So you would rather have nvidia making no drivers at all for Linux?
Yes.
And I don't say that lightly. Nvidia has some extremely intelligent staff, including former open-source developers like Gareth and Mark. Nvidia contribute code to open source projects like XFree86. Nvidia are valued members of the ARB and their proposals are both worthy and appreciated. Nvidia's support for OpenGL has helped prevent Direct3D from usurping the entire industry and for that act alone we should all be grateful.
But even with those things considered, I still think nvidia's closed source drivers are worse than no drivers at all. There are many reasons why I think this but the single most important reason is that the nvidia binary drivers take away the very freedoms that Linux grants you. Not for the same code but it's the same principles.
In an ideal world I might agree with you, but in the real world I suspect most Linux users would rather have support for their video card.
They had support. The Utah GLX nvidia driver wasn't the greatest but it did work with both 3D and 2D. The XFree86 drivers still support 2D on all nvidia cards and the performance is excellent.
And really, I don't know when you started to use Linux, but when I started (pre-1.0) we didn't have video drivers. We wrote them ourselves. We chose the freedom of Linux over the convenience of binary-only platforms with working drivers. It shames me that so many of the current generation of Linux users don't understand what the world before Linux was like. It was hell. Closed source binary-only drivers everywhere. Buggy code that you couldn't fix. Linux changed all that. Finally we have source and freedom and rights. Finally there's something to be proud of; an entirely open source operating system built through the sweat and tears of 1000s of volunteers. And you would sacrifice all that for slightly faster 3D graphics? I can't comprehend your state of mind. Your priorities are completely foreign to me.
Look at it this way: would you rather have the wristwatch that is hand crafted to perfection, works better, and will last forever, or would you rather buy the watch that came off of the assembly line, always loses time, and will break on you in a year or two?
Unfortunately the reality is that hand-crafted watches typically lose several seconds per day, have major imperfections (humans aren't perfect), and cost a bucketload. The watch that comes off the assembly line will probably lose a second per month at most, will never break in its entire lifetime, and cost 1/10th what the hand-crafted watch did.
To give a clearer example, the rapid increase in reliability and efficiency of cars while still reducing costs was a direct result of Ford and his assembly lines. The Japanese took this one step further through quality assurance methodology and strict adherence to quality control. None of this would have been possible if all cars were hand-crafted.
The important lesson from the car industry is that hand-crafted cars have all but disappeared (except for ludicrously overpriced and unreliable sports vehicles). The software industry wants to repeat the success of the car industry by moving towards factory reproducibility and measurability. The trick is to get away from the menial job of coding and into the role of designer. The designer in a car company is still paid a metric shitload.
What hasn't MAME been ported to? Wouldn't it be easier to just have articles listing the rare mobile phones and cameras without MAME? I can just imagine a future article...
MAME Not Ported To Enigma Machine mame-maimed-in-spain department 2006-01-04
In news that has shocked the MAME community, a project to port MAME to the 1940s Engima machine - used for encryption and decryption by the German forces during WW2 - was cancelled yesterday due to lack of interest.
Miguel De Mameiza said "We were halfway through the port when we just decided to stop. We already have MAME ported and running on buildings, phones, cameras, watches, books, elephants, asteroids in the deepest part of the Kepler belt. We looked at each other and said 'OK, enough is enough, let's stop there'. We unanimously agreed that MAME is pretty much everywhere it needs to be; we don't need it ported to what is essentially an advanced mechanical typewriter."
The gaming community had mixed reactions to the news. "I'm really glad they stopped" said one gamer. "MAME is everywhere. It's more pervasive than the SoFreakingBig virus." [Ed: referring to the Windows virus that crippled international commerce in 2005 when it managed to infect 140% of all Windows computers, an intrusion level that still baffles mathematicians] "Yesterday I bought a loaf of bread from the store and some bastard had ported MAME to the RFID tag. It's really weird to have your shopping basket bleeping Pacman music while you're waiting in line. And the checkout chick gave me the oddest look when I asked for my change in quarters."
But others were angry at the decision. One MAME enthusiast maliciously commented "bleep bleep bleep bwowowowow" and then disappeared in an explosion of pixels. The journalist unfortunately had no change so could not ask for clarification.
While these formats might work out OK, they certainly aren't optimized for small hard drives the way that fat is.
Uhhh, neither is FAT.
FAT has fixed size directory indexes. If you have half a dozen files in a directory, you are discarding most of the directory index. If you make the directory index small then you can't store lots of files in a single directory. It's a no-win tradeoff. A space efficient filesystem would use dynamically resizable directory indexes.
The FAT itself is a bitmap (one FAT entry for every single block) with each entry referencing the next entry (like a linked list). You find the first block of the file from the directory index. Imagine how inefficient this is when the file has contiguous blocks. Why not use extents? That would greatly reduce the space requirements for the FAT.
The original FAT16 limited you to only 65536 possible block numbers. If you have a 512MB USB key then that means every block is 8kB. So on average you waste 4kB per file; 1000s of files means many megabytes of wasted space. Another glaring example of FAT inefficiency. A space efficient filesystem would offer variable sized blocks.
For FAT to perform efficiently you must load the entire FAT into memory (otherwise traversing the list of blocks is a nightmare of head seeks). This makes it vulnerable to files being corrupted or lost if there is sudden power failure or the disk is removed. The "saving grace" is that the FAT is protected because it never had the chance to be flushed out of RAM, so the filesystem is at least consistent. Whether this behaviour is good or bad seems to be a matter of debate; my opinion is that the data is more important than the damn filesystem and FAT fails in that regard.
The only thing FAT has going for it is incredible simplicity which made sense on the woefully underpowered and underfeatured IBM PC of 1980. But in terms of efficiency it is exactly the same as many other bitmap-based filesystems. FAT was also heavily optimised for 320kB (that's not a typo) floppy disks because the FAT would fit into a single 512 byte sector. It makes no sense in a modern world with gigabyte removable media.
These USB keys should be using something clever like CRAMFS but with journalling and "balanced writes" (each block gets roughly equal write time) to preserve the life of the key.
Maybe I just don't get this whole Open Source model thing, but one major thing was not addressed in the atricle.
Suppose I am a for-profit business that offers some non-unique service. I need some software to provide my core business services to my customers.
I need the software and I need it now (so I can't just wait for 'someone else' to develop it and realease it into the wild). My only alternative is to commission (aka pay IT consultants to develop the software).
Since I am paying for the development costs (even code monkeys need to be fed), why should I develop the software under the GPL and release it to my competitors as soon as it is complete?
Would I not essentially be subsidizing my competitors businesses?
Yes. The flip-side is that they will also subsidize your business when they contribute back to the common code base. This is one reason why the GPL is more business friendly than BSD licenses.
The question becomes one of "is it in my best interest to compete in the closed-source market and possibly lose everything if my competitor's product is more popular, or should I work in the open-source market with my competitors and split the profits equally".
The follow-on question becomes "how can I make profit if the software can be copied freely". The obvious answer is to not use copyright as a tool to create profit but to make profit from services and value-additions just like almost every other industry.
Back to your specific example. You say that you need the software to offer a non-unique service. You say that the software doesn't exist in "the wild". You say that you must bear the development costs upfront. Why not talk to your competitors and collaborate on the development? Surely they are in the same situation and would benefit from the software.
Thought example. Assume you have 4 competitors. Each of you would only pay 20% of the development costs instead of 100%. OK, you've now lost your "competitive edge" of being the sole owner of the software but in the Real World your 4 competitors would have developed their own software. So the reality is that you would still be competing but with the gamble that perhaps your closed-source software wasn't as good as the similar product of one of your competitors. So you've paid 100% of the costs and risked it all instead of paying 20% and reducing your risks, all in the vague hope that your software will be the best and you will dominate the entire market. Even worse, your customers have to indirectly pay for your costs so they foot 100% of the development costs instead of the 20% that was possible with open source. The customers are the big losers from closed source: there is no code reuse and thus there are greatly increased costs.
Seems to me that collaboration via open source software is the sensible business approach.
IANAH (hacker), but isn't the first thing you do when you break into a system to 'fix' the logs?
Any high-profile site has (or should have) a box dedicated to syslogd. No ssh. No ftp. No www. No non-syslog services of any kind. To read the logs you have to logon to the console. All other servers in the environment dump their logs to the logging server. In the event of a breach, you use the handy CD burner on the logging server to get your untainted forensics dump.
Of course, you cross your fingers and pray to the gods that syslogd doesn't have a remotable compromise.
You may be safe at the moment, but should someone find a vulnerable service on your box then even if it doesn't give root the step up could be trivial.
The box would have to be on the Internet, first.
It was not my intention to give offense or sound arrogant
Then might I suggest not saying things like "If I were you I would shut the f*ck up" in the future.
Anyway, no animosity from me. Peace and love, etc.
I hope this isn't a Linux box. Boasting about uptime is OK, aslong as no kernel holes have been discovered during that period. If I were you I would shut the f*ck up and cross my fingers. Alternativley build a new kernel with all the fixes (ptrace, brk, any others??) and reboot.
If I was you I'd try harder to not act like a presumptuous arrogant shit, telling people how to run their own servers as if you're the fountain of all knowledge. Those are both local exploits. They don't affect me in the slightest.
Hmmm. In Chicago, New York, Washington DC and others guns are all but illegal and they have very heavy crime problems. But, in places like Vermont and many other places that allow folks to walk around with loaded firearms crime is down. Washington DC and New York really are the biggest counter points to your statement though. Of course this is Karma suicide as a lot of anti-gun nuts reside on/.
In Iraq where every crazy mutha fucka seems to have a gun, crime is through the roof in recent months. In Japan where guns are basically non-existent there is relatively little crime.
Conclusion: extrapolating from single data points and not considering other factors is a fool's game.
It is quite clear from what I've written that I am not and was not trolling.
The whole P2P software usage then, as it exists today, is largely an illegal activity
Hallelujah, you have seen the light.
Unfortunately, that's not true, however. P2P technology is completely legal as it stands.
How quickly you change your argument from "P2P software usage" to "P2P technology". Do you think they're the same thing? Did you slip up the first time? Or do you honestly think that the former is not "largely an illegal activity"?
I'm not sure whose ADD you are talking about since you have forgotten the P2P analogy
I did not forget it. I dismissed it as a bad analogy. This was made quite clear to you.
I see no further ways I can contribute my thoughts since they are not taken seriously.
Because they are not serious thoughts. You are trying to justify unauthorised entry into a computer network, unauthorised theft of data services, and unauthorised manipulation of computer equipment. Read the law, sonny. What you want to do is currently illegal. Your excuse "but the guy should have secured it, the fact that he didn't gives me permission to steal his stuff" is not very impressive. It demonstrates quite clearly that you knew what you were doing. Intent is 90% of the way towards proving guilt.
PS: you might be aware that laws are currently being drafted to protect innocents who inadvertently access an unauthorised wireless access point. You would have a much better argument if you attacked from that angle.
Funny, I remember BBC producing some kick-ass shows, that were then aped by americans. For some reason, americans don't like to watch foreign-made series, they have to make their own versions of 'em (which usually suck when compared to the original).
Didn't they take the scripts to Fawlty Towers and remove a character that they didn't like? Yes, you've guessed it, there's no Basil in the US equivalent! Only in America
And who can forget (or at least, wishes they could forget) the awful American remake of Men Behaving Badly.
I don't see the relevance of payment to a hosting provider.
It plausibly demonstrates an intent to host a public website.
You seem to have dodged the entire P2P analogy.
That's because it's a bad analogy.
The whole P2P software usage then, as it exists today, is largely an illegal activity
Hallelujah, you have seen the light.
You are spinning the same wheel; if/. allowed a do-while structure, that's where the loop would go back to my original post; or at least few posts up in the thread.
I could say the exact same thing about the repetitive rhetoric from you freeloaders.
Nonsense. No law requires me to obtain authorization to use P2P network from other P2P users.
We are discussing wireless access points. Do try and pay attention. Your ADD is a curse, I know, but with perseverance we can beat it... together!
You entirely fail to understand the argument I'm making then.
I understand it, I simply don't agree with it.
You are simply repeating your old statements.
Because they are still valid, despite the bleating cries of "I can steal bandwidth with impunity!" from the freeloaders.
It's just as easy, if not easier to set up a website than a wireless router. All you need is a few clicks with some hosting providers and you are set.
And the payment of the hosting providers bill, of course. I'd like to see you argue that payment to a public web-hosting provider for a pubic web-hosting service didn't show intent to host a public website.
Well, here you seem to be in agreement with me. If you feel Kazaa, or router manufacturers, for that matter, did not do an adequate job of informing their users, and that they should be subject to class action lawsuits, then that's a different argument; but you wouldn't blame the downloader,
I think the entire point is that I would blame the downloader for using the wireless access point without permission. You wouldn't.
If you follow the logic, this is where the website analogy was relevant.
I think I've already said that I think the website analogy is no good. I gave my reasons why. You apparently disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Provided there are no other factors involved like confidential information, etc., can you tell if the website owner intended to share the content with public?
I would say if you cannot determine the intent then you should assume that the default is no access without permission rather than assume the default is free bandwidth for everybody!
You know, like the law requires, as opposed to your own outraged sense of technical superiority that apparently gives you the "moral right" to exploit the technically ignorant people out there.
If you follow through with this, it would be illegal to access someone's website without their permission, even though port 80 is open and there's no authentication since they haven't expressly granted you access to their "equipment"
There's a difference between a website, which demonstrates intent to provide a service, and an unsecured access point which does not demonstrate intent to provide free Internet access for every juvenile delinquent in the neighbourhood. Any dolt can accidentally setup an unsecured access point - they ship that way! - but it takes real effort to register a domain, build the server, create the website content, and pay the hosting bills (most ISPs will block incoming port-80). So you don't have a good analogy; there is a clear difference in the intent between a website and an access point. The access point owner can plausibly deny they intended to provided Internet access, but a website owner will have a hard time convincing anybody (especially a judge) that they had no idea people were going to view their publicly available and registered website!
However if you insist on the webserver analogy, despite the obvious flaws, imagine you found a website displaying the default page, and you knew the default password for the admin area for this particular webserver software, and you exploited that admin area to host pr0n... do you think the argument is so "bad" now? Or would you agree that this hypothetical webserver owner had no intention of providing you with a service, and that your abusal of his equipment is illegal?
Let's continue the webserver analogy, despite my objections. Imagine you found a company's Intranet accidentally available on the Internet. This does happen, so don't laugh. Imagine you downloaded some confidential files (eg, payslips) and were later caught. Imagine you now try and defend your actions by saying that they were on the Internet, therefore they were being made available to the public, therefore you are not guity of any crime. I know from court cases on this very matter that the judge will rule that nobody is that stupid, that of course you knew what you were doing, and that you are guilty of data theft. Yes, the judge will also reduce your punishment because the company showed a lack of due care, but you are not entirely guilt free.
I hope you can now see that the matter is not as black and white as you (and 2 others before you) seem to think. There are shades of gray that make all of these situations far more complex.
It would also be illegal to use any P2P application, especially if the owner of the "equipment" is not fully aware of what sharing means.
I agree. I'm just waiting for the class action lawsuit against Kazaa from users who weren't aware that their equipment was providing this service. Yes, I agree they're dolts for not reading about the software before installing it, but you have to admit there are a lot of dolts out there. Being ignorant doesn't forego their rights to privacy and property.
That's the responsibility - are you responsible what you broadcast from your property/equipment? Yes, because I don't see many people saying P2P should be illegal in this manner too.
And once again, nobody is disputing it's their responsibility. I wish you lot would stop twisting this around into "it's his responsibility! why don't you agree!" because that's not in dispute.
It really pisses me off how overzealous you Linux people are. The GPL is there to protect freedom, not make it so companies are unable to use it to do business.
If a company wants to take away my software freedoms in order to run their business, then I have no problem using the GPL to prevent them from doing that.
The GPL protects my freedoms as the recipient of the software. I couldn't care less about the "freedom" of a company to sell GPL code without honouring the license.
Did they modify busybox? If so, I'd get involved because it's my copyright (and Erik Andersen's, and a bunch of other folks).
Another company violating the GPL is Easy Networks. They're selling binaries for busybox - along with modified versions of rdesktop, syslinux and Linux itself - in a software package called EasyRDP. They have refused to supply source code as required by the GPL. They're also unjustifiably rude to anybody who requests the source code.
More info here. Ivo reckons the company has shutdown but I have my suspicions they've just gone offline and are still selling the product via traditional channels.
I am amazed that Slashdot continues to take the bait on this stuff. Who has SCO sued? IBM, over a specific contract dispute. Since the exact contracts are not available for public inspection we can not know what whether SCO actually has a leg to stand on.
They are all available for public inspection. You can download the PDFs from Groklaw.
I still have some problems with page numbering: For example: doing a resume which has a header (including page numbers) but only starting at page 2. At the moment, it would appear that the only way I can see to do that is to split into two separate documents (ugh!).
Suggested solutions gratefully accepted.
Easy. Go to the first page of the document. From the menu choose Format -> Stylist. Across the top of the Stylist Dialog are 5 icons. The 4th icon is the Page Style icon. Click that. Double click First Page from the list. The header/footer settings for the first page are now independent from the rest of the document.
Click for click I've determined it's as fast as doing the equivalent thing in MSOffice, but I think the Styles concept is much more consistent and logical than the weirdly hidden checkbox in MSOffice (hidden way down in File -> Page Setup of all places).
Slashdot Mirror
Because most Linux drivers began their life as "sub-par reverse engineered drivers". It was only because they were open source that they got better.
Yes.
And I don't say that lightly. Nvidia has some extremely intelligent staff, including former open-source developers like Gareth and Mark. Nvidia contribute code to open source projects like XFree86. Nvidia are valued members of the ARB and their proposals are both worthy and appreciated. Nvidia's support for OpenGL has helped prevent Direct3D from usurping the entire industry and for that act alone we should all be grateful.
But even with those things considered, I still think nvidia's closed source drivers are worse than no drivers at all. There are many reasons why I think this but the single most important reason is that the nvidia binary drivers take away the very freedoms that Linux grants you. Not for the same code but it's the same principles.
They had support. The Utah GLX nvidia driver wasn't the greatest but it did work with both 3D and 2D. The XFree86 drivers still support 2D on all nvidia cards and the performance is excellent.
And really, I don't know when you started to use Linux, but when I started (pre-1.0) we didn't have video drivers. We wrote them ourselves. We chose the freedom of Linux over the convenience of binary-only platforms with working drivers. It shames me that so many of the current generation of Linux users don't understand what the world before Linux was like. It was hell. Closed source binary-only drivers everywhere. Buggy code that you couldn't fix. Linux changed all that. Finally we have source and freedom and rights. Finally there's something to be proud of; an entirely open source operating system built through the sweat and tears of 1000s of volunteers. And you would sacrifice all that for slightly faster 3D graphics? I can't comprehend your state of mind. Your priorities are completely foreign to me.
Unfortunately the reality is that hand-crafted watches typically lose several seconds per day, have major imperfections (humans aren't perfect), and cost a bucketload. The watch that comes off the assembly line will probably lose a second per month at most, will never break in its entire lifetime, and cost 1/10th what the hand-crafted watch did.
To give a clearer example, the rapid increase in reliability and efficiency of cars while still reducing costs was a direct result of Ford and his assembly lines. The Japanese took this one step further through quality assurance methodology and strict adherence to quality control. None of this would have been possible if all cars were hand-crafted.
The important lesson from the car industry is that hand-crafted cars have all but disappeared (except for ludicrously overpriced and unreliable sports vehicles). The software industry wants to repeat the success of the car industry by moving towards factory reproducibility and measurability. The trick is to get away from the menial job of coding and into the role of designer. The designer in a car company is still paid a metric shitload.
What hasn't MAME been ported to? Wouldn't it be easier to just have articles listing the rare mobile phones and cameras without MAME? I can just imagine a future article...
MAME Not Ported To Enigma Machine
mame-maimed-in-spain department 2006-01-04
In news that has shocked the MAME community, a project to port MAME to the 1940s Engima machine - used for encryption and decryption by the German forces during WW2 - was cancelled yesterday due to lack of interest.
Miguel De Mameiza said "We were halfway through the port when we just decided to stop. We already have MAME ported and running on buildings, phones, cameras, watches, books, elephants, asteroids in the deepest part of the Kepler belt. We looked at each other and said 'OK, enough is enough, let's stop there'. We unanimously agreed that MAME is pretty much everywhere it needs to be; we don't need it ported to what is essentially an advanced mechanical typewriter."
The gaming community had mixed reactions to the news. "I'm really glad they stopped" said one gamer. "MAME is everywhere. It's more pervasive than the SoFreakingBig virus." [Ed: referring to the Windows virus that crippled international commerce in 2005 when it managed to infect 140% of all Windows computers, an intrusion level that still baffles mathematicians] "Yesterday I bought a loaf of bread from the store and some bastard had ported MAME to the RFID tag. It's really weird to have your shopping basket bleeping Pacman music while you're waiting in line. And the checkout chick gave me the oddest look when I asked for my change in quarters."
But others were angry at the decision. One MAME enthusiast maliciously commented "bleep bleep bleep bwowowowow" and then disappeared in an explosion of pixels. The journalist unfortunately had no change so could not ask for clarification.
Uhhh, neither is FAT.
FAT has fixed size directory indexes. If you have half a dozen files in a directory, you are discarding most of the directory index. If you make the directory index small then you can't store lots of files in a single directory. It's a no-win tradeoff. A space efficient filesystem would use dynamically resizable directory indexes.
The FAT itself is a bitmap (one FAT entry for every single block) with each entry referencing the next entry (like a linked list). You find the first block of the file from the directory index. Imagine how inefficient this is when the file has contiguous blocks. Why not use extents? That would greatly reduce the space requirements for the FAT.
The original FAT16 limited you to only 65536 possible block numbers. If you have a 512MB USB key then that means every block is 8kB. So on average you waste 4kB per file; 1000s of files means many megabytes of wasted space. Another glaring example of FAT inefficiency. A space efficient filesystem would offer variable sized blocks.
For FAT to perform efficiently you must load the entire FAT into memory (otherwise traversing the list of blocks is a nightmare of head seeks). This makes it vulnerable to files being corrupted or lost if there is sudden power failure or the disk is removed. The "saving grace" is that the FAT is protected because it never had the chance to be flushed out of RAM, so the filesystem is at least consistent. Whether this behaviour is good or bad seems to be a matter of debate; my opinion is that the data is more important than the damn filesystem and FAT fails in that regard.
The only thing FAT has going for it is incredible simplicity which made sense on the woefully underpowered and underfeatured IBM PC of 1980. But in terms of efficiency it is exactly the same as many other bitmap-based filesystems. FAT was also heavily optimised for 320kB (that's not a typo) floppy disks because the FAT would fit into a single 512 byte sector. It makes no sense in a modern world with gigabyte removable media.
These USB keys should be using something clever like CRAMFS but with journalling and "balanced writes" (each block gets roughly equal write time) to preserve the life of the key.
Yes. The flip-side is that they will also subsidize your business when they contribute back to the common code base. This is one reason why the GPL is more business friendly than BSD licenses.
The question becomes one of "is it in my best interest to compete in the closed-source market and possibly lose everything if my competitor's product is more popular, or should I work in the open-source market with my competitors and split the profits equally".
The follow-on question becomes "how can I make profit if the software can be copied freely". The obvious answer is to not use copyright as a tool to create profit but to make profit from services and value-additions just like almost every other industry.
Back to your specific example. You say that you need the software to offer a non-unique service. You say that the software doesn't exist in "the wild". You say that you must bear the development costs upfront. Why not talk to your competitors and collaborate on the development? Surely they are in the same situation and would benefit from the software.
Thought example. Assume you have 4 competitors. Each of you would only pay 20% of the development costs instead of 100%. OK, you've now lost your "competitive edge" of being the sole owner of the software but in the Real World your 4 competitors would have developed their own software. So the reality is that you would still be competing but with the gamble that perhaps your closed-source software wasn't as good as the similar product of one of your competitors. So you've paid 100% of the costs and risked it all instead of paying 20% and reducing your risks, all in the vague hope that your software will be the best and you will dominate the entire market. Even worse, your customers have to indirectly pay for your costs so they foot 100% of the development costs instead of the 20% that was possible with open source. The customers are the big losers from closed source: there is no code reuse and thus there are greatly increased costs.
Seems to me that collaboration via open source software is the sensible business approach.
Do you want to get rid of all that's morally reprehensible in gaming?
Simply stop Akklaim from producing any more games.
And kill the Akklaim marketing department.
Problem solved.
Any high-profile site has (or should have) a box dedicated to syslogd. No ssh. No ftp. No www. No non-syslog services of any kind. To read the logs you have to logon to the console. All other servers in the environment dump their logs to the logging server. In the event of a breach, you use the handy CD burner on the logging server to get your untainted forensics dump.
Of course, you cross your fingers and pray to the gods that syslogd doesn't have a remotable compromise.
The box would have to be on the Internet, first.
Then might I suggest not saying things like "If I were you I would shut the f*ck up" in the future.
Anyway, no animosity from me. Peace and love, etc.
If I was you I'd try harder to not act like a presumptuous arrogant shit, telling people how to run their own servers as if you're the fountain of all knowledge. Those are both local exploits. They don't affect me in the slightest.
But if we compare closed-source rather than Microsoft:
Closed Source: Opera, Internet Explorer, ...
...
Open Source: Mozilla, Galeon, Konqueror,
Closed Source: Media Player, Real Player, QuickTime, ...
...
Open Source: Mplayer, XMMS, Xine,
Closed Source: Word, WordPerfect, Lotus, ...
...
Open Source: OpenOffice Writer, AbiWord, KOffice,
Closed Source: Notes, Outlook, Groupwise, ...
...
Open Source: Evolution, KMail, mutt,
I think the difference in "itch-scratching" and "redundant effort" between closed-source and open-source models is not nearly so great as you think.
In Iraq where every crazy mutha fucka seems to have a gun, crime is through the roof in recent months. In Japan where guns are basically non-existent there is relatively little crime.
Conclusion: extrapolating from single data points and not considering other factors is a fool's game.
12:20:49 up 482 days, 11:19, 1 user, load average: 1.74, 1.33, 1.28
It is quite clear from what I've written that I am not and was not trolling.
Unfortunately, that's not true, however. P2P technology is completely legal as it stands.
How quickly you change your argument from "P2P software usage" to "P2P technology". Do you think they're the same thing? Did you slip up the first time? Or do you honestly think that the former is not "largely an illegal activity"?
I did not forget it. I dismissed it as a bad analogy. This was made quite clear to you.
Because they are not serious thoughts. You are trying to justify unauthorised entry into a computer network, unauthorised theft of data services, and unauthorised manipulation of computer equipment. Read the law, sonny. What you want to do is currently illegal. Your excuse "but the guy should have secured it, the fact that he didn't gives me permission to steal his stuff" is not very impressive. It demonstrates quite clearly that you knew what you were doing. Intent is 90% of the way towards proving guilt.
PS: you might be aware that laws are currently being drafted to protect innocents who inadvertently access an unauthorised wireless access point. You would have a much better argument if you attacked from that angle.
And who can forget (or at least, wishes they could forget) the awful American remake of Men Behaving Badly.
It plausibly demonstrates an intent to host a public website.
That's because it's a bad analogy.
Hallelujah, you have seen the light.
I could say the exact same thing about the repetitive rhetoric from you freeloaders.
We are discussing wireless access points. Do try and pay attention. Your ADD is a curse, I know, but with perseverance we can beat it... together!
I understand it, I simply don't agree with it.
Because they are still valid, despite the bleating cries of "I can steal bandwidth with impunity!" from the freeloaders.
And the payment of the hosting providers bill, of course. I'd like to see you argue that payment to a public web-hosting provider for a pubic web-hosting service didn't show intent to host a public website.
I think the entire point is that I would blame the downloader for using the wireless access point without permission. You wouldn't.
I think I've already said that I think the website analogy is no good. I gave my reasons why. You apparently disagree. Let's leave it at that.
I would say if you cannot determine the intent then you should assume that the default is no access without permission rather than assume the default is free bandwidth for everybody!
You know, like the law requires, as opposed to your own outraged sense of technical superiority that apparently gives you the "moral right" to exploit the technically ignorant people out there.
There's a difference between a website, which demonstrates intent to provide a service, and an unsecured access point which does not demonstrate intent to provide free Internet access for every juvenile delinquent in the neighbourhood. Any dolt can accidentally setup an unsecured access point - they ship that way! - but it takes real effort to register a domain, build the server, create the website content, and pay the hosting bills (most ISPs will block incoming port-80). So you don't have a good analogy; there is a clear difference in the intent between a website and an access point. The access point owner can plausibly deny they intended to provided Internet access, but a website owner will have a hard time convincing anybody (especially a judge) that they had no idea people were going to view their publicly available and registered website!
However if you insist on the webserver analogy, despite the obvious flaws, imagine you found a website displaying the default page, and you knew the default password for the admin area for this particular webserver software, and you exploited that admin area to host pr0n... do you think the argument is so "bad" now? Or would you agree that this hypothetical webserver owner had no intention of providing you with a service, and that your abusal of his equipment is illegal?
Let's continue the webserver analogy, despite my objections. Imagine you found a company's Intranet accidentally available on the Internet. This does happen, so don't laugh. Imagine you downloaded some confidential files (eg, payslips) and were later caught. Imagine you now try and defend your actions by saying that they were on the Internet, therefore they were being made available to the public, therefore you are not guity of any crime. I know from court cases on this very matter that the judge will rule that nobody is that stupid, that of course you knew what you were doing, and that you are guilty of data theft. Yes, the judge will also reduce your punishment because the company showed a lack of due care, but you are not entirely guilt free.
I hope you can now see that the matter is not as black and white as you (and 2 others before you) seem to think. There are shades of gray that make all of these situations far more complex.
I agree. I'm just waiting for the class action lawsuit against Kazaa from users who weren't aware that their equipment was providing this service. Yes, I agree they're dolts for not reading about the software before installing it, but you have to admit there are a lot of dolts out there. Being ignorant doesn't forego their rights to privacy and property.
And once again, nobody is disputing it's their responsibility. I wish you lot would stop twisting this around into "it's his responsibility! why don't you agree!" because that's not in dispute.
Then we lose a freeloader who steals from us. No big deal. They're not the sort of companies we want to be working with in the first place.
If a company wants to take away my software freedoms in order to run their business, then I have no problem using the GPL to prevent them from doing that.
The GPL protects my freedoms as the recipient of the software. I couldn't care less about the "freedom" of a company to sell GPL code without honouring the license.
Another company violating the GPL is Easy Networks. They're selling binaries for busybox - along with modified versions of rdesktop, syslinux and Linux itself - in a software package called EasyRDP. They have refused to supply source code as required by the GPL. They're also unjustifiably rude to anybody who requests the source code.
More info here. Ivo reckons the company has shutdown but I have my suspicions they've just gone offline and are still selling the product via traditional channels.
They are all available for public inspection. You can download the PDFs from Groklaw.
Summer over here, too. Hint: Canberra.
Take it outside, god boy.
Easy. Go to the first page of the document. From the menu choose Format -> Stylist. Across the top of the Stylist Dialog are 5 icons. The 4th icon is the Page Style icon. Click that. Double click First Page from the list. The header/footer settings for the first page are now independent from the rest of the document.
Click for click I've determined it's as fast as doing the equivalent thing in MSOffice, but I think the Styles concept is much more consistent and logical than the weirdly hidden checkbox in MSOffice (hidden way down in File -> Page Setup of all places).