of course the CEO of SCO is pissed. They spent a lot time and money developing thier version of UNIX (and removing MS code from the kernel) only to have Linux develop into a better product, all for free. To add insult to injury, RedHat leverages all this free labor and becomes a major player in the Linux/UNIX/thin-server/server market (or whatever you wish to call it). I live and work in the Santa Cruz area. I once concidered working for SCO but I realized (even 2 years ago) that SCO would be the biggest loser in the Linux/OSS revolution (if not to Linux, then to FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc). If SCO were smart about it, they would add a Linux division to their company, port thier tools (and maybe make a mid to high range server distro) and make a bunch of money off of consulting and custom development. They definatly have the UNIX expertise and the name to give them credibility.
This may be true for a very light load, but all the other benchmarks I've seen have concluded that Linux beats NT only after ~32 clients - from here Linux quickly outpaces NT. The main concern with server performance is how well it can handle normal-high loads. In other words, if you have a very light load (32 clients) either will work fine. However, if a high load is anticipated, the *independent* studies that I've seen seem to sugest Linux/UNIX and Apache. Besides this, if you aren't in a closed system (ie a lab) there are too many other variables to really know if lag you see is actually happening on the Linux box (and not network congestion, routing differences, etc)
If Sony writes an emulator they are nolonger "console-only". While this may seem good (for Sony), it is not. Now, instead of Sony and a few others having complete control over the games released - they have to compete with hackers and others that can enter the market with little expense. Besides this, there is no such thing as "piracy" protection on PC's because someone will eventually crack the protection an release it to everyone. Lastly, Sony does not want to extend the life of any platform. The tech industry thrives off of forced upgrades brought on by killing old products - especially the software industry (this is why OSS is a much better choice).
I feel, as someone else on/. has said before, that MS is preparing for the worst. If it were to get broken up (I think it will), these divisions will act as natural breaking points. So instead of just letting the DOJ cut anywhere, MS is saying "please cut along the dotted lines"
hahahah...who's ignorant? Since when has the computer industry been based on proprietary software? Realize this, most of what we use today is bases on non-proprietary (ie OSS, IEEE, ANSI, etc) software. Take for example UNIX, UNIX started out as freeware from Bell Labs, it basically killed all the proprietary mainframes of the 70's. Today most of the internet is powered with UNIX and its derivatives. Sure, IBM, HP, Sun and others have made thier own proprietary version on UNIX, but they are all based on the original, free UNIX from Bell and BSD. Further, most of the services that you will find on the internet (and in most organizations) are actually OSS (ie apache, sendmail, etc). So actually, I think you ment to say that it is in the best intrest of big business to say that the computer industry is lead by proprietary software (wouldn't MS like you to beleive that most of the internet uses NT and IIS). You may want to consider this:
"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and dicerning if he holds his tongue" -Proverbs 17:28
prefix Linux with GNU - this makes no sense. Linux *is* the kernel, not the utilities. If someone wanted to re-write all the FSF utilities and create a Linux distro it would *still* be Linux so long as the Linux kernel was used - in other words, the lcd that separates all OSes is the kernel. So really, the wrong question is being asked. How much of a Linux distro is FSF doesn't matter - instead we would need to ask how much of the *kernel* was written by FSF. Even if FSF wrote Linux kernel code, it wouldn't make much sense, no more than calling Beowulf NASA/Linux. Good thing we are protected from the FSF by the GPL (isn't that ironic)
I feel need to email Apple and ask them to publish the complete results for the benchmarking - including complete hardware specs, Linux kernel version (if they are using RedHat then they are probably using the 2.0.x which is now ~2 years old), etc. If Mac X truely is faster than Linux (on comparable hardware) then fine, but I doubt the conclusions they've made will hold under closer examination. I know Apple has been eyeing the OSS commuity and they would love to tap into that "mindshare" (in MS speak) as they are trying to do by open sourcing some the the Mac X drivers, but hijacking the Linux momentum is very short sighted of them and it will only drive the OSS community away.
hell, why don't we start "integrating" Office into the Linux kernel. Not only will this make Office run faster (thus screwing with the schedular and services), but when Office crashes it could also bring the whole system down. Then, we could enhance Office so that it acts more likes its own individual OS. To make Office feel like good old familar DOS/3.1x/95/98 we could make sure that macro viruses will run on Office for Linux. By doing this we can get McAfee to start porting its stuff to Linux. And as part of the Office port, they should also port the windows registry - I love the registry, its a great way to hide data that could have otherwise been stored in a easy to read text file (this ensures that all users use only your config tools - no matter how crapy they are). Finally, you could make Office open libc in read-write mode (even if it doesn't write to it) - by doing this you can be sure that only root can run Office. The joy of it all...
Could you please elaborate a bit? What practices (business or otherwise) are you concerned about - everything RedHat does is GPL'ed, this is a very very good thing. In fact, RedHat is a wonderful example of how corporations should make money off of OSS, they give their software away and sell the services (sure, a CD from them is US$50, but it's legal to copy that CD as many times you wish). I for one am tired of people complaining about RedHat. So I ask again, give me a good reason to fear or dislike RedHat and I'll shut-up. So far, all the complaints I've heard seem to be from those that think RH is getting too popular (and the popularity of Linux is a *bad* thing?) or from those that feel RH is making Linux too easy to use and thus they don't feel elite enough - to these people I say get a life. I use RH and I *really* appreciate what they have done for Linux. I used to use Slackware, Power Linux, and FreeBSD. They all worked great, but it took so much longer to set them up than my RH box and the RH installer is so much easier to use. So unless someone can present some very convincing arguments I will continue to believe that RH bashers are working against the open source movement.
BTW - I've heard LT say, more than once, that he is pleased with what RH is doing for Linux.
someone please tell me that these will not come back to haunt us later.
1) The project is using MySQL - it was my understading (after reading the MySQL liscense) that MySQL was not GPL and that it is only free for non-commercial use. Could this (or other restrictions) cause a problem?
2) I found this notice on the Cd Index page - "Note: The MD5 algorithm is copyrighted by RSA, but there are no restrictions on its use." This seems like a much bigger problem. Sure, RSA has no restrictions on its use *now*, but wait till CD Index is the dominate CD database on the net and its web site gets more hits in a week than most portals hope for in a month. You can be sure that RSA will want some sort of kickback then - even worse, all the data is indexed using their algorithm.
"The only this this case is going to do is possibly make Windows a WORSE product than it already is"
How??? I suppose adding hooks to the OS to allow MS (and only MS) applications to outperform 3rd party apps is a *good* thing? Or how about making the internet part of the OS to help squash competators? One could argue that by separating the OS and MS-Apps, the kernel would be cleaner, and the OS would be more robust. Just think about how much cleaner the OS might become if the OS folks actually worked on the core OS and the application folks just used the system APIs that the OS folks published. It would probably result in a much cleaner, more robust OS and a Win32 API that didn't change every 4 months.
Not at all, I never said I wanted to pirate software. I have better things to do than try to get a hacked piece of virus infested, illegal software working. Since when is an *emulator* a "piracy"? You make no sence. Sure, there will be those that share roms, but that shouldn't restrict my desire to play N64 games on my PC. This emulator was not pirated from anyone, it was developed by a couple of individuals. Nintendo is just mad because these emulators allow users to choose on what hardware they play thier games (ie I don't have to buy N64 to play)
"I cant walk into Redmond steal MS's code base, slap on a GPL, post it on the internet, and expect no legal recourse"
Nor did I claim you could - your argument is malformed. You did not author any MS code, therefore you cannot copyright it. However, if you wrote an emulater, you could copyleft it if you so wished - according to the courts it is your IP.
"The GPL is for protecting authors, not subverting them. Free speech, not Free beer."
??? I don't see your point. Again, I am not saying I want everything for free (as in free beer), I'm just saying that I want the freedom to decide where I use software (I will still buy the games). In other words, I don't agree with this trend of companies that provide a product and then try to legally prevent anyone from competing with them. This has happened with the Rio, N64, and others. So if emulators increase piracy, should we outlaw them - of course not. If this did happen, the courts could also rule that the internet is illegal because it encourages the piracy of copyrighted matterials (ie: texts and pictures). Its hardly worth protecting Nintendo (or any company) if it means setting such a precedence.
I wish they would have open sourced it - boy, wouldn't that have pissed Nintendo off! Suddenly everyone would have the information needed to emulate N64 on almost anything. Someone needs to setup a ftp site in a country that doesn't abide by the US's stupid IP laws - the site could host these emulators and other such items that have been removed via legal action (lyrics.ch, MP3 encoders, encryption, etc). Anyhow, I expect that we will see more and more cases like this as the masses continue to have more access to technoligy - it seems that a lot of established industries are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the fast and efficient transfer of information that removes them out of the loop.
thinks to highly of people and underestimates the ability of the average person. Why are MP3's so popular - I would suggest they are because they are *free* and easy to share. Even if I'm wrong, what's to keep someone from writting a utility to remove the watermark (if it can be added, it can be removed). I love MP3's and I hope more artists will release MP3's of thier albums, but I don't think digital watermarks are going to stop those that want to pirate.
depending on how you define a closed system, the earth is within a closed system - the universe. To say otherwise would be saying that forces outside of physical laws are acting on earth.
math cannot explain the universe, it can only explain how certain aspects of the universe work. For example, the speed of light is constant regardless of point of reference - this is the basis of the special theory of relativity and why we know time is relative to speed and position. However, mathematicaly this does not make sense. Also, consider all the energy and matter in the universe. They either existed for all time (however, the decomposition of elements seems to suggest otherwise) which is totally illogical, or it came into existance, but this goes against the *laws* of conservation of energy and matter.
I won't say this will never happen, because you never know (the only thing I would be willing to predict will never happen is the ability to create or destroy energy/matter). But, here are two reasons I don't expect this to happen in the near future.
1) The exponential growth in the spead of CPUs *must* eventually hit a physical limit so we can't predict how fast CPUs will be in 20 years. Even if some sort of super-conductor or fiber-optics were used and even if the bit logic was on the atomic level we would still hit a physical limit.
2) Even if CPUs were fast enough (which the above *may* be) - you still have the software problem. So a computer won someone at chess - big deal. The logic for "learning" chess had to be created by someone (ie: not another computer) and it only learns from mistakes. Further, this AI can *only* learn chess - if someone wanted it to learn checkers, they would have to program that into the computer. For AI to reach that of humans, it needs the ability to learn *how* to learn. In other words, a computer would have to program itself to play chess - this will be the true test. But even more than this, the computer will have to take the inititive to learn. These are key differences between humans and all other life forms we know of. Humans have the ability to learn/discover new things, inovate on existing ideas, and then pass these ideas/skills to other humans - all other animals do not. For example - there are certian animals that use tools (most often a twig or leaf) to aid in the gathering of food. However, the tools are never improved and no new tools develop out of these existing tools - their use is instinctual. So if a computer must be programed every time it wishes to learn, it is not inovating or learning new things, it is just acting on what it already knows how to do (ie: it is acting on instinct)
Anyhow, I appoligize for the over general ideas, but I think you see my point. Now let the flames begin!
It seems from reading about PSNs that Intel is marketing this as a security "feature". Ok, maybe it will help with authentication on some level (the masses that never bother with such anal details as this), but the more I think about it the more I realize, there are no security benifits. From what I understand, the CPU will be sending PSNs across the network, but what is there to keep me from spoofing a PSN? There has to be some low level driver that sends the PSN across the databus to the network device (modem, NIC, etc). So couldn't someone write their own driver that creates a false PSN? Or maybe the PSN is only accessed by a special instruction (as if x86 didn't have enough already!) or memory location. If this is the case, then it is even more insecure as the former because any user application could be written to create it's own PSN (ie you could hack mozilla). So really I don't see how this is going to improve anything. If you ask me, the whole thing smells of a copy protection scheme - a company could create an install program that grabbed the PSN, send that PSN to their web server along with the users name and credit info (the product would be purchased over the net), the web server would use the PSN and the users registration info to create a digital sig. and it would send this sig. back to the install script. Then, every time the program starts, it compairs the sig. with the PSN to make sure the program is not pirated. If an illegal copy shows up on the net (allong with the sig that is required to run), its a simple matter of looking that sig. up in the database and pressing charges.
"Lets first someone test it for quite a while to save YOUR ass from trojans."
This trojan horse was not inserted by the authors of the package. Instead, it was inserted by someone that broke into the ftp site. This would be the same as breaking into MS web site and uploading a patch infected with a trojan horse. Waiting x amount of time has nothing to do with this.
"1. PGP key can be successfully forged."
??? PLEASE...who are you kidding. Do you know anything about cryptography. Forging a PGP sig is so unlikely that it would be more feasable for the offenter to physicaly force you to hand over your private key.
"FormatDriveC("bye");"
Go away troll - Linux/Unix does not use drive letters.
"How many of you review low level assembler routies present in Linux?"
_WHY_ would I do this?? Obviously you are from the MS world of closed source where you do not have access to the source code.
about is - get this - money. No big suprise, if I were them I would be too. However, I don't think they are worried that much about pirated music. Think about it - how many illegal MP3's are out there and how many people are going to spend hours looking for their fav. music on news groups and such. Any web site that sets up an illegal MP3 site is sure to get shut down quick - so really there is no way to mass distribute illegal MP3s. Instead, I think the music industry is worried more about those *leagal* MP3's. If MP3 becomes commonly used the those currently running the music industry began to loose thier power. Right now they control the market because CD's are too expensive to produce w/o the help of a lable - with MP3's there is only the cost of studio time and the original, production is no longer an issue and this is what the industry is affraid of.
that the eight companies resposible for closing www.lyrics.ch are planning to open their own lyrics site. Think about how much money they could make on advertising if owned the only lyrics site out there...I'm so pissed - there's already a www.lyrics.com, anyone know about it? - it seems very green, but I've never bothered to check for lyrics.com.
Slashdot Mirror
of course the CEO of SCO is pissed. They spent a lot time and money developing thier version of UNIX (and removing MS code from the kernel) only to have Linux develop into a better product, all for free. To add insult to injury, RedHat leverages all this free labor and becomes a major player in the Linux/UNIX/thin-server/server market (or whatever you wish to call it). I live and work in the Santa Cruz area. I once concidered working for SCO but I realized (even 2 years ago) that SCO would be the biggest loser in the Linux/OSS revolution (if not to Linux, then to FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc). If SCO were smart about it, they would add a Linux division to their company, port thier tools (and maybe make a mid to high range server distro) and make a bunch of money off of consulting and custom development. They definatly have the UNIX expertise and the name to give them credibility.
This may be true for a very light load, but all the other benchmarks I've seen have concluded that Linux beats NT only after ~32 clients - from here Linux quickly outpaces NT. The main concern with server performance is how well it can handle normal-high loads. In other words, if you have a very light load (32 clients) either will work fine. However, if a high load is anticipated, the *independent* studies that I've seen seem to sugest Linux/UNIX and Apache. Besides this, if you aren't in a closed system (ie a lab) there are too many other variables to really know if lag you see is actually happening on the Linux box (and not network congestion, routing differences, etc)
If Sony writes an emulator they are nolonger "console-only". While this may seem good (for Sony), it is not. Now, instead of Sony and a few others having complete control over the games released - they have to compete with hackers and others that can enter the market with little expense. Besides this, there is no such thing as "piracy" protection on PC's because someone will eventually crack the protection an release it to everyone. Lastly, Sony does not want to extend the life of any platform. The tech industry thrives off of forced upgrades brought on by killing old products - especially the software industry (this is why OSS is a much better choice).
I feel, as someone else on /. has said before, that MS is preparing for the worst. If it were to get broken up (I think it will), these divisions will act as natural breaking points. So instead of just letting the DOJ cut anywhere, MS is saying "please cut along the dotted lines"
hahahah...who's ignorant? Since when has the computer industry been based on proprietary software? Realize this, most of what we use today is bases on non-proprietary (ie OSS, IEEE, ANSI, etc) software. Take for example UNIX, UNIX started out as freeware from Bell Labs, it basically killed all the proprietary mainframes of the 70's. Today most of the internet is powered with UNIX and its derivatives. Sure, IBM, HP, Sun and others have made thier own proprietary version on UNIX, but they are all based on the original, free UNIX from Bell and BSD. Further, most of the services that you will find on the internet (and in most organizations) are actually OSS (ie apache, sendmail, etc). So actually, I think you ment to say that it is in the best intrest of big business to say that the computer industry is lead by proprietary software (wouldn't MS like you to beleive that most of the internet uses NT and IIS). You may want to consider this:
"Even a fool is thought wise
if he keeps silent,
and dicerning if he holds his tongue"
-Proverbs 17:28
prefix Linux with GNU - this makes no sense. Linux *is* the kernel, not the utilities. If someone wanted to re-write all the FSF utilities and create a Linux distro it would *still* be Linux so long as the Linux kernel was used - in other words, the lcd that separates all OSes is the kernel. So really, the wrong question is being asked. How much of a Linux distro is FSF doesn't matter - instead we would need to ask how much of the *kernel* was written by FSF. Even if FSF wrote Linux kernel code, it wouldn't make much sense, no more than calling Beowulf NASA/Linux. Good thing we are protected from the FSF by the GPL (isn't that ironic)
I feel need to email Apple and ask them to publish the complete results for the benchmarking - including complete hardware specs, Linux kernel version (if they are using RedHat then they are probably using the 2.0.x which is now ~2 years old), etc. If Mac X truely is faster than Linux (on comparable hardware) then fine, but I doubt the conclusions they've made will hold under closer examination. I know Apple has been eyeing the OSS commuity and they would love to tap into that "mindshare" (in MS speak) as they are trying to do by open sourcing some the the Mac X drivers, but hijacking the Linux momentum is very short sighted of them and it will only drive the OSS community away.
hell, why don't we start "integrating" Office into the Linux kernel. Not only will this make Office run faster (thus screwing with the schedular and services), but when Office crashes it could also bring the whole system down. Then, we could enhance Office so that it acts more likes its own individual OS. To make Office feel like good old familar DOS/3.1x/95/98 we could make sure that macro viruses will run on Office for Linux. By doing this we can get McAfee to start porting its stuff to Linux. And as part of the Office port, they should also port the windows registry - I love the registry, its a great way to hide data that could have otherwise been stored in a easy to read text file (this ensures that all users use only your config tools - no matter how crapy they are). Finally, you could make Office open libc in read-write mode (even if it doesn't write to it) - by doing this you can be sure that only root can run Office. The joy of it all...
:-)
Sorry, I'm done ranting now
asexual reproduction? Now that would be scary
speaking of things that MS Office has that I hate (when I'm force to use it that is!).
- The paper-clip guy - I would like to smash his head in.
- When I'm using variables in a document (ie i) and it makes them uppercase.
- When it tries to format lists for me, but always does it wrong
- When it stops responding for 4-5 minutes while it talks to NT 'bout something
- When it tries to autocorrect my spelling as I type
- In general, anytime it tries to think for me
Could you please elaborate a bit? What practices (business or otherwise) are you concerned about - everything RedHat does is GPL'ed, this is a very very good thing. In fact, RedHat is a wonderful example of how corporations should make money off of OSS, they give their software away and sell the services (sure, a CD from them is US$50, but it's legal to copy that CD as many times you wish). I for one am tired of people complaining about RedHat. So I ask again, give me a good reason to fear or dislike RedHat and I'll shut-up. So far, all the complaints I've heard seem to be from those that think RH is getting too popular (and the popularity of Linux is a *bad* thing?) or from those that feel RH is making Linux too easy to use and thus they don't feel elite enough - to these people I say get a life. I use RH and I *really* appreciate what they have done for Linux. I used to use Slackware, Power Linux, and FreeBSD. They all worked great, but it took so much longer to set them up than my RH box and the RH installer is so much easier to use. So unless someone can present some very convincing arguments I will continue to believe that RH bashers are working against the open source movement.
BTW - I've heard LT say, more than once, that he is pleased with what RH is doing for Linux.
someone please tell me that these will not come back to haunt us later.
1) The project is using MySQL - it was my understading (after reading the MySQL liscense) that MySQL was not GPL and that it is only free for non-commercial use. Could this (or other restrictions) cause a problem?
2) I found this notice on the Cd Index page - "Note: The MD5 algorithm is copyrighted by RSA, but there are no restrictions on its use." This seems like a much bigger problem. Sure, RSA has no restrictions on its use *now*, but wait till CD Index is the dominate CD database on the net and its web site gets more hits in a week than most portals hope for in a month. You can be sure that RSA will want some sort of kickback then - even worse, all the data is indexed using their algorithm.
"The only this this case is going to do is possibly make Windows a WORSE product than it already is"
How??? I suppose adding hooks to the OS to allow MS (and only MS) applications to outperform 3rd party apps is a *good* thing? Or how about making the internet part of the OS to help squash competators? One could argue that by separating the OS and MS-Apps, the kernel would be cleaner, and the OS would be more robust. Just think about how much cleaner the OS might become if the OS folks actually worked on the core OS and the application folks just used the system APIs that the OS folks published. It would probably result in a much cleaner, more robust OS and a Win32 API that didn't change every 4 months.
"More Piracy advocacy"
Not at all, I never said I wanted to pirate software. I have better things to do than try to get a hacked piece of virus infested, illegal software working. Since when is an *emulator* a "piracy"? You make no sence. Sure, there will be those that share roms, but that shouldn't restrict my desire to play N64 games on my PC. This emulator was not pirated from anyone, it was developed by a couple of individuals. Nintendo is just mad because these emulators allow users to choose on what hardware they play thier games (ie I don't have to buy N64 to play)
"I cant walk into Redmond steal MS's code base, slap on a GPL, post it on the internet, and expect no legal recourse"
Nor did I claim you could - your argument is malformed. You did not author any MS code, therefore you cannot copyright it. However, if you wrote an emulater, you could copyleft it if you so wished - according to the courts it is your IP.
"The GPL is for protecting authors, not subverting them. Free speech, not Free beer."
??? I don't see your point. Again, I am not saying I want everything for free (as in free beer), I'm just saying that I want the freedom to decide where I use software (I will still buy the games). In other words, I don't agree with this trend of companies that provide a product and then try to legally prevent anyone from competing with them. This has happened with the Rio, N64, and others. So if emulators increase piracy, should we outlaw them - of course not. If this did happen, the courts could also rule that the internet is illegal because it encourages the piracy of copyrighted matterials (ie: texts and pictures). Its hardly worth protecting Nintendo (or any company) if it means setting such a precedence.
I wish they would have open sourced it - boy, wouldn't that have pissed Nintendo off! Suddenly everyone would have the information needed to emulate N64 on almost anything. Someone needs to setup a ftp site in a country that doesn't abide by the US's stupid IP laws - the site could host these emulators and other such items that have been removed via legal action (lyrics.ch, MP3 encoders, encryption, etc). Anyhow, I expect that we will see more and more cases like this as the masses continue to have more access to technoligy - it seems that a lot of established industries are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the fast and efficient transfer of information that removes them out of the loop.
thinks to highly of people and underestimates the ability of the average person. Why are MP3's so popular - I would suggest they are because they are *free* and easy to share. Even if I'm wrong, what's to keep someone from writting a utility to remove the watermark (if it can be added, it can be removed). I love MP3's and I hope more artists will release MP3's of thier albums, but I don't think digital watermarks are going to stop those that want to pirate.
"The Earth is not a closed system"
depending on how you define a closed system, the earth is within a closed system - the universe. To say otherwise would be saying that forces outside of physical laws are acting on earth.
math cannot explain the universe, it can only explain how certain aspects of the universe work. For example, the speed of light is constant regardless of point of reference - this is the basis of the special theory of relativity and why we know time is relative to speed and position. However, mathematicaly this does not make sense. Also, consider all the energy and matter in the universe. They either existed for all time (however, the decomposition of elements seems to suggest otherwise) which is totally illogical, or it came into existance, but this goes against the *laws* of conservation of energy and matter.
I won't say this will never happen, because you never know (the only thing I would be willing to predict will never happen is the ability to create or destroy energy/matter). But, here are two reasons I don't expect this to happen in the near future.
1) The exponential growth in the spead of CPUs *must* eventually hit a physical limit so we can't predict how fast CPUs will be in 20 years. Even if some sort of super-conductor or fiber-optics were used and even if the bit logic was on the atomic level we would still hit a physical limit.
2) Even if CPUs were fast enough (which the above *may* be) - you still have the software problem. So a computer won someone at chess - big deal. The logic for "learning" chess had to be created by someone (ie: not another computer) and it only learns from mistakes. Further, this AI can *only* learn chess - if someone wanted it to learn checkers, they would have to program that into the computer. For AI to reach that of humans, it needs the ability to learn *how* to learn. In other words, a computer would have to program itself to play chess - this will be the true test. But even more than this, the computer will have to take the inititive to learn. These are key differences between humans and all other life forms we know of. Humans have the ability to learn/discover new things, inovate on existing ideas, and then pass these ideas/skills to other humans - all other animals do not. For example - there are certian animals that use tools (most often a twig or leaf) to aid in the gathering of food. However, the tools are never improved and no new tools develop out of these existing tools - their use is instinctual. So if a computer must be programed every time it wishes to learn, it is not inovating or learning new things, it is just acting on what it already knows how to do (ie: it is acting on instinct)
Anyhow, I appoligize for the over general ideas, but I think you see my point. Now let the flames begin!
It seems from reading about PSNs that Intel is marketing this as a security "feature". Ok, maybe it will help with authentication on some level (the masses that never bother with such anal details as this), but the more I think about it the more I realize, there are no security benifits. From what I understand, the CPU will be sending PSNs across the network, but what is there to keep me from spoofing a PSN? There has to be some low level driver that sends the PSN across the databus to the network device (modem, NIC, etc). So couldn't someone write their own driver that creates a false PSN? Or maybe the PSN is only accessed by a special instruction (as if x86 didn't have enough already!) or memory location. If this is the case, then it is even more insecure as the former because any user application could be written to create it's own PSN (ie you could hack mozilla). So really I don't see how this is going to improve anything. If you ask me, the whole thing smells of a copy protection scheme - a company could create an install program that grabbed the PSN, send that PSN to their web server along with the users name and credit info (the product would be purchased over the net), the web server would use the PSN and the users registration info to create a digital sig. and it would send this sig. back to the install script. Then, every time the program starts, it compairs the sig. with the PSN to make sure the program is not pirated. If an illegal copy shows up on the net (allong with the sig that is required to run), its a simple matter of looking that sig. up in the database and pressing charges.
"Lets first someone test it for quite a while to save YOUR ass from trojans."
This trojan horse was not inserted by the authors of the package. Instead, it was inserted by someone that broke into the ftp site. This would be the same as breaking into MS web site and uploading a patch infected with a trojan horse. Waiting x amount of time has nothing to do with this.
"1. PGP key can be successfully forged."
??? PLEASE...who are you kidding. Do you know anything about cryptography. Forging a PGP sig is so unlikely that it would be more feasable for the offenter to physicaly force you to hand over your private key.
"FormatDriveC("bye");"
Go away troll - Linux/Unix does not use drive letters.
"How many of you review low level assembler routies present in Linux?"
_WHY_ would I do this?? Obviously you are from the MS world of closed source where you do not have access to the source code.
about is - get this - money. No big suprise, if I were them I would be too. However, I don't think they are worried that much about pirated music. Think about it - how many illegal MP3's are out there and how many people are going to spend hours looking for their fav. music on news groups and such. Any web site that sets up an illegal MP3 site is sure to get shut down quick - so really there is no way to mass distribute illegal MP3s. Instead, I think the music industry is worried more about those *leagal* MP3's. If MP3 becomes commonly used the those currently running the music industry began to loose thier power. Right now they control the market because CD's are too expensive to produce w/o the help of a lable - with MP3's there is only the cost of studio time and the original, production is no longer an issue and this is what the industry is affraid of.
Do you mean Mesa, or has Mesa been OpenGL certified?
I love it...maybe this will make vendors re-think the MS tax!!
that the eight companies resposible for closing www.lyrics.ch are planning to open their own lyrics site. Think about how much money they could make on advertising if owned the only lyrics site out there...I'm so pissed - there's already a www.lyrics.com, anyone know about it? - it seems very green, but I've never bothered to check for lyrics.com.