Not that it matters (seeing as how Troll Tech can do anything that they want with their code ['cause even though they've released it under the GPL, they still retain the copyright!]), but I wonder what the FSF thinks of TT's GPL exceptions.:) A naive google search doesn't reveal any useful information.
(The somewhat offtopic rant was added for the benefit of the members of the "OMG GOING GPL MEANS YOU CAN NEVAR GO BACK" club, not for you.)
And especially, they do not want their machine to die on every kernel update.
Are you saying that they don't want to reboot their box? If so, there's not much they can safely do about that for now. (They might be able to do some fun things with kexec, though!) If not, what strange systems are these folks running on? Have they reported any bugs on the matter? Where? Do you have any bugtracker links or mailing list convos? (I might be able to help out!;) )
Not only does it kill proprietary drivers it more often kills FOSS drivers.
Maybe there are far more out-of-kernel FOSS device drivers than there are proprietary ones? Or maybe you're pulling anecdotes out of thin air?
most users do not give a shit whether some driver is FOSS or not.
More's the pity. However, the kernel.org gatekeepers *do* care about FOSS drivers. And really, that's all that matters. The kernel.org kernel is their project, not anyone else's. If you don't like their policies, you're free to fork their kernel, freeze the interfaces, generate some "legally questionable" GPLd driver wrappers, and start accepting and supporting all the proprietary drivers that you like!
The problem with the "design" is that the design is Just Bad.
Amusingly, this policy exists to *reduce* the effects of bad design. The kernel folks dump and rework kernel internals as they see fit. Not having to worry too much about back-compat makes their job easier.
Yeppers. My AGP x800 (R420) isn't all that bad! Version 6.9.0 of xf86-video-ati is pretty decent, too. NB: I haven't tried playing the Linux version of Doom 3. However Neverball works aiiight.
You're employing a homonym! Congratulations. This isn't the version of "stable" that the PP was referencing.
The kernel today and kernel year ago are not compatible.
If you're talking about compatibility from a "code living inside the kernel" standpoint, then this is by design. The kernel devs *want* kernel-space code to be published and live in the kernel source tree. This helps to keep the Linux kernel and associated drivers free and open.
If you're talking about userspace compat issues brought on by kernel changes, I don't know what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?
Perhaps I misunderstood. Were you speaking out against permitting civilians to carry handguns and rifles? If you weren't, then your comments are a little bunny-trail of a derail. If you were, please read on.
The way I read it, Shakrai was claiming that we're better off being able to defend *ourselves* than if we're left defenseless.
It's rather silly to tell law-abiding citizens that they can't defend themselves.
I agree with him. Unarmed folks -especially in rural areas- are -statistically speaking- at the mercy of an armed criminal who wishes to do them harm. There's a phrase that I'm pretty fond of. "When an armed thug is at your door, the police are only minutes away."
My "Shouldn't we all have devices that don't damage the user?" comment was meant to say that perhaps these "niche" devices should be more mainstream.
A wireless "laser" mouse requires DSPs that are *much* lower performance than one would find in even a cell phone from the 1990's. It requires commodity LEDs. It requires its own custom-made plastic lens. It requires a low-power, low-bandwidth radio. It requires commodity switches. It requires a relatively low quality sensor.
Mothers are a POWERFUL force as far as consumers are concerned.
Certainly. As are Arabs, paraplegics, CIOs, and Secretaries of Defense.
Frankly, I hope that Facebook doesn't back down on this breast-feeding thing. If tasteless Simpsons cartoons are Child Pornography and possession of said material sends a man to jail as a sex offender, breastfeeding is *most* *certainly* Adult Pornography and doesn't belong on Facebook.:)
If public open-air flush toilets and urinal troths were installed, would you object to their use? Would you object to pictures of their use showing up on Facebook?
I work in a place that has signs up on the gate that state that I am subject to random search of my car, person, laptop bag etc..
Unless you are speaking about a secure facility that does work for the DoD or other similar agency, you *still* have the right to refuse to be searched. If you refuse the search (and the searcher has no reason to suspect that you are a thief or are jeopardizing the safety of the employees) then he may *not* search you. You probably could be fired for refusing the search, but that's about it.
Let's say that I'm driving my car down a US highway. Inside a small, opaque, zippered bag is an old bottle of Xanax that was prescribed to my friend. My friend gave it to me of his own free will. That bag is contained within a large duffel bag full of dirty clothes, electronics, and other bags that contain cables and chargers and the like. The duffel bag is closed and is in the back seat of my car. I come up on a sobriety checkpoint. (This is where the cops stop all cars on the road and look at the drivers to determine if they're drunk.) One of the officers at the checkpoint looks at me, determines that I'm not drunk, then asks me to pull to the side of the road and get out of my car. I comply. The officer requests to search my vehicle. I refuse. He conducts a thorough search of my vehicle anyway. He finds the bottle of Xanax, hauls me off to jail, and informs the DEA.
Was this officer in the wrong? Did his search of my car overstep the bounds of the search permitted by the State? Is the bottle of Xanax admissible in future trials against me?
Do you wear a seatbelt while driving? Why? The odds of you needing it are vanishingly slim! I suppose that you also don't walk anywhere near roads or carry any money or other valuables with you while you go outside.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it matters (seeing as how Troll Tech can do anything that they want with their code ['cause even though they've released it under the GPL, they still retain the copyright!]), but I wonder what the FSF thinks of TT's GPL exceptions. :) A naive google search doesn't reveal any useful information.
(The somewhat offtopic rant was added for the benefit of the members of the "OMG GOING GPL MEANS YOU CAN NEVAR GO BACK" club, not for you.)
And especially, they do not want their machine to die on every kernel update.
Are you saying that they don't want to reboot their box? If so, there's not much they can safely do about that for now. (They might be able to do some fun things with kexec, though!) If not, what strange systems are these folks running on? Have they reported any bugs on the matter? Where? Do you have any bugtracker links or mailing list convos? (I might be able to help out! ;) )
Not only does it kill proprietary drivers it more often kills FOSS drivers.
Maybe there are far more out-of-kernel FOSS device drivers than there are proprietary ones? Or maybe you're pulling anecdotes out of thin air?
most users do not give a shit whether some driver is FOSS or not.
More's the pity. However, the kernel.org gatekeepers *do* care about FOSS drivers. And really, that's all that matters. The kernel.org kernel is their project, not anyone else's. If you don't like their policies, you're free to fork their kernel, freeze the interfaces, generate some "legally questionable" GPLd driver wrappers, and start accepting and supporting all the proprietary drivers that you like!
The problem with the "design" is that the design is Just Bad.
Amusingly, this policy exists to *reduce* the effects of bad design. The kernel folks dump and rework kernel internals as they see fit. Not having to worry too much about back-compat makes their job easier.
What?
I can install security patches on my various Gentoo systems w/out even rebooting the boxes. Are you pulling random anecdotes out of the air?
Yeppers.
My AGP x800 (R420) isn't all that bad! Version 6.9.0 of xf86-video-ati is pretty decent, too. NB: I haven't tried playing the Linux version of Doom 3. However Neverball works aiiight.
For example there is no stable Linux kernel,
You're employing a homonym! Congratulations. This isn't the version of "stable" that the PP was referencing.
The kernel today and kernel year ago are not compatible.
If you're talking about compatibility from a "code living inside the kernel" standpoint, then this is by design. The kernel devs *want* kernel-space code to be published and live in the kernel source tree. This helps to keep the Linux kernel and associated drivers free and open.
If you're talking about userspace compat issues brought on by kernel changes, I don't know what you're talking about. Care to elaborate?
Yeah. I've a tunnel through HE's tunnel broker service.
*sits on his hands, waiting for Comcast to get with the times*
Where does HE serve? ;)
Also, how would a residential user select them as his ISP?
Aye. Check the HE's POPs. Many of them are inside the US.
You *are* wrong.
* Ability to get your own /48 prefix once your tunnel is up
Via: http://tunnelbroker.net/
My IPv6 addresses say no.
GODDAMN IT. STOP LINKING THIS!
filter filter filter fodder.
filter filter filter fodder.
filter filter filter fodder.
And if you *are* advocating an unarmed populace, let's check the body count. :D
Gun death vs. traffic death straight from the CDC:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021887&cid=25681405
Perhaps I misunderstood. Were you speaking out against permitting civilians to carry handguns and rifles? If you weren't, then your comments are a little bunny-trail of a derail. If you were, please read on.
The way I read it, Shakrai was claiming that we're better off being able to defend *ourselves* than if we're left defenseless.
It's rather silly to tell law-abiding citizens that they can't defend themselves.
I agree with him. Unarmed folks -especially in rural areas- are -statistically speaking- at the mercy of an armed criminal who wishes to do them harm. There's a phrase that I'm pretty fond of. "When an armed thug is at your door, the police are only minutes away."
No. It's not.
You, however, are a *dumb*ass. ;)
Heh. You commented to the wrong post.
If the fate of the USF and other such monies are any indication, Verizon will get to keep all of the money it received. :/
My "Shouldn't we all have devices that don't damage the user?" comment was meant to say that perhaps these "niche" devices should be more mainstream.
A wireless "laser" mouse requires DSPs that are *much* lower performance than one would find in even a cell phone from the 1990's. It requires commodity LEDs. It requires its own custom-made plastic lens. It requires a low-power, low-bandwidth radio. It requires commodity switches. It requires a relatively low quality sensor.
Mothers are a POWERFUL force as far as consumers are concerned.
Certainly. As are Arabs, paraplegics, CIOs, and Secretaries of Defense.
Frankly, I hope that Facebook doesn't back down on this breast-feeding thing. If tasteless Simpsons cartoons are Child Pornography and possession of said material sends a man to jail as a sex offender, breastfeeding is *most* *certainly* Adult Pornography and doesn't belong on Facebook. :)
If public open-air flush toilets and urinal troths were installed, would you object to their use? Would you object to pictures of their use showing up on Facebook?
*nods* All it would take is some explosives with screws embedded in it.
The "terrorists" are gone. Their work here is done. They don't need to expend any more of their men, they already have the desired effect. :/
If you use glibc and a modern compiler (like GCC), you get many memory randomization and heap/stack protection mechanisms, for (almost) free!
Folks should switch to an OS that's more secure by default. ;)
I work in a place that has signs up on the gate that state that I am subject to random search of my car, person, laptop bag etc..
Unless you are speaking about a secure facility that does work for the DoD or other similar agency, you *still* have the right to refuse to be searched. If you refuse the search (and the searcher has no reason to suspect that you are a thief or are jeopardizing the safety of the employees) then he may *not* search you. You probably could be fired for refusing the search, but that's about it.
Let's say that I'm driving my car down a US highway. Inside a small, opaque, zippered bag is an old bottle of Xanax that was prescribed to my friend. My friend gave it to me of his own free will. That bag is contained within a large duffel bag full of dirty clothes, electronics, and other bags that contain cables and chargers and the like. The duffel bag is closed and is in the back seat of my car. I come up on a sobriety checkpoint. (This is where the cops stop all cars on the road and look at the drivers to determine if they're drunk.) One of the officers at the checkpoint looks at me, determines that I'm not drunk, then asks me to pull to the side of the road and get out of my car. I comply. The officer requests to search my vehicle. I refuse. He conducts a thorough search of my vehicle anyway. He finds the bottle of Xanax, hauls me off to jail, and informs the DEA.
Was this officer in the wrong? Did his search of my car overstep the bounds of the search permitted by the State? Is the bottle of Xanax admissible in future trials against me?
Unless you evade the robots!
What is wrong with you? Are you trolling?
Do you wear a seatbelt while driving? Why? The odds of you needing it are vanishingly slim! I suppose that you also don't walk anywhere near roads or carry any money or other valuables with you while you go outside.