Which is basically, nada. It was all about what they could get out of it (good PR in this case). And as soon as it looked like New Orleans was going to do something that would make it harder for them to profit, poof goes the offer.
That's true. Though I consider the interface itself to be a little ugly.:-) And using select, poll, or epoll still makes signal handlers a pain, though they aren't with kqueues.
It doesn't matter to me if it is, or isn't. The workings of government should be transparent to citizens. And if there's a law stating otherwise, it should be removed.
Well, I didn't assume he was asking how to write an http server. I assumed he was looking for introspection facilities like Java's, which C++ doesn't have. I wish it did. typeinfo could be that if any compiler manufacturer implemented a rich enough set of extensions to it.
It would be nice to get, at runtime, a list of pointers to functions a class supported as well as their names and type signatures. It would also be nice to be able to get a list of members and their types and their offsets from the beginning of the class.
Personally, I think threads are a stupid thing to use unless there's no other way to achieve your goal. I would suggest looking at the 'epoll' call on Linux and the kernel queue (kqueue?) on BSD. select and poll aren't that great.
If you want to give me a lower price, give me a lower price. It should be illegal to advertise the price after rebate more prominently than the price before. I've sent those in once or twice, and each time I do it, I get a complaint that I've made some minor error and I get no rebate check. Largely, I just don't send them in.
I've walked out of a few stores after learning that the advertised price is a rebate price and gone somewhere else and paid more than the before-rebate price simply because that store was at least honest.
I used to work for Amazon's supply chain division. To my knowledge, this is not a purposeful strategy on Amazon's part. And I'm really surprised you've had this kind of experience with them. Trying to make sure people got their stuff in a timely manner, or were at least accurately informed as to the status of their order was top priority with every decision we made.
When I worked at Amazon, one of our big deals was improving our estimates of when something was available when we didn't have it in stock. There were some very good ideas on how to accomplish this, so I expect this to be much better within the next year or so.
I think the Open Source engine, proprietary content game is probably the best way to go. Of all the kinds of software out there, games are the kind where I question the viability of the Open Source model the most.
Of course nobody cares about your blog, you post stuff like "OOOhhhh. I have a blog. You should read my blog! I have interesting things to say! Plug plug plug!" in it. Nobody wants to read trash like that. Try making some real posts, and I bet it gets more popular.
This problem will never be fixed. If you want customer service, do not deal with a large organization. Customer service has no economies of scale, and will thus be worse the larger the organization you're dealing with.
I talk about this problem in this Advogato post about patents and copyrights. I don't think the person who responded really understood what I was getting at, and preferred to pick at what (s)he perceived as my confusion about the two things. I'm not confused, and what I'm proposing is not really either, but seems to me more like a patent in intent than a copyright.
You remind me of a finicky hairdresser who complains bitterly about how awful Einstein's hair looks and wondering how anybody could possibly take him seriously when he hasn't even bothered to look at the latest fashion magazine.
NAT is a stupid security mesasure, and IPv6 is just as good because IPv6 addresses are practically unguessable. Anybody who tries will be noticed by practically any ISP because it will take them an average of 2**32 packets to do it.
Yes, it's possible for someone to get an IPv6 address from a P2P system or something similar. But that can be solved by having the address change randomly from day to day. Also, IPv6 installations are going to require a router to work right anyway, so just make the router not pass inbound connection requests unless specifically configured to do so. Poof, security as good as a NAT, but still possible for someone who wants to to bypass without much effort.
Bypassing NAT requires oodles of effort in comparison.
Then why does RedHat sign their ISO hashes? No, it's as much for security as for verification. And it's broken.
IMHO, using MD5 hashes for absolutely anything at all should be stopped as soon as possible. All the possible situations in which the ability to generate collisions might be a problem are very difficult to all analyze. People designed stuff with the idea that hash functions had particular properties. If any of those properties are proven to not hold, the hash function should be considered invalid for all purposes.
Perhaps, after somebody seriously experienced in protocol design analyzes it again with respect to some particular purpose it can be considered useful for that purpose again, but I do not consider random people on Slashdot qualified to make that analysis, especially in the few minutes between a question being posted and the answer given.
Despite SHA-1 not being quite so broken, I still refuse to use it for anything were I seriously care about the security. All the stuff I do now is designed to use SHA-2, though I feel that has something of a shaky foundation.
I suspect though that organizations that want to avoid releasing source if they can at all help it will come up with an increasingly byzantine set of hoops that people have to jump through in order to get the source code. None of those hoops will involve money, but they will involve its equivalent, time.
Umm... Nothing I said contradicts what you say. So, I don't see why you have such a problem here. I didn't say how they must provide it, just that they must. And they must give you a notice of some sort that the source code is there.
IMHO, that's something that could be tightened up in the GPL and LGPL in a future version. When they were written, the Internet didn't exist, and there were forms of distribution in which including the source as well would be very painful from a space perspective. That's no longer the case, and I think the GPL and LGPL should be updated to reflect that.
But, as I said, nothing you said contradicts what I said. So, I don't see any particular reason for your argumentative tone. At best, this is a clarification, not a contradiction.
I haven't bought a CD in years. It's put a big damper on my listening to new music, but it's just not worth it to support that industry. I've heard that Ani DiFranco's label is completely independent though, so I might go buy her stuff.
I do not believe it does. What it allows is a non-GPL program linking to an LGPL library. You must still provide the source code to the library. In fact, the linking must be done in such a way that you can swap out the LGPL library with another that has a compatible interface and have the program use that one instead. This is so you can modify the source to the original LGPL library, compile it and have the original program use the modified version. The LGPL mandates either dynamic linking, or providing a version of the executable that is one big.o file ready to be statically linked against the LGPL library.
It is a misrepresentation of facts that also irritated me.
But, had Lindows not had millions of dollars in money because of investors and such they would never have been able to afford to get to that point. The legal system is very much weighted in favor of those with cash right now.
If you read some of the other comments and the whole article and stuff it links to, you'll see that SCO specifically said '2.7' in oral arguments as well. This is not a typo.
Additionally, the judge has fairly specifically limited discovery to things where SCO can show some infringement has occured. So, asking for stuff on 2.7 (which doesn't exist) is showing that they're completely ignoring her rules about discovery.
The only way I can see for this to not cause SCO to look like complete idiots is if IBM really does have some internal development going on on something they call '2.7'.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is basically, nada. It was all about what they could get out of it (good PR in this case). And as soon as it looked like New Orleans was going to do something that would make it harder for them to profit, poof goes the offer.
That's true. Though I consider the interface itself to be a little ugly. :-) And using select, poll, or epoll still makes signal handlers a pain, though they aren't with kqueues.
It doesn't matter to me if it is, or isn't. The workings of government should be transparent to citizens. And if there's a law stating otherwise, it should be removed.
Well, I didn't assume he was asking how to write an http server. I assumed he was looking for introspection facilities like Java's, which C++ doesn't have. I wish it did. typeinfo could be that if any compiler manufacturer implemented a rich enough set of extensions to it.
It would be nice to get, at runtime, a list of pointers to functions a class supported as well as their names and type signatures. It would also be nice to be able to get a list of members and their types and their offsets from the beginning of the class.
Personally, I think threads are a stupid thing to use unless there's no other way to achieve your goal. I would suggest looking at the 'epoll' call on Linux and the kernel queue (kqueue?) on BSD. select and poll aren't that great.
If you want to give me a lower price, give me a lower price. It should be illegal to advertise the price after rebate more prominently than the price before. I've sent those in once or twice, and each time I do it, I get a complaint that I've made some minor error and I get no rebate check. Largely, I just don't send them in.
I've walked out of a few stores after learning that the advertised price is a rebate price and gone somewhere else and paid more than the before-rebate price simply because that store was at least honest.
I used to work for Amazon's supply chain division. To my knowledge, this is not a purposeful strategy on Amazon's part. And I'm really surprised you've had this kind of experience with them. Trying to make sure people got their stuff in a timely manner, or were at least accurately informed as to the status of their order was top priority with every decision we made.
When I worked at Amazon, one of our big deals was improving our estimates of when something was available when we didn't have it in stock. There were some very good ideas on how to accomplish this, so I expect this to be much better within the next year or so.
This tactic is not legal under the LGPL. :-/
I think the Open Source engine, proprietary content game is probably the best way to go. Of all the kinds of software out there, games are the kind where I question the viability of the Open Source model the most.
Of course nobody cares about your blog, you post stuff like "OOOhhhh. I have a blog. You should read my blog! I have interesting things to say! Plug plug plug!" in it. Nobody wants to read trash like that. Try making some real posts, and I bet it gets more popular.
This problem will never be fixed. If you want customer service, do not deal with a large organization. Customer service has no economies of scale, and will thus be worse the larger the organization you're dealing with.
I make a post about it in my blog.
I talk about this problem in this Advogato post about patents and copyrights. I don't think the person who responded really understood what I was getting at, and preferred to pick at what (s)he perceived as my confusion about the two things. I'm not confused, and what I'm proposing is not really either, but seems to me more like a patent in intent than a copyright.
You remind me of a finicky hairdresser who complains bitterly about how awful Einstein's hair looks and wondering how anybody could possibly take him seriously when he hasn't even bothered to look at the latest fashion magazine.
I already do that, but my ISP still won't switch. :-(
NAT is a stupid security mesasure, and IPv6 is just as good because IPv6 addresses are practically unguessable. Anybody who tries will be noticed by practically any ISP because it will take them an average of 2**32 packets to do it.
Yes, it's possible for someone to get an IPv6 address from a P2P system or something similar. But that can be solved by having the address change randomly from day to day. Also, IPv6 installations are going to require a router to work right anyway, so just make the router not pass inbound connection requests unless specifically configured to do so. Poof, security as good as a NAT, but still possible for someone who wants to to bypass without much effort.
Bypassing NAT requires oodles of effort in comparison.
Oops. Yeah, that is too bad. *sigh* I saw that in the article, then ignored it like a fool since I thought the FCC was in charge of stuff like that.
A decision by the FCC that I can actually agree with and think is good for everybody. Will wonders never cease?!
Then why does RedHat sign their ISO hashes? No, it's as much for security as for verification. And it's broken.
IMHO, using MD5 hashes for absolutely anything at all should be stopped as soon as possible. All the possible situations in which the ability to generate collisions might be a problem are very difficult to all analyze. People designed stuff with the idea that hash functions had particular properties. If any of those properties are proven to not hold, the hash function should be considered invalid for all purposes.
Perhaps, after somebody seriously experienced in protocol design analyzes it again with respect to some particular purpose it can be considered useful for that purpose again, but I do not consider random people on Slashdot qualified to make that analysis, especially in the few minutes between a question being posted and the answer given.
Despite SHA-1 not being quite so broken, I still refuse to use it for anything were I seriously care about the security. All the stuff I do now is designed to use SHA-2, though I feel that has something of a shaky foundation.
I suspect though that organizations that want to avoid releasing source if they can at all help it will come up with an increasingly byzantine set of hoops that people have to jump through in order to get the source code. None of those hoops will involve money, but they will involve its equivalent, time.
That is a very useful site. Thank you!
Umm... Nothing I said contradicts what you say. So, I don't see why you have such a problem here. I didn't say how they must provide it, just that they must. And they must give you a notice of some sort that the source code is there.
IMHO, that's something that could be tightened up in the GPL and LGPL in a future version. When they were written, the Internet didn't exist, and there were forms of distribution in which including the source as well would be very painful from a space perspective. That's no longer the case, and I think the GPL and LGPL should be updated to reflect that.
But, as I said, nothing you said contradicts what I said. So, I don't see any particular reason for your argumentative tone. At best, this is a clarification, not a contradiction.
I haven't bought a CD in years. It's put a big damper on my listening to new music, but it's just not worth it to support that industry. I've heard that Ani DiFranco's label is completely independent though, so I might go buy her stuff.
I do not believe it does. What it allows is a non-GPL program linking to an LGPL library. You must still provide the source code to the library. In fact, the linking must be done in such a way that you can swap out the LGPL library with another that has a compatible interface and have the program use that one instead. This is so you can modify the source to the original LGPL library, compile it and have the original program use the modified version. The LGPL mandates either dynamic linking, or providing a version of the executable that is one big .o file ready to be statically linked against the LGPL library.
It is a misrepresentation of facts that also irritated me.
But, had Lindows not had millions of dollars in money because of investors and such they would never have been able to afford to get to that point. The legal system is very much weighted in favor of those with cash right now.
If you read some of the other comments and the whole article and stuff it links to, you'll see that SCO specifically said '2.7' in oral arguments as well. This is not a typo.
Additionally, the judge has fairly specifically limited discovery to things where SCO can show some infringement has occured. So, asking for stuff on 2.7 (which doesn't exist) is showing that they're completely ignoring her rules about discovery.
The only way I can see for this to not cause SCO to look like complete idiots is if IBM really does have some internal development going on on something they call '2.7'.