But Windows NT has had ACLs for some time now.
A lot of people have derided the concept. But as far as I can see, they are a complete superset of the Un*x system.
It's pretty hard to argue that it's not as good.
Other operating systems, including UNIX, have had ACLs before Windows NT even existed and the concept was derided then as well. This is not a "Un*x vs Windows" argument. Please don't turn it into one.
The typical arguments against ACLs are:
ACLs add complexity to the filesystem code; making the filesystem slower, buggier, harder to write and more difficult to prove.
ACLs add an administrative overhead to the system. In a nutshell, ACLs can get messy very quickly. Very hard to debug certain problems.
ACLs can remove rights from accounts that actually need them. Typical problem is removing read-rights from the backup account.
ACLs require more complex userspace tools. This makes userspace tools bloated, potentially buggier and harder to use.
The trick, as with all computing, is to weigh the benefits vs the costs. Sometimes you need ACLs and then it makes sense to introduce the extra complexity. Other times it makes no sense at all, so you dispense with them. For example, there's not much value in ACLs for an embedded UNIX with a single user (eg, a PDA). There's definitely a lot of value for ACLs with a multiuser UNIX or a UNIX fileserver. You need to decide when it makes sense to have ACLs and when to use UNIX ugo, not make blanket statements about one being better than the other.
This post hurts me. It hurts me very badly. I keep trying to swing my hand over my hair in the traditional "over his head" movement, but the miss is so wide that I keep either hitting the ceiling fan or throwing my shoulder out of socket.
I suppose it's never occurred to you that you're the one who "doesn't get it".
(Score: 3, Insightful) my ass.
Your ass is neither insightful nor worthy of moderation.
Unless I'm reading this wrong this would also invalidate any site license for software, which allow for unlimited copies (albeit with some restrictions), it would also make freeware and pretty much everything else given away illegal.
It also invalidates shareware. All of TUCOWS is illegal according to SCO.
There's a lot more meat here, so I'll reply to your comments this time.
Sheesh. I'm disagreeing with you, not stubbornly refusing to learn your lesson. I stand by my original statement: the UNIX philosophy is out of date, and should be updated.
I partially agree. The UNIX implementation of the Tool Philosophy is antiquated. Pipes and bytestreams are showing their age. Stringing UNIX tools together typically requires a command line and that isn't adequate by any stretch of the imagination.
However I disagree with you that the Tool Philosophy itself is out of date. As I tried to explain with my analogy, the Tool Philosophy is about using several small tools to achieve the desired outcome. As an end user I use the Tool Philosophy on a regular basis. For example:
Load Outlook. First tool.
Compose mail. Microsoft Word loads with a blank page. Second tool.
I decide I want a diagram. Insert Picture. Visio loads with a blank page. Third tool.
Picture looks OK. I need an attachment. I decide to ZIP it. Start WinZip. Fourth tool.
Four tools. Each tool did a single purpose and did it well. Outlook read email. Word wrote words. Visio drew pictures. WinZip created ZIP files. No program tried to do everything.
I think the fault here is that you think the Tool Philosophy is the same thing as the UNIX command line. This would explain why you started comparing GUIs to CLIs.
The UNIX philosophy was constructed at a time when all computers were (essentially) mainframes, all computer work was computing, and all users were experts. They were the computer-equivalent of early machine builders: if an early computer staff wanted to do something, they almost always had to create it in-house.
For somebody who was obviously distressed when somebody tried to teach you a "lesson", you seem very eager to assume the role of a lecturer. You might like to contemplate that I have nothing to learn about UNIX history from you.
Because it's old and out of date. The new ideals should be:
Stable is beautiful
Make each program do what it does completely.
Few folks enjoy puny programs that do one thing very well--when they want to do something slightly different, they wind up using a bunch of differenet tools.
Think of it this way. A carpenter's workshop is packed with 100s of small tools that do small and simple things. A hammer to drive nails. A saw to cut wood. A chisel to shape joints. No single tool will "build a box" or "make a table". The carpenter needs to combine the output from many tools.
Sure, this requires the carpenter to have skill with and knowledge of many tools. The carpenter's job is much harder than simply pushing the "Make Another Box" button on the gigantic Box Building Machine. However the carpenter is more flexible because he can quickly adapt his tools to make new and original products. The button pusher can only make more boxes.
What I've just described is the Tool Philosophy and it's well emulated in traditional command line UNIX. You're right that most people prefer to be a button pusher. I prefer the freedom to adapt. That's why I prefer UNIX.
That may be, but I have yet to hear a single person say, "Their conclusions are not what I believe to be true yet the study was flawless." There is enough wiggle room in correct methodology for anyone to attack any study.
I read comments like that all the time just by browsing through pulp science magazines like New Scientist. I don't think it's rare nor unexpected for truly correct methodology to change people's opinions. Perhaps your experience has only been with articles using incorrect methodologies and that's why you have a cynical point of view?
If you are a novice computer user, press 1.
If you have been using computers for several years, press 2.
If you know more about computers than 95% of the population, press 3.
The problem is that 95% of the population thinks they're in the top 5%.
Code was in SysV first. Now its in Linux. Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
Well, nobody except non-programmers (and SCO) knows what the code is, so nobody in the "Linux community" can say whether it's been credited or not. It's hard to defend yourself when you don't know what you've done wrong.
Also Linus has a strict policy of not accepting anonymous donations. He does that for pragmatic reasons (he wants somebody responsibe for keeping track of patches) but it's worked in our favour.
Also if the code in question is NUMA, RCU or SMP then the donations came from SGI, HP and IBM. They definitely didn't come from SYSV because SYSV doesn't even have some of those features.
So if you want to know why you're being moderated "Flamebait" and "Troll" it's because your statements sound like they've been made up.
What you want is a "product" and not a "service". What you're asking for is for the government to provide free every product which does "good for the public".
I don't think he said "every product".
Water. Medicine. There are two products that my government provides for "free" (the reality is that I've prepaid for them with taxes) for the good of the public.
I also disagree with your assertion that software is a product. I think much of software is infrastructure, like roads or water or sewerage, but that's an argument for a different forum.
So what you're asking for is the government to determine what "product" is for the public good, subsidize it to limit business opprotunities to provide individuals who are looking to earn a living and profit from their work. Not to mention stock holders who make money on the profits made by companies who sell these products.
Doing this would not only affect the general moral of workers who provide such services, but will put thousands of people out of work while at the same time increasing our taxes to figures that I don't even want to imagine.
The same could be said for any government funded service. Full privatisation of all industries is as unviable as no privatisation. There needs to be a balance.
Before we go "Yay, GO IBM!" realize that IBMs patents are potentially as harmful to Open Source Software as they are to SCO.
The GPL requires free licensing of any patents or IBM loses their rights to distribute Linux at all. Because IBM has already distributed Linux it would be silly for them to turnaround and slap Linux users with patent licensing, because Linux code owners could then turnaround and slap IBM with copyright infringement (Linux distribution without agreeing to the GPL).
RMS thought of all this a long time ago. Give the man some credit; he *is* an official genius, you know.
Admittedly, the GPL clause only covers patents in versions of Linux that IBM has already shipped. IBM could conceivably stop Linux developers from implementing IBM-patented algorithms in future versions of Linux but the current version of Linux is safe.
7. Somebody whinging about anti-Microsoft sentiment on Slashdot. 8. At least a dozen astroturfers, all with IDs over 650000. 9. People bashing the Gamecube, PS2, Dreamcast, C64 and OS/2 for no apparent reason. 10. Some idiot to append 11. ??? and 12. *you know* to my list.
It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.
First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.
Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".
Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.
Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.
Re:Only True Within the Developer Community
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
Arguing that buying Microsoft is risky because Microsoft might go out of business is, frankly, a high school debating tactic.
It is a tactic that you introduced when you said:
How can we depend on some anonymous and amorphous bunch of developers to support our requirements? What happens if they walk away from this code?
If you have issues with these sorts of tactics then I advise you stop using them.
Why would I care if a proprietary vendor has a "personal" interest in my software?
If you didn't care then why did you bring it up:
Open source developers -- not customers -- make the decisions about what kind of new open source code is written, and those developers are unlikely to have a personal interest in the kind of software that many businesses need.
If "personal interest" wasn't a point you were trying to compare then you shouldn't have said it.
This thread is going nowhere. I have lost interest.
Not everybody. I was opposed to the antitrust lawsuit against MS (Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because it was included with Windows? Bull! Netscape was a vastly inferior product, something even their own freaking developers admit).
Isn't it amazing how revisionists can rewrite history so quickly. The court case had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of MSIE or Navigator. It had everything to do with threats that Microsoft made against OEM vendors (including Compaq) that wanted to ship Navigator on a Windows desktop. Microsoft threatened these vendors with revocation of their Windows license; death for an OEM. This was all explained in EXCRUCIATING detail during and after the court case. How the hell can you continue to get it wrong?
Windows was not meant for gaming, either. The history of how Windows turned from "not for games" into "not bad for games" is an interesting read.
Windows will always be the best gaming platform. There is nothing the Linux community can possibly to do change that fact. The power of numbers is just too much to overcome.
As you seem to think that the power of numbers is essential to being the best gaming platform (I agree) you'll certainly grok that all Linux needs to do to become the best gaming platform is to be more popular.
Re:Only True Within the Developer Community
on
Novell Buys Ximian
·
· Score: 1
I simply said, based on my own experience, what the reaction is likely to be when the managers of a business are told that they need to pay someone to modify their open source code. The assumption -- and it is not necessarily an accurate assumption -- will be that this problem would not have arisen with Microsoft software.
And I said that's a false argument because you are arguing that an additional choice offered by free software is actually a liability. It is not. It is optional. The manager is not forced to pay, so he's no worse off than with Microsoft software.
Unless you're saying that having choices is a problem, in and of itself!?
As for the second, any company can go bust, but with just about $50 billion in cash reserves, Microsoft is in an enviable position. If asked to estimate Microsoft chances for long life versus its competitors, I think most business people would readily opt for Microsoft. Compared with financially shaky open source startups, it's no contest.
That's just a fancy way of saying "nobody ever got fired for buying Data General". WTF is Data General? Well, that's my point.
And, yes, Microsoft could drop or sell the software a business needs, or alter how it works. But that's a risk with any software, open or proprietary.
Correct. However, my point, which I'm sure you already understand despite your D.A. position, is that with proprietary software you'd be left with no further avenues. With open source you still have options.
It's also important to remember that many business depend on the kind of vertical and integration software that isn't common in the open source community, Open source developers -- not customers -- make the decisions about what kind of new open source code is written, and those developers are unlikely to have a personal interest in the kind of software that many businesses need.
Are you trying to imply that proprietary software vendors do have a personal interest in the kinds of software that many businesses need? Despite decades of evidence to the contrary? What's the emoticon for a giggle?
The music industry lacks a new format that can easily replace CDs. Although DVD-Audio offers much better quality and capacity, consumers have just finished replacing all of their records with CDs. They have installed CD players in their car. They have purchased home stereos, disc men, boom-boxs, and CD-Roms. The economy is down. Consumers won't shell out money to convert to another format now, espcially since the only thing that DVD audio has to offer is better quality and capacity. Many CDs right now don't fill to their capacity (how many of us have CDs that are only 30 or 40 mintues long?!) and many cd players have crappy speakers. In order to really get the quality of a DVD audio disc you need a *good* player, something which costs lots of $$$ and therefore won't sell like hot cakes.
Damn right. You've stated the real reason people aren't flocking to SACD and DVDA; there's no compelling feature.
All the other examples you gave had obvious improvements. Vinyl turntables took up less space (and cost less) than player pianos. Cassettes were durable, recordable, portable. CDs sounded better and were random access. Each generation was driven by clearly better improvements.
But what does SACD/DVDA offer me? Random access? Already got it. More storage? 70 mins is usually enough. Better fidelity? Like it matters when my car has 40dB of background noise anyway. Durable? Same as CD. Portable? Same as CD. Even the form factor is the same.
That's why MP3 took off. It offered an obvious improvement over CD. You got all the benefits of CD plus huge permanently available libraries (no more changing discs) and smaller portable devices (even smaller than minidisc). Proof? I converted my entire CD collection to MP3. I think everybody here has done the same thing. I know 60 year olds who hate computers yet still bought Macs just so they could iTuneify their vinyl collection. Music is simply more convenient in an MP3 format. The RIAA attacked MP3 not just because of the piracy angle but also because they didn't want to lose control of the format.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't understand anything I said.
Other operating systems, including UNIX, have had ACLs before Windows NT even existed and the concept was derided then as well. This is not a "Un*x vs Windows" argument. Please don't turn it into one.
The typical arguments against ACLs are:
The trick, as with all computing, is to weigh the benefits vs the costs. Sometimes you need ACLs and then it makes sense to introduce the extra complexity. Other times it makes no sense at all, so you dispense with them. For example, there's not much value in ACLs for an embedded UNIX with a single user (eg, a PDA). There's definitely a lot of value for ACLs with a multiuser UNIX or a UNIX fileserver. You need to decide when it makes sense to have ACLs and when to use UNIX ugo, not make blanket statements about one being better than the other.
I suppose it's never occurred to you that you're the one who "doesn't get it".
Your ass is neither insightful nor worthy of moderation.
Soko wasn't saying that it did. Soko was saying that's what SCO seems to be claiming and that he thinks it's a bad argument.
You are interacting with people. The fact that you use a computer to do so is no more disturbing than speaking to someone via a phone.
There's a lot more meat here, so I'll reply to your comments this time.
I partially agree. The UNIX implementation of the Tool Philosophy is antiquated. Pipes and bytestreams are showing their age. Stringing UNIX tools together typically requires a command line and that isn't adequate by any stretch of the imagination.
However I disagree with you that the Tool Philosophy itself is out of date. As I tried to explain with my analogy, the Tool Philosophy is about using several small tools to achieve the desired outcome. As an end user I use the Tool Philosophy on a regular basis. For example:
Four tools. Each tool did a single purpose and did it well. Outlook read email. Word wrote words. Visio drew pictures. WinZip created ZIP files. No program tried to do everything.
I think the fault here is that you think the Tool Philosophy is the same thing as the UNIX command line. This would explain why you started comparing GUIs to CLIs.
For somebody who was obviously distressed when somebody tried to teach you a "lesson", you seem very eager to assume the role of a lecturer. You might like to contemplate that I have nothing to learn about UNIX history from you.
That's why it's called an analogy. It's only supposed to show essential similarities. Your pedantry is amusing but completely irrelevant.
I said nothing about CLI vs GUI. I talked about the Tool Philosophy. Please pay attention.
Think of it this way. A carpenter's workshop is packed with 100s of small tools that do small and simple things. A hammer to drive nails. A saw to cut wood. A chisel to shape joints. No single tool will "build a box" or "make a table". The carpenter needs to combine the output from many tools.
Sure, this requires the carpenter to have skill with and knowledge of many tools. The carpenter's job is much harder than simply pushing the "Make Another Box" button on the gigantic Box Building Machine. However the carpenter is more flexible because he can quickly adapt his tools to make new and original products. The button pusher can only make more boxes.
What I've just described is the Tool Philosophy and it's well emulated in traditional command line UNIX. You're right that most people prefer to be a button pusher. I prefer the freedom to adapt. That's why I prefer UNIX.
I read comments like that all the time just by browsing through pulp science magazines like New Scientist. I don't think it's rare nor unexpected for truly correct methodology to change people's opinions. Perhaps your experience has only been with articles using incorrect methodologies and that's why you have a cynical point of view?
The problem is that 95% of the population thinks they're in the top 5%.
Because I paid money for their product and I expect them to support it.
Well, nobody except non-programmers (and SCO) knows what the code is, so nobody in the "Linux community" can say whether it's been credited or not. It's hard to defend yourself when you don't know what you've done wrong.
Also Linus has a strict policy of not accepting anonymous donations. He does that for pragmatic reasons (he wants somebody responsibe for keeping track of patches) but it's worked in our favour.
Also if the code in question is NUMA, RCU or SMP then the donations came from SGI, HP and IBM. They definitely didn't come from SYSV because SYSV doesn't even have some of those features.
So if you want to know why you're being moderated "Flamebait" and "Troll" it's because your statements sound like they've been made up.
I don't think he said "every product".
Water. Medicine. There are two products that my government provides for "free" (the reality is that I've prepaid for them with taxes) for the good of the public.
I also disagree with your assertion that software is a product. I think much of software is infrastructure, like roads or water or sewerage, but that's an argument for a different forum.
The same could be said for any government funded service. Full privatisation of all industries is as unviable as no privatisation. There needs to be a balance.
The GPL requires free licensing of any patents or IBM loses their rights to distribute Linux at all. Because IBM has already distributed Linux it would be silly for them to turnaround and slap Linux users with patent licensing, because Linux code owners could then turnaround and slap IBM with copyright infringement (Linux distribution without agreeing to the GPL).
RMS thought of all this a long time ago. Give the man some credit; he *is* an official genius, you know.
Admittedly, the GPL clause only covers patents in versions of Linux that IBM has already shipped. IBM could conceivably stop Linux developers from implementing IBM-patented algorithms in future versions of Linux but the current version of Linux is safe.
I.B.M. hits back
SCO shares will wither and fall
like the autumn leaves
My predicted topics:
7. Somebody whinging about anti-Microsoft sentiment on Slashdot.
8. At least a dozen astroturfers, all with IDs over 650000.
9. People bashing the Gamecube, PS2, Dreamcast, C64 and OS/2 for no apparent reason.
10. Some idiot to append 11. ??? and 12. *you know* to my list.
Why should I? I didn't make any comment about SCO suing companies that use Linux.
It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.
First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.
Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".
Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.
Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.
It is a tactic that you introduced when you said:
If you have issues with these sorts of tactics then I advise you stop using them.
If you didn't care then why did you bring it up:
If "personal interest" wasn't a point you were trying to compare then you shouldn't have said it.
This thread is going nowhere. I have lost interest.
Isn't it amazing how revisionists can rewrite history so quickly. The court case had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of MSIE or Navigator. It had everything to do with threats that Microsoft made against OEM vendors (including Compaq) that wanted to ship Navigator on a Windows desktop. Microsoft threatened these vendors with revocation of their Windows license; death for an OEM. This was all explained in EXCRUCIATING detail during and after the court case. How the hell can you continue to get it wrong?
Badoom tish.
Windows was not meant for gaming, either. The history of how Windows turned from "not for games" into "not bad for games" is an interesting read.
As you seem to think that the power of numbers is essential to being the best gaming platform (I agree) you'll certainly grok that all Linux needs to do to become the best gaming platform is to be more popular.
And I said that's a false argument because you are arguing that an additional choice offered by free software is actually a liability. It is not. It is optional. The manager is not forced to pay, so he's no worse off than with Microsoft software. Unless you're saying that having choices is a problem, in and of itself!?
That's just a fancy way of saying "nobody ever got fired for buying Data General". WTF is Data General? Well, that's my point.
Correct. However, my point, which I'm sure you already understand despite your D.A. position, is that with proprietary software you'd be left with no further avenues. With open source you still have options.
Are you trying to imply that proprietary software vendors do have a personal interest in the kinds of software that many businesses need? Despite decades of evidence to the contrary? What's the emoticon for a giggle?
Damn right. You've stated the real reason people aren't flocking to SACD and DVDA; there's no compelling feature.
All the other examples you gave had obvious improvements. Vinyl turntables took up less space (and cost less) than player pianos. Cassettes were durable, recordable, portable. CDs sounded better and were random access. Each generation was driven by clearly better improvements.
But what does SACD/DVDA offer me? Random access? Already got it. More storage? 70 mins is usually enough. Better fidelity? Like it matters when my car has 40dB of background noise anyway. Durable? Same as CD. Portable? Same as CD. Even the form factor is the same.
That's why MP3 took off. It offered an obvious improvement over CD. You got all the benefits of CD plus huge permanently available libraries (no more changing discs) and smaller portable devices (even smaller than minidisc). Proof? I converted my entire CD collection to MP3. I think everybody here has done the same thing. I know 60 year olds who hate computers yet still bought Macs just so they could iTuneify their vinyl collection. Music is simply more convenient in an MP3 format. The RIAA attacked MP3 not just because of the piracy angle but also because they didn't want to lose control of the format.