FS development is *not* done by a corperation. A manager can't tell me what I should do (and neither can a zillion users).
If I want to start a new project, even if it doesn't further any imaginary goal of *other* people, even if a zillion other programmers have done it before me, and maybe even better; quite frankly, that's my time and my choice.
Why would RedHat pay them anything? HelixCode isn't under contract from RedHat. The GPL perfectly states that anyone can take the code and resell it.
The only thing RedHat 'owe' anyone, is that they must make the code available to anyone who asks. No other obligation.
From what I remember, HelixCode was founded to provide support for GNOME, as in being in direct competition to RedHat. RedHat would be stupid to help out HelixCode in any way, especially since GNOME is getting more and more stable.
I don't use Windows, so it doesn't affect me. And how my company gets the software, either through double purchase or single purchase, doesn't directly affect me either.
If companies want to waste money using Windows, so what?
Like someone here said, if you don't like the contract, don't sign on the dotted line.
All the songs I listen to have been downloaded Napster. No money has been going to RIAA.
Of course, to be consistent, I'm also boycotting FSF, because I disagree with their philosophy. That's why I will be integrating their code into my closed source software. That'll teach them.
Well, there are a couple of things that annoys the hell out of me about RedHat (which is the one I'm using, and have been using since I started with Linux back in RedHat 5.1 days).
1) I never been able to upgrade a RedHat distribution. If it doesn't fsck up my system, the installation crashes. Which is why I now have/home in its own partition. Last time I did a upgrade (6.1->6.2), I just printed out a list of packages installed, and went through the packages on the CD and upgraded manually. Pretty painfull.
2) RPMs messes up with my custom configuration.
3) Incompatibilies between versions. Version 2 is incompatible with version 3 (currently used in 6.x series), and the next version 4 is incompatible with 3. And I can't upgrade rpm, because the rpm package itself is in rpm version 4. Which means I can't upgrade the packages at rawhide, because they're all in 4.0 rpm packages.
The one saving grace it has is that I know it. I know how to work around most of the quirks. I know how to create, fix and patch.rpm packages.
Does Debian provide ISO images of their frozen branch?
The whole idea of a distribution, to me, is so I don't have to download all the packages individually. Kind of defeats that purpose if I install Debian, and have to download all the packages to get them up-to-date on my system.
>> How about a new GPL but for drivers. I could state that, yea, you can change the code, yea, you have the code, but no, you are not allowed to make hardware products from this code, but anything else could be allowed.
Would go against RMS' sense of fair use, i.e. doing whatever you want to do with the source, including competing against the creator of the software.
Personally, I hope the OS will be Windows. Can you imagine the flamefest? I was too late for the vi/emacs flames, and KDE/GNOME has pretty much died down. Time for a new one...
To be consistent with the policies, shouldn't Debian remove all non-(L)GPL? Not just Netscape, but also X, perl, apache, guile etc etc.
Considering RMS considers Qt to be free, and Debian does not include it, then all other licenses considered free by GNU (except L/GPL of course) should also not be included.
I think such a distribution will be interesting, for no other reason to see if Free software can stand on its own. I know RedHat announced some time ago that they wanted to make a GNU (L/GPL?)only distribution, but I haven't heard anything since.
I don't use *BSD. I use Linux because I know Linux, and I know how to make it somewhat secure. Like you, I've been thinking about trying out FreeBSD. Just need to find a spare system. One thing in favor of OpenBSD, however, is that they did make the effort to audit the code. No such thing has been done for Linux.
My point was, if you want to compare OSes, you should compare comparable OSes. I mean, seriously, what does Windows have to do with anything? If people wanted to take out Linux, it is more likely, IMO, that they'd replace it with a BSD variant than Windows.
I don't compare the Beetle with the Lexus, even though both are cars and have the same function.
Funny how people always compare Linux with NT when there is a security bug in Linux.
Why not compare Linux with another opensource OS like, OpenBSD? *BSD, as far as I can understand, use a very cathedral like development model. And then compare NT with a closed source OS, like Solaris.
Now, which one have given the more secure OS in their category?
And BTW, I thought that article on the developer's website showed that open source does not guarantee security nor that security bugs will be found?
Only problem is that BootMagic (at least the one I have) had to be installed on a Win9x system (FAT16/FAT32). Not a problem for me because I have a WIN98 partition for games, but something to think about if you only want NT and Linux (or any other combination not involving Win9x).
OpenBSD is by all accounts the most secure UNIX system out there. It's not used as much as Linux. By your reasoning, we would find as many security holes in it as we would find in Linux, if it had been used just as much. Does that make sense?
A program is either designed to be secure or security is an afterthought. qmail was designed to be secure. Bernstein doesn't even trust the standard C library.
He also designed it with the "UNIX" principle in mind, i.e. KISS. The biggest executable, qmail-send is 60k. Each executable runs with their own UID.
You're saying sendmail is secure? Last sendmail bug is dated 2000-4-23 on bugtraq. It makes it possible to corrupt a local user's mailbox. The vulnerability is in the version that comes with Redhat 6.2 (8.9.3 and down) One of the things everybody is warning you about when using sendmail is, check for new versions.
Do a search on qmail on bugtraq. There are only one entry, in a program that doesn't even come with qmail.
Both OpenBSD and qmail has been audited. sendmail wasn't designed to be secure. Security was an afterthought as the internet became more popular.
You wouldn't trust Windows because of its records in security matters. Why would you trust sendmail? Because lots of people are using it and it is the oldest? sendmail has had how many years to tighten things up?
I found when I started out in Linux, the HOWTOs were really helpful. Even if they sometimes were wrong, or covered an old version of the software, they were often enough of a pointer to get me started or show me the right direction if I was stuck,
What happened to 'OpenSource is great. It has not commercial pressure to release early. The great thing about OpenSource is that it the developers won't release a finished product until it's finished'.
Or are you claiming that OSS is just as intrepid as M$ products?
In the article, they mention statefull filters as a reason to choose *BSD. What is that? How is that different than how Linux does it (not to start a flamewar)?
And yes, I have ordered the O'Reilly book on Firewalls, but I'm waiting for the next version to come out (June 5th?).
This is wrong, plain and simple. 1.0 was released too early, and gave people a bad impression. Does the fact that GNOME was unstable make it unstable now? No!
The problem is, every version of GNOME was supposed to be the stable one. GNOME was released early, oh well, it's a 1.0 release, what do you expect. 1.01 is stable. Oops, it's not, oh well, 1.02 is stable, oops it's not... Hmmm... maybe using dates instead of versioning would make it seem more stable. Ooops, October release is still not that stable (crashes on my system). And then we had the next release (whatever they called it, February?), and that was supposed to be the stable one.
Now, if M$ had done the same (and they are), nobody would believe them, but if GNOME does it, then it is all OK?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but... it's my private time.
FS development is *not* done by a corperation. A manager can't tell me what I should do (and neither can a zillion users).
If I want to start a new project, even if it doesn't further any imaginary goal of *other* people, even if a zillion other programmers have done it before me, and maybe even better; quite frankly, that's my time and my choice.
Why would RedHat pay them anything? HelixCode isn't under contract from RedHat. The GPL perfectly states that anyone can take the code and resell it.
The only thing RedHat 'owe' anyone, is that they must make the code available to anyone who asks. No other obligation.
From what I remember, HelixCode was founded to provide support for GNOME, as in being in direct competition to RedHat. RedHat would be stupid to help out HelixCode in any way, especially since GNOME is getting more and more stable.
I don't use Windows, so it doesn't affect me. And how my company gets the software, either through double purchase or single purchase, doesn't directly affect me either.
If companies want to waste money using Windows, so what?
Like someone here said, if you don't like the contract, don't sign on the dotted line.
All the songs I listen to have been downloaded Napster. No money has been going to RIAA.
Of course, to be consistent, I'm also boycotting FSF, because I disagree with their philosophy. That's why I will be integrating their code into my closed source software. That'll teach them.
Well, there are a couple of things that annoys the hell out of me about RedHat (which is the one I'm using, and have been using since I started with Linux back in RedHat 5.1 days).
/home in its own partition. Last time I did a upgrade (6.1->6.2), I just printed out a list of packages installed, and went through the packages on the CD and upgraded manually. Pretty painfull.
.rpm packages.
1) I never been able to upgrade a RedHat distribution. If it doesn't fsck up my system, the installation crashes. Which is why I now have
2) RPMs messes up with my custom configuration.
3) Incompatibilies between versions. Version 2 is incompatible with version 3 (currently used in 6.x series), and the next version 4 is incompatible with 3. And I can't upgrade rpm, because the rpm package itself is in rpm version 4. Which means I can't upgrade the packages at rawhide, because they're all in 4.0 rpm packages.
The one saving grace it has is that I know it. I know how to work around most of the quirks. I know how to create, fix and patch
How is Debian with mixed packages (i.e. deb packages and .tar.gz).
I usually like to get my kernels directly, mostly because the RedHat patches make it impossible a patch the kernel from ftp.kernel.org
I also don't like to use packages like BIND or Sendmail (using dnsdjb and qmail instead).
RPM doesn't have a problem with this, but then again. RPM seems pretty braindead compared to apt-get
apt-get is only great if you are on a relative fast connection, or if you don't have to upgrade a large number of packages, IMO.
Seems to me apt-get is a pretty bad solution if you are installing a new system, and you are on a slow connection.
Does Debian provide ISO images of their frozen branch?
The whole idea of a distribution, to me, is so I don't have to download all the packages individually. Kind of defeats that purpose if I install Debian, and have to download all the packages to get them up-to-date on my system.
>> How about a new GPL but for drivers. I could state that, yea, you can change the code, yea, you have the code, but no, you are not allowed to make hardware products from this code, but anything else could be allowed.
Would go against RMS' sense of fair use, i.e. doing whatever you want to do with the source, including competing against the creator of the software.
Cypher was in New Mutants, not X-Factor.
He and Warlock recently merged and got resurrected. Not sure how. He got his own comic book called Warlock, I think written by Louise Simonson.
The latest gcc doesn't support the latest C++ standard either, so what's your point?
Ever tried wstring? What about relying on namespace protection in the std library?
AFAIK, the only truly std C++ compiler out there is WatCom (not tested it myself, but a friend has).
Personally, I hope the OS will be Windows. Can you imagine the flamefest? I was too late for the vi/emacs flames, and KDE/GNOME has pretty much died down. Time for a new one...
To be consistent with the policies, shouldn't Debian remove all non-(L)GPL?
Not just Netscape, but also X, perl, apache, guile etc etc.
Considering RMS considers Qt to be free, and Debian does not include it, then all other licenses considered free by GNU (except L/GPL of course) should also not be included.
I think such a distribution will be interesting, for no other reason to see if Free software can stand on its own. I know RedHat announced some time ago that they wanted to make a GNU (L/GPL?)only distribution, but I haven't heard anything since.
I don't use *BSD. I use Linux because I know Linux, and I know how to make it somewhat secure.
Like you, I've been thinking about trying out FreeBSD. Just need to find a spare system. One thing in favor of OpenBSD, however, is that they did make the effort to audit the code. No such thing has been done for Linux.
My point was, if you want to compare OSes, you should compare comparable OSes. I mean, seriously, what does Windows have to do with anything? If people wanted to take out Linux, it is more likely, IMO, that they'd replace it with a BSD variant than Windows.
I don't compare the Beetle with the Lexus, even though both are cars and have the same function.
Funny how people always compare Linux with NT when there is a security bug in Linux.
Why not compare Linux with another opensource OS like, OpenBSD? *BSD, as far as I can understand, use a very cathedral like development model.
And then compare NT with a closed source OS, like Solaris.
Now, which one have given the more secure OS in their category?
And BTW, I thought that article on the developer's website showed that open source does not guarantee security nor that security bugs will be found?
Only problem is that BootMagic (at least the one I have) had to be installed on a Win9x system (FAT16/FAT32). Not a problem for me because I have a WIN98 partition for games, but something to think about if you only want NT and Linux (or any other combination not involving Win9x).
So, RMS doesn't count then?
If you want to check on qmail again, I think it has what you are looking for + it's more secure than sendmail.
using qmail with LDAP database
Using qmail with only one single user account
OpenBSD is by all accounts the most secure UNIX system out there. It's not used as much as Linux. By your reasoning, we would find as many security holes in it as we would find in Linux, if it had been used just as much. Does that make sense?
A program is either designed to be secure or security is an afterthought. qmail was designed to be secure. Bernstein doesn't even trust the standard C library.
He also designed it with the "UNIX" principle in mind, i.e. KISS. The biggest executable, qmail-send is 60k. Each executable runs with their own UID.
You're saying sendmail is secure? Last sendmail bug is dated 2000-4-23 on bugtraq. It makes it possible to corrupt a local user's mailbox. The vulnerability is in the version that comes with Redhat 6.2 (8.9.3 and down) One of the things everybody is warning you about when using sendmail is, check for new versions.
Do a search on qmail on bugtraq. There are only one entry, in a program that doesn't even come with qmail.
Both OpenBSD and qmail has been audited. sendmail wasn't designed to be secure. Security was an afterthought as the internet became more popular.
You wouldn't trust Windows because of its records in security matters. Why would you trust sendmail? Because lots of people are using it and it is the oldest? sendmail has had how many years to tighten things up?
If you are that confident in sendmail, why don't you put up the same amount for sendmail?
And considering there is a reward to anyone who finds a exploit in Qmail, you can actually make money on it (if you can find any).
Now, does anyone feel secure enought to put up a reward for sendmail exploits?
Does *BSD have HOWTOs?
I found when I started out in Linux, the HOWTOs were really helpful. Even if they sometimes were wrong, or covered an old version of the software, they were often enough of a pointer to get me started or show me the right direction if I was stuck,
blah blah gobbly gobbly.
What happened to 'OpenSource is great. It has not commercial pressure to release early. The great thing about OpenSource is that it the developers won't release a finished product until it's finished'.
Or are you claiming that OSS is just as intrepid as M$ products?
In the article, they mention statefull filters as a reason to choose *BSD. What is that? How is that different than how Linux does it (not to start a flamewar)?
And yes, I have ordered the O'Reilly book on Firewalls, but I'm waiting for the next version to come out (June 5th?).
The problem is, every version of GNOME was supposed to be the stable one. GNOME was released early, oh well, it's a 1.0 release, what do you expect. 1.01 is stable. Oops, it's not, oh well, 1.02 is stable, oops it's not...
Hmmm... maybe using dates instead of versioning would make it seem more stable. Ooops, October release is still not that stable (crashes on my system). And then we had the next release (whatever they called it, February?), and that was supposed to be the stable one.
Now, if M$ had done the same (and they are), nobody would believe them, but if GNOME does it, then it is all OK?