I grab the pre-bugfix label from CVS. I do a CVS diff against the label "bug5212" (indicating the verision with the fix). This generates a patch file. I switch to my other branch and apply the patch.
Resolve conflicts and compile. Really, it's not that hard.
Look, I so badly want to prevent what happen this past Tuesday from every happening again. I also badly want the perpetrators to be brought to justice.
That being said, what is the point of having rights if they can be suspended when circumstances get bad enough?
We can't just have principles when they suit us. Real principles are those that endure even life would seem so much easier without them.
All Java data that is not a local primitive variable must be dynamically allocated.
Dynamic memory allocations in any language seem to take on the order of 1000 CPU clocks.
Most dynamic "objects" end up consuming about 1000 bytes.
I presume by this you actually mean stack allocated, as opposed to dynamically allocated (it's certainly possible to define statically allocated objects). While on one hand objects are meant to appear to be allocated on the heap, IBM has done a great deal of research on using linear analysis to allocate linear objects onto the stack. Works great.
Allocations in the HotSpot VM can take only a few instructions, much like stack allocation. Unlike C++ you don't have a heap that you are constantly trying to keep balanced and unfragmented.
Objects in Java are quite small. Indeed they have to be smaller than the 1K that you claim they need. Try allocating a million objects in a system with less than 1GB of memory. You'll find it works just fine. Again, with a compacting garbage collector, you don't have to worry about all the overhead associated with heap management which causes objects to be bigger than they need to be.
It seems to me your programming prejudices are tied to experiences with C++. If you learn the Java paradigm better, you'll discover that a lot of the performance trade-offs you learned in the C++ world don't play out the same way in the Java world.
What this is really about is Microsoft's continued campaign against the GPL. All they are saying is that if there is a GPL'd.NET implementation out there, it may not be legal to mix it with Microsoft's proprietary.NET applications.
It's actually an issue that has been debated on gnu.misc.discuss for quite some time. In particular, the question as to whether distributed computing really expands the impact of the GPL or makes it pointless.
Cree is very cool. I actually ended up sitting beside her on a flight up to Canada. You may actually remember her from that Cosby show spin off (A Different World). She has done a lot of voice overs, and she likes doing it, but her real thing is music actually.
There's a difference between no training and what RIP is talking about. When I'm interviewing someone who supposedly has been coding for 5 years, I expect them to have learned a thing or two in that time. If they haven't, what are the odds I'm going to be able to train them now?
Actually, most high class restaurants publish their recipes. The trick with amazing food isn't the recipe, but the cooking process itself and the quality of the ingredients (restaurant grade butter makes just about anything taste heavily;-).
ZKS's Freedom is SOOOOO much better than this product it's rediculous. This is so far from revolutionary I doubt serious security people will pay much attention to it.
Yes, the license is still the same. However, it's not a valid contract, and you need a contract to disclaim warranty.
Following your logic, if I steal some software from someone, they can't disclaim warranty, because there was no contract, and therefore I can sue them for damages the software does.
The GPL can be declined. Indeed, you are not accepting the GPL unless you use the source code or a binary derived from the source code. That is plenty to establish a contract.
I agree the jurisdiction thing is problematic. I assume that FSF's lawyers figured it was the only way to do it. It's amazing that the hardest thing in the world to do legally is give something away without any liability.
You are confusing the license with the packaging. If I stuck the GPL license inside a shrink-wrap package of software (in which case I presume it would be indistinguishable from your typical commercial software license in terms of the reject/accept argument), the license is still the same.
Your case about laws requiring that you have a chance to review the license are a good point, and are a good case for a more cautious approach towards free software distribution that ensures clear presentation of the license in advance of software use. The existing practice of having a LICENSE file and headers at the top of the source code, while pragmatic, is subject to the bizarre variations in contract law. Still, this is talking about the delivery mechanism as opposed to the license.
Just for humor I thought I'd point out that if you really believe that in the real world (as opposed to the legal one) you can reject the terms on a shrink wrap license after reading it, you obviously haven't tried. Unless the license cost you thousands of dollars, it isn't worth the fight.
I agree that the waiver issue is a problem. Contract or no, if you don't establish a jurisdiction for this kind of license fighting it in court is going to be increadibly complex.
The GPL is a license which defines the terms and conditions of a contract under which you can use the copyrighted material. If you don't accept the terms of the license, and you use the IP covered by the license, then you need to be able to produce some other contract which gives defines the terms under which you get (or more likely get to use) the IP. This is no different from any of those shrink wrap licenses you get with commercial software. When you get commercial software, you aren't actually getting anything more than a license which allows you to do certain things with the code. To follow your analogy, they aren't giveing you the hamburger, just the right to smell the hamburger under certain restrictions. If the GPL can't be enforced, then at the VERY least all of those licenses that you have to accept to get freely available (but proprietary) code are invalid (this covers Java, tons of MS software, most of Stroud's CWS apps, etc.), let alone software sold for $.
When I used ktelnet years ago, it only encrypted the authentication sequence. Everything else, including typing su, as in the clear. Don't know if this is still the case....
I belive this depends on the implementation of ktelnet you have, but a fully compliant kerberos application can use the kerberos service to support both authentication and encryption.
Kerberos provides security in various different ways, including authentication, authorization, and encryption. A kerberized telnet is arguable just as secure as ssh (perhaps more so).
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, the link to the site gives me a Proxy Error. ;-)
This is definitely a job for Swarmcsat. It avoids most of the problems people have identified, although extensive firewalling can still undermine it.
Alternatively, Gnutella or eDonkey like programs can be used.
It's cheap when you consider it's dual-processor using the Althlon's fancy bus. This board has 2x the bandwidth of a single processor board.
I grab the pre-bugfix label from CVS. I do a CVS diff against the label "bug5212" (indicating the verision with the fix). This generates a patch file. I switch to my other branch and apply the patch.
Resolve conflicts and compile. Really, it's not that hard.
Look, I so badly want to prevent what happen this past Tuesday from every happening again. I also badly want the perpetrators to be brought to justice.
That being said, what is the point of having rights if they can be suspended when circumstances get bad enough?
We can't just have principles when they suit us. Real principles are those that endure even life would seem so much easier without them.
It seems to me your programming prejudices are tied to experiences with C++. If you learn the Java paradigm better, you'll discover that a lot of the performance trade-offs you learned in the C++ world don't play out the same way in the Java world.
What this is really about is Microsoft's continued campaign against the GPL. All they are saying is that if there is a GPL'd .NET implementation out there, it may not be legal to mix it with Microsoft's proprietary .NET applications.
It's actually an issue that has been debated on gnu.misc.discuss for quite some time. In particular, the question as to whether distributed computing really expands the impact of the GPL or makes it pointless.
Actually, you can get by with jikes for dependency generation at least.
Cree is very cool. I actually ended up sitting beside her on a flight up to Canada. You may actually remember her from that Cosby show spin off (A Different World). She has done a lot of voice overs, and she likes doing it, but her real thing is music actually.
There's a difference between no training and what RIP is talking about. When I'm interviewing someone who supposedly has been coding for 5 years, I expect them to have learned a thing or two in that time. If they haven't, what are the odds I'm going to be able to train them now?
Format the hard disk.....
Actually, most high class restaurants publish their recipes. The trick with amazing food isn't the recipe, but the cooking process itself and the quality of the ingredients (restaurant grade butter makes just about anything taste heavily ;-).
It works either way.
Ugh.. sorry for the typeoh... It's Freedom.
ZKS's Freedom is SOOOOO much better than this product it's rediculous. This is so far from revolutionary I doubt serious security people will pay much attention to it.
Can you point me to information about IBM's Next Generation PThread book?
Man, did you just use speed and ObjectStore in the same sentence? ObjectStore is not even in the same class as several other OODB solutions out there.
Yes, the license is still the same. However, it's not a valid contract, and you need a contract to disclaim warranty.
Following your logic, if I steal some software from someone, they can't disclaim warranty, because there was no contract, and therefore I can sue them for damages the software does.
The GPL can be declined. Indeed, you are not accepting the GPL unless you use the source code or a binary derived from the source code. That is plenty to establish a contract.
I agree the jurisdiction thing is problematic. I assume that FSF's lawyers figured it was the only way to do it. It's amazing that the hardest thing in the world to do legally is give something away without any liability.
Tactical Nuclear Strike
You are confusing the license with the packaging. If I stuck the GPL license inside a shrink-wrap package of software (in which case I presume it would be indistinguishable from your typical commercial software license in terms of the reject/accept argument), the license is still the same.
Your case about laws requiring that you have a chance to review the license are a good point, and are a good case for a more cautious approach towards free software distribution that ensures clear presentation of the license in advance of software use. The existing practice of having a LICENSE file and headers at the top of the source code, while pragmatic, is subject to the bizarre variations in contract law. Still, this is talking about the delivery mechanism as opposed to the license.
Just for humor I thought I'd point out that if you really believe that in the real world (as opposed to the legal one) you can reject the terms on a shrink wrap license after reading it, you obviously haven't tried. Unless the license cost you thousands of dollars, it isn't worth the fight.
I agree that the waiver issue is a problem. Contract or no, if you don't establish a jurisdiction for this kind of license fighting it in court is going to be increadibly complex.
The GPL is a license which defines the terms and conditions of a contract under which you can use the copyrighted material. If you don't accept the terms of the license, and you use the IP covered by the license, then you need to be able to produce some other contract which gives defines the terms under which you get (or more likely get to use) the IP. This is no different from any of those shrink wrap licenses you get with commercial software. When you get commercial software, you aren't actually getting anything more than a license which allows you to do certain things with the code. To follow your analogy, they aren't giveing you the hamburger, just the right to smell the hamburger under certain restrictions. If the GPL can't be enforced, then at the VERY least all of those licenses that you have to accept to get freely available (but proprietary) code are invalid (this covers Java, tons of MS software, most of Stroud's CWS apps, etc.), let alone software sold for $.
That's one thing I don't get, in my ignorance: what proceeds do you get from a drug seizure? I presume they can't sell the drugs.
When I used ktelnet years ago, it only encrypted the authentication sequence. Everything else, including typing su, as in the clear. Don't know if this is still the case....
I belive this depends on the implementation of ktelnet you have, but a fully compliant kerberos application can use the kerberos service to support both authentication and encryption.
Kerberos provides security in various different ways, including authentication, authorization, and encryption. A kerberized telnet is arguable just as secure as ssh (perhaps more so).
I could be wrong but I believe QNX managed to get much faster context switches on 486's.