Regarding code forking, both the GPL and the BSD-like licenses allow it. There is no difference between both. Except when it comes to creating a propietary (not free) version based in the free software. The BSD allows anyone to grab their source, modify it and release a propietary version. That will never happen with GPL products, because the GPL required you to distribute software based on the original software under the same license terms that software was licensed to you.
All the 32 (only 32? I bet there are far more distributions) GNU/Linux versions are free software, none of them is propietary, all are still free software. This does not happen with BSD. Both can be forked, but BSD can be forked and turned to propietary, as has happened many times in the past.
Some persons prefer BSD licenses and say they are more permisive than the GPL. Others (including me) prefer to use the GPL since it means any software based in the one we are creating will be given back to us under the same terms we gave ours.
Some persons have pointed that whatever they call the versions is irrelevant. It is not, since odd version numbers such as 2.1.X or 2.3.X are experimental while even version numbers such as 2.0.X or 2.2.X are stable code.
It is a good thing, considering there are many persons stuck in 2.0.X, unwilling to switch to 2.2.X because of the big effort it takes:
Someone posted:
Question: Has anyone stepped up and said they will take over maintenance of 2.0.X if Alan and Linus don't want to anymore?
I believe this is exactly why they are going to change version numbers more often. Why bother mantaining 2.0.X?!
I understand your point of view, the effort related with switching is big and 2.2.X are not as stable as 2.0.X (or so it seems). But from another point of view, its like saying: I am running 2.0.36, will someone release 2.0.36.1? I don't want to update 2.0.37...
I know, there are no big differences between 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 so updating is not as big a pain as updating from 2.0.X to 2.2.X.
And that's what Linus is trying to fix, I suppose. He doesn't want to have people stuck with 2.2.X when he releases 2.4.X, so he's going to release stable kernels more often, hoping people will update their systems and distributions to stable kernels more often (but with less hassle).
Redhat seems to like the 5.0->5.1->5.2->etc->6.0 without going to minor numbers. That's their perogative. However, they must realise that they are going to be on version 15 in 2 or so years. That's what I find silly about the whole notion.
Heheh. Sounds as if you were implying there is a problem with being version 15. They must realize that they are going to be version 15? Why? What's relevant of being in version 15? *grin*
their web page doesn't even make sense. They say that they have a proprietary operating system, but then on their hardware page it says that it will run either UNIX (I guess any flavor!) or Windows NT.
What do you think Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Digital Unix, HP/UX and all them are? They are Unix OS and they are also propietary products. WinNT is a propietary product as well. I can't see what doesn't make sense there, sounds as if you were implying something is either Unix or propietary, not both.
Okay, so, I run the CGIs using ";uptime" inside the query string. Now what??? All this does is adding ";uptime" at the end of the enviroment variable QUERY_STRING of the CGI application (assuming you are using the GET HTTP REQUEST_METHOD), I can't see how is that going to fill the process table or do any kind of harm.
This machines are more expensive than PCs. $839-600... umm.
Okay, that's the initial price; the real savings come because you update those terminals every 9 years instead of every 9 months (as you would do with PCs). And, since you have everything centralized in a server, it's really easier to keep the software updated and properly set up.
But I still think that's very expensive.
If I buy PCs and set them up to behave just the same way the NCs and terminals do, is there anything the terminals will do that the PCs won't? Can't I still use the same client-server design, having the PCs act just like terminals? A PC is cheaper than this terminals but can do more things... is there anything that keeps me from setting it up to do all the things the terminals (NCs) do and more?
I know, it would be a pain to do with Windows, but I can't see any problems with this centralized design using PCs with Linux (or a BSD) and XWindows instead of NCs. If I find it really useful to keep the applications centralized in a powerful server, what keeps me from doing just that and using PCs as terminals?
So, in the end, PCs can do all the things NCs do, plus a lot more... and are (in this case) cheaper.
companies should pay for commercial software, individuals/student should be allowed to copy it.
The problem with this approach is that there would be no commercial applications for home users, other than those that are also required by companies (as the two examples you mentioned). If you are a company in the software industry, you will not develope for the home user, but for companies only.
I mean, consider games under this approach. Only companies will have to pay for games, individuals/students won't have to pay for them. Which companies will buy games? None. Who, in the software industry, will develope games?
This survey counts only business applications. I can't see how a game counts as a business application':
Almost two-fifths of all new
business software applications installed worldwide in 1998 were pirated
I don't really know, but I suppose games and others applications are by far more pirated than whatever they are calling business applications (specially if that includes specialized applications that no one installs in his home computer). I suppose a company cares much more than an individual not to break any licenses, since it (the former) is by far more likely to get caught.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that about 80% or perhaps even 90% of all the persons who use computers use pirated software. *shrug*
In the place where I live, no body seems to care about that at all. Piracy seems to be right, those who don't practice it are seen as rather stupid.
Anyway, I'm always trying to educate people in this sense, telling them how software (and music) piracy is as crime no better than going into a grocery and stealing fruits.
How many, of all the people who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
I would be less than 1/5th does.
Okay, you and I know what GNU is, but does your mother, your brother, your uncle and your grandmother, all of them who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
I would bet less than 1/10th of the people who have heard of Linus Torvalds have heard of Richard Mars Stallman. How many times have you read about Torvalds on your newspaper? How many times have you read about Stallman?
On the other hand, I agree that pronouncing GNU/Linux is harder.
Some people have criticized Stallman and the FSF supporters by saying they should add a clausule to the GPL saying that the name of anything GPLed must begin with "GNU/". That is, IMO, childish. The FSF is not legally forcing anyone to call Linux GNU/Linux, just making a polite request.
There are some guys trying to make up a complete Linux distribution with no GNU software. That fails to see the point. If it wasn't because of GNU software such as Emacs and GCC, there would be no such thing as what we know as (GNU/)?Linux.
Stallman says the reason why we should call it GNU/Linux is to keep in mind the real strength of the system: the freedom. If you call it GNU/Linux, you are reminding everyone how it all started back in 1984. Linux is usually associated with speed, stability and technical characteristics. What is, on the other hand, the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about GNU? Okay, technical excelence, but they state it everywhere, their main objective is to build a free operating system, not just a technically excelent one. By calling it GNU/Linux you are mentioning the freedom behind it, its principal characteristic.
And since GNU/Linux is rather hard to pronounce, I at times leave out the/Linux part and reply that my box runs the GNU OS. I know, I'm leaving things out, but I think that both the freedom deservers more publicity than the technical excelence (which is, as Raymond points out, just one consequence of the first these days) and Stallman deserves a LOT more publicity than Torvalds or Cox.
Just my thoughts, you are welcome to call it Linux, GNU/Linux, Jose or whatever you want.
Debian, so far, has been very popular in academia, hobbyist and research circles, but doesn't appear to be a big player in the retail and commercial fields.
I thought Debian was one of the most popular distributions out there, second only to RedHat. Umm. Maybe SuSE.
I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name.
Are you serious?
I seriously doubt the GNU/Linux name has any influence on its popularity.
Perfect? Didn't you just say it crash all the time? Whatta silly concept of software perfection. I find it completely unaceptable to have it crash on me.
It *IS* Netscape's fault. They have not stick to the standards that much (until now). MS Inept Explorer 4, released at the time Netscape 4 was released, conforms to standards such as CSS1 more than does Netscape. MS Inept Explorer 5 is by far more standards compliant than the current Netscape version, 4.6.
Besides, the HTML standards out there by the W3C say that if your browser comes across a tag it does not understand (ie. a non standard tag) it should just ignore it. Not crash.
And what have the hangs related with NSLookups to do with standards?
On the other hand, it is just a free product, we are not (directly) paying them to develope it. So it is not appropiate to discuss wether it is their "fault" or not.
However, you are doing well staying with Netscape. Its just a matter of time until a usable version of their free version gets ready (something we will know as Netscape 5). Everything will change. It will never crash. It will fully support far more standards than MS Inept Exporer. And you will be happy.
The algorithm is similar, but there are a few practical differences.
In dictionary attacks you usually take a few thousand words and then check them against every account in the server, hoping a small number of accounts will have its password set to any of those common words.
In brute-force attacks, you typically try every possible combination of characters against only one account.
Dictionary attacks are usually more useful to get some random accounts in a system, while brute-force attacks are typically used to get the password of one specific account (ie. root).
Lets imagine you know all passwords are 8 characters long. With brute force attacks you usually make around (128 characters - 32 control codes) ^ 8 digits = 7.213.895.789.838.336 attempts (okay, usually less characters... but still). In dictionary attacks you usually try 10.000 passwords * 1000 accounts = 10.000.000 attempts.
Dictionary attacks usually get you more accounts in less time, but usually not the ones you want (unless the sysadmin is stupid).
I have no idea of how PGP *really* works, but I suppose that no one would ever use dictionary based attacks to decrypt PGP encrypted messages, since the private key is not a simple word. In this case you have to do brute-force with no optimization.
In theory both methods are the same, dictionary means you just try highly used passwords, but they have their differences in practice.
He doesn't have any fundamental problems with Microsoft, just with their way to do business. I am sure RMS would work with Microsoft if they developed free software (hahaha).
Alejo.
Re:Comercial linux software....
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Because there can be comercial GPLed code.
Free does not mean gratis. It comes from freedom.
There is commercial software for Linux. And it is GPLed. Look at what Corel is doing. Look at RedHat.
Tables and frames do not belong on a WWW page. HTML is a markup language, NOT a layout language. It is up to the user to determine how the page is laid out, NOT the author.
I agree. Everyone ought to use <big> and <small> instead of <font>. It should be up to the receiver to decide how to display the information. Use <strong> rather than <b>.
When I download long web sites, I have found my self editing their HTML code for readability.
Unfortunately, tables and layout code do belong in the web as it is today. And that's just depressing. Many content builders do their best to get their pages to show the same way in every different browser but that's just wrong. I don't care how Slashdot looks like, I come here for News. I would really like to be able to redefine the way it is displayed.
have you ever had to manage an e-commerce site with 15,000 products with a plain text editor? And several people working on it at once? You want to deal with the frustration, waste of time and RSI that comes with it? Never.
If I was managing an e-commerce site with 15,000 products, I would stay really away from WYSIWYG HTML editors. I would use CGIs or custom-made programs or scripts to generate my static HTML files. Can you make scripts in FrontPage or DreamWeaver? Do you think Yahoo, which has thousands of static HTML pages is made in a WYSIWYG HTML editor? Hell, that would be VERY frustrating. No, they use Perl scripts to generate their pages from database.
The idea of creating a 15,000-products-e-commerce-site with DreamWeaver, Front Page or just about any HTML editor just makes me laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you?!
Alejo.
I think he meant free as in freedom, not as in gratis.
:)
Is RedHat free? Yes? But doesn't the web site say something like $49?!? Glad you got the point.
Alejo.
I think he meant free as in freedom, not price.
Will it be free software?
Alejo.
You are wrong. Or listening to the wrong persons.
Regarding code forking, both the GPL and the BSD-like licenses allow it. There is no difference between both. Except when it comes to creating a propietary (not free) version based in the free software. The BSD allows anyone to grab their source, modify it and release a propietary version. That will never happen with GPL products, because the GPL required you to distribute software based on the original software under the same license terms that software was licensed to you.
All the 32 (only 32? I bet there are far more distributions) GNU/Linux versions are free software, none of them is propietary, all are still free software. This does not happen with BSD. Both can be forked, but BSD can be forked and turned to propietary, as has happened many times in the past.
Some persons prefer BSD licenses and say they are more permisive than the GPL. Others (including me) prefer to use the GPL since it means any software based in the one we are creating will be given back to us under the same terms we gave ours.
Alejo.
*sigh*
Why are some persons so incredibly stupid?
Alejo.
It is a good thing, considering there are many persons stuck in 2.0.X, unwilling to switch to 2.2.X because of the big effort it takes:
Someone posted:
I believe this is exactly why they are going to change version numbers more often. Why bother mantaining 2.0.X?!
I understand your point of view, the effort related with switching is big and 2.2.X are not as stable as 2.0.X (or so it seems). But from another point of view, its like saying: I am running 2.0.36, will someone release 2.0.36.1? I don't want to update 2.0.37...
I know, there are no big differences between 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 so updating is not as big a pain as updating from 2.0.X to 2.2.X.
And that's what Linus is trying to fix, I suppose. He doesn't want to have people stuck with 2.2.X when he releases 2.4.X, so he's going to release stable kernels more often, hoping people will update their systems and distributions to stable kernels more often (but with less hassle).
Alejo.
Heheh. Sounds as if you were implying there is a problem with being version 15. They must realize that they are going to be version 15? Why? What's relevant of being in version 15? *grin*
Alejo.
What do you think Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Digital Unix, HP/UX and all them are? They are Unix OS and they are also propietary products. WinNT is a propietary product as well. I can't see what doesn't make sense there, sounds as if you were implying something is either Unix or propietary, not both.
Alejo.
Okay, so, I run the CGIs using ";uptime" inside the query string. Now what??? All this does is adding ";uptime" at the end of the enviroment variable QUERY_STRING of the CGI application (assuming you are using the GET HTTP REQUEST_METHOD), I can't see how is that going to fill the process table or do any kind of harm.
Alejo.
I was wondering...
This machines are more expensive than PCs. $839-600... umm.
Okay, that's the initial price; the real savings come because you update those terminals every 9 years instead of every 9 months (as you would do with PCs). And, since you have everything centralized in a server, it's really easier to keep the software updated and properly set up.
But I still think that's very expensive.
If I buy PCs and set them up to behave just the same way the NCs and terminals do, is there anything the terminals will do that the PCs won't? Can't I still use the same client-server design, having the PCs act just like terminals? A PC is cheaper than this terminals but can do more things... is there anything that keeps me from setting it up to do all the things the terminals (NCs) do and more?
I know, it would be a pain to do with Windows, but I can't see any problems with this centralized design using PCs with Linux (or a BSD) and XWindows instead of NCs. If I find it really useful to keep the applications centralized in a powerful server, what keeps me from doing just that and using PCs as terminals?
So, in the end, PCs can do all the things NCs do, plus a lot more... and are (in this case) cheaper.
Alejo.
The problem with this approach is that there would be no commercial applications for home users, other than those that are also required by companies (as the two examples you mentioned). If you are a company in the software industry, you will not develope for the home user, but for companies only.
I mean, consider games under this approach. Only companies will have to pay for games, individuals/students won't have to pay for them. Which companies will buy games? None. Who, in the software industry, will develope games?
Alejo.
I don't really know, but I suppose games and others applications are by far more pirated than whatever they are calling business applications (specially if that includes specialized applications that no one installs in his home computer). I suppose a company cares much more than an individual not to break any licenses, since it (the former) is by far more likely to get caught.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that about 80% or perhaps even 90% of all the persons who use computers use pirated software. *shrug*
In the place where I live, no body seems to care about that at all. Piracy seems to be right, those who don't practice it are seen as rather stupid.
Anyway, I'm always trying to educate people in this sense, telling them how software (and music) piracy is as crime no better than going into a grocery and stealing fruits.
People who practice software piracy suck.
Alejo.
They are not just going to spread FUD.
They are going to spread FUD and do their best to build an absolutely wonderful OS.
Time will only tell if they can.
I hope not.
Alejo.
How many, of all the people who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
/Linux part and reply that my box runs the GNU OS. I know, I'm leaving things out, but I think that both the freedom deservers more publicity than the technical excelence (which is, as Raymond points out, just one consequence of the first these days) and Stallman deserves a LOT more publicity than Torvalds or Cox.
I would be less than 1/5th does.
Okay, you and I know what GNU is, but does your mother, your brother, your uncle and your grandmother, all of them who know what Linux is, know what GNU is?
I would bet less than 1/10th of the people who have heard of Linus Torvalds have heard of Richard Mars Stallman. How many times have you read about Torvalds on your newspaper? How many times have you read about Stallman?
On the other hand, I agree that pronouncing GNU/Linux is harder.
Some people have criticized Stallman and the FSF supporters by saying they should add a clausule to the GPL saying that the name of anything GPLed must begin with "GNU/". That is, IMO, childish. The FSF is not legally forcing anyone to call Linux GNU/Linux, just making a polite request.
There are some guys trying to make up a complete Linux distribution with no GNU software. That fails to see the point. If it wasn't because of GNU software such as Emacs and GCC, there would be no such thing as what we know as (GNU/)?Linux.
Stallman says the reason why we should call it GNU/Linux is to keep in mind the real strength of the system: the freedom. If you call it GNU/Linux, you are reminding everyone how it all started back in 1984. Linux is usually associated with speed, stability and technical characteristics. What is, on the other hand, the first thing that comes to your mind when you think about GNU? Okay, technical excelence, but they state it everywhere, their main objective is to build a free operating system, not just a technically excelent one. By calling it GNU/Linux you are mentioning the freedom behind it, its principal characteristic.
And since GNU/Linux is rather hard to pronounce, I at times leave out the
Just my thoughts, you are welcome to call it Linux, GNU/Linux, Jose or whatever you want.
Alejo.
Debian, so far, has been very popular in academia, hobbyist and research circles, but doesn't appear to be a big player in the retail and commercial fields.
I thought Debian was one of the most popular distributions out there, second only to RedHat. Umm. Maybe SuSE.
I submit that one of the reasons for Debian's lackluster showing is because of its name.
Are you serious?
I seriously doubt the GNU/Linux name has any influence on its popularity.
Alejo.
Perfect? Didn't you just say it crash all the time? Whatta silly concept of software perfection. I find it completely unaceptable to have it crash on me.
It *IS* Netscape's fault. They have not stick to the standards that much (until now). MS Inept Explorer 4, released at the time Netscape 4 was released, conforms to standards such as CSS1 more than does Netscape. MS Inept Explorer 5 is by far more standards compliant than the current Netscape version, 4.6.
Besides, the HTML standards out there by the W3C say that if your browser comes across a tag it does not understand (ie. a non standard tag) it should just ignore it. Not crash.
And what have the hangs related with NSLookups to do with standards?
On the other hand, it is just a free product, we are not (directly) paying them to develope it. So it is not appropiate to discuss wether it is their "fault" or not.
However, you are doing well staying with Netscape. Its just a matter of time until a usable version of their free version gets ready (something we will know as Netscape 5). Everything will change. It will never crash. It will fully support far more standards than MS Inept Exporer. And you will be happy.
Alejo.
The algorithm is similar, but there are a few practical differences.
In dictionary attacks you usually take a few thousand words and then check them against every account in the server, hoping a small number of accounts will have its password set to any of those common words.
In brute-force attacks, you typically try every possible combination of characters against only one account.
Dictionary attacks are usually more useful to get some random accounts in a system, while brute-force attacks are typically used to get the password of one specific account (ie. root).
Lets imagine you know all passwords are 8 characters long. With brute force attacks you usually make around (128 characters - 32 control codes) ^ 8 digits = 7.213.895.789.838.336 attempts (okay, usually less characters... but still). In dictionary attacks you usually try 10.000 passwords * 1000 accounts = 10.000.000 attempts.
Dictionary attacks usually get you more accounts in less time, but usually not the ones you want (unless the sysadmin is stupid).
I have no idea of how PGP *really* works, but I suppose that no one would ever use dictionary based attacks to decrypt PGP encrypted messages, since the private key is not a simple word. In this case you have to do brute-force with no optimization.
In theory both methods are the same, dictionary means you just try highly used passwords, but they have their differences in practice.
Alejo.
(azul@azul)-(59/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:43pm)--
(~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet mta-x1.yahoomail.com pop3
Trying 205.180.60.117...
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.117: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.58: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.224: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.30: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.116: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.125: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.83: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
(azul@azul)-(60/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:43pm)--
(~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet pop3.yahoo.com pop3
pop3.yahoo.com: Unknown host
(azul@azul)-(61/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:44pm)--
(~/html/newearth/newearth/src)-- telnet mail.yahoo.com pop3
Trying 205.180.60.98...
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.98: Connection refused
telnet: connect to address 205.180.60.97: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
(azul@azul)-(62/ttyp2)-(05/14/99:01:44pm)--
(~/html/newearth/newearth/src)--
What's their POP3 server?
Alejo.
It was written about the same time as The Third Wave
Umm. Future Shock was published in 1971. Third Wave in 1980.
I agree those books where GREAT but they are just too old now, aren't they?
You should read The Power Shift. It was published around 1994 and very good.
Alejo.
I agree completely.
And just had to say it.
Alejo.
He doesn't have any fundamental problems with Microsoft, just with their way to do business. I am sure RMS would work with Microsoft if they developed free software (hahaha).
Alejo.
Because there can be comercial GPLed code.
Free does not mean gratis. It comes from freedom.
There is commercial software for Linux. And it is GPLed. Look at what Corel is doing. Look at RedHat.
Alejo.
Tables and frames do not belong on a WWW page. HTML is a markup language, NOT a layout language. It is up to the user to determine how the page is laid out, NOT the author.
I agree. Everyone ought to use <big> and <small> instead of <font>. It should be up to the receiver to decide how to display the information. Use <strong> rather than <b>.
When I download long web sites, I have found my self editing their HTML code for readability.
Unfortunately, tables and layout code do belong in the web as it is today. And that's just depressing. Many content builders do their best to get their pages to show the same way in every different browser but that's just wrong. I don't care how Slashdot looks like, I come here for News. I would really like to be able to redefine the way it is displayed.
Alejo.
Oh, please, Notepad ?
An editor where I can't even tell on what line I am ? Where I can't use incremental searches ? With no syntax highlighting ? Oh, please.
No.
Two years ago, when I was in the Windows world, I used UltraEdit, which everyone trapped inside Windows OUGHT to check out. These days, I love Emacs.
Alejo.
have you ever had to manage an e-commerce site with 15,000 products with a plain text editor? And several people working on it at once? You want to deal with the frustration, waste of time and RSI that comes with it? Never.
If I was managing an e-commerce site with 15,000 products, I would stay really away from WYSIWYG HTML editors. I would use CGIs or custom-made programs or scripts to generate my static HTML files. Can you make scripts in FrontPage or DreamWeaver? Do you think Yahoo, which has thousands of static HTML pages is made in a WYSIWYG HTML editor? Hell, that would be VERY frustrating. No, they use Perl scripts to generate their pages from database.
The idea of creating a 15,000-products-e-commerce-site with DreamWeaver, Front Page or just about any HTML editor just makes me laugh.
Alejo.