeek installed a default RedHat system and it got cracked.
They didn't use the default NT though.
> Much like the Mindcraft tests
Where the tests themselves were cooked to show that NT can saturate a T1 line with static content better than Linux.
> These things should be addressed, not spun.
Please tell me how to "address" a security hole that was already plugged?
> (3) There was the vixie-cron exploit. This is the only part that could blamed on Linux.
Except that the hole had been patched, just not applied to this site...
(4) Letting "nobody" have a shell at all.
The author also doesn't retreat on his idea for a Christian Software Public License (CSPL). He says, "This is not different in any way to the BSD licenses, except for the text of the message. It is perfectly in line with all of the principles of the Open Source Definition."
This, I believe, was what the prior poster was referring to. And he's right, you can't take GPL'ed software and slap on a BSD-like license.
> I went to go look up what SPARC stood for
I've found whats.com to be a tremendous resource for looling up IT-related TLA's.
Also, if you've got the dictd(8) running and the foldoc dictionary installed, you can just say "dict sparc" which is even faster than web lookups.
> What about nature?
Wearables give you a better opportunity to visit the Blue Room and still get work done.
> I guess birdwatching will lose it's appeal.
A complete bird-watching reference manual is 1" from your eye. No need to keep a journal either, since the wearable can record your observations.
Let the assimilation begin!
> why use them?
The same reason to use any domain name... so people will go there. If someone is interested in find pictures of people having sex, www.fuck.com is a pretty obvious place to go searching.
In fact, fuck.com seems to advertise what you'll find better than "extremehope.com" does.
What about https:?
> No taxation without representation. The NSI TLD registration fee is a defacto Net tax.
You give them money and they give you a domain. The arrangment is entirely quid pro quo and therefore not a tax.
When you buy a candy bar, do you consider your 50 cents to be part of a "chocolate" tax?
> I like to use it properly and gramatically.
You don't seem too fond of spelling, though.
Why must anyone demonstrate their intelligence to get a domain name? Why should people not be allowed to "shock" someone? Why should anyone have to defend their choice of domain names at all? (And who, in 1999, is "shocked" by a dirty word, anyways?)
Censoring never stops at the seven dirty words, either. There are just as many people who have an axe to grind over religion as there are those who can't handle a good "fuck" now and then. What are you gonna do when self-proclaimed "rationalists" take back your domain because religion offends them?
> Our patent has been a closely kept secret [...]
Well, I think that will pretty much assure them of a loss in court. You can't patent something "obvious". Considering how many e-commerce sites there are, all completely unaware of their secret invention, it's gonna be hard for them to prove that this one wasn't obvious.
Of course, the prior art will kill them as well. Before the web, there was CompuServe, and CompuServe had an online mall in the 80's.
My organization recently migrated from NCDs connected to Solaris servers to NTs w/Exceed. The theory was that with Exceed, the NT would behave just like the NCD, but would also have the ability to run everything from Redmond. Sadly, reliabilty was apparently NOT a top concern.
Unlike Windows 95/98, NT pretty much requires the network to be up, at least during your login. You also have a network drive, so even accessing your own documents may be dependent on the network. So instead of relying on the Sun servers to be up, we are ALSO now dependent on an NT server being up.
In addition, our desktop PCs are now a new point of failure. It was rare for an NCD to crash, but due to NT memory leaks, you can't leave an X session running for more than about a week on NT without suffering a crash (on an NCD, the session could survive as long as the server, which was typically over 6 months).
For KDE, just install kpackage. Clicking on an RPM or DEB will show you the package info, let you inspect the files, and offer an inviting "INSTALL" button. Clicking "INSTALL" will ask for a root password, offer to check dependencies, etc.
Actually, if you use KDE's kfm and browse a CD that has "index.html", it WILL show you the formatted HTML page (unless you've told it not to).
So can we check this one off as done and move along?
For men willing to pay for sex, the "beauty" of a women lies soley between her legs.
Check a dictionary. The possessive form of "it" is "its", not "it's". It's weird, but no one ever said English was a sensible language. Correct English is most certainly NOT "obvious".
> I have never used AOL in my life and instantly think of AOL when I here the phrase "You got mail".
Interesting, considering the phrase they actually use is "You've got mail"...
> Break the contraction apart into it's component words...
And you get:
"Break the contraction apart into it is component words..."
See also Those Pesky Apostrophe's
Funny how all grammar flames contain grammatical errors.
> you could have stopped reading it if you thought it was too long.
Oh, believe me, I did. But I'm interested in the book. I'd like to know more. Maybe someone can post a REAL review here...
I've never flamed Katz for being long-winded in his features. It's kind of expected there. But come on, this is a review. Who write reviews this long? Crazy.
> I guess if I were going to reproduce something verbatim like this, I would say so at the top
Yeah, like say "--MIRROR" or something.
> and provide a link
The link is in the article already...