*Anyone* who distributes GPL'd code could would have to stop distributing it, if it infringes Caldera's patent. Except Caldera of course.
That would only be true if Linux were entirely Caldera's product. If that were the case, Caldera could distribute the product, and the GPL would have no meaning. Customers who received the product from Caldera would have no license for redistribution.
However, Linux is not Caldera's product, and they must abide by its license. The license terms state that if your customers can not be given the full rights that you have under the GPL, then you must not distribute the software to them at all. If Caldera put patented code into Linux without a non-exclusive license, they would not be allowed to distribute the product.
Personally, I'm a big fan of Courier, and I publish pre-compiled packages for Red Hat Linux 7.3 here: http://www.dragonsdawn.net/ftp/dragonsdawn- package s/7.3/i386/
For other rpm-based systems, it's very easy to compile the package. For non-rpm systems... follow the documentation;)
For a basic installation, all you need are the courier, courier-imap, and courier-maildrop packages. List your local domains in the "locals" file and set the SMTP daemon to start up in the esmtpd file and you should be good to go. Should take about 5-10 minutes.
Courier's web page: http://www.courier-mta.org/
There's a mailing list as well. If you have trouble, join up (assuming you're not testing software that you're not familiar with on your only mail server).
I hate to burst your bubble, but money doesn't make you better than anyone else. I'm 24 years old. I don't have a car. I wasn't even licensed to drive until about two months ago. During the last year, I met not one, but two very hot "chicks" while riding the bus. Course... I was (and am) already dating someone else, so they're friends.;)
Compare this Microsoft cluster's performance: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc _result_detail.asp?id=101091903 with this single Red Hat Linux server: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_resu lt_detail.asp?id=102111202
The Microsoft server has a higher max performance, but it requires 80 times the CPU's to get 10x performance. Consider also that Oracle clusters on Linux and I wonder how long it'll be before the #1 spot is held by a cluster of Red Hat Linux boxes running Oracle.
I'm just asking because I did not, in any way, get that Mozilla was hurt by a new browser that didn't use their engine. What the hell? The mozilla developers don't seem to care at all. Why should they? Competition is good.
I actually got a totally different spin out of the article. What I read several times in there amounted to "we don't care that KHTML doesn't always work right, because it was easy to use". Not exactly the sort of rationalization that I go in for.
I, for one, would never underestimate people's creativity. I read about an insurance scam once...
Good example, but like many "virus warnings" that circulate, it's a fake: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/cigar son.htm
Re:8.0 was great, but...
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 3, Informative
MP3 Licence costs USD 60k even BEOS could afford it.. Redhat can't ?
Doesn't matter, licensing MP3 technology from Thompson is not an option. The GPL requires that all recipients of the software be free to use the software in any way (including resale) without license fees. If that can not be the case, as with patent fees, then the software can simply not be distributed. It's very clear on this, so the GPL does not allow anyone to redistribute MP3 software in areas where it is patented and requires that license fees be paid to Thompson for commercial use. The GPL was an inappropriate license for those pieces of software, if their goal was for redistribution everywhere. The software can still be redistributed in places where the MP3 technology is not patented, though.
I have source NVIDIA GLX and kernel tarballs here.
Yes, and those source tarballs contain a binary only module compiled with gcc 3.0 (which is known to cause problems, mixing gcc 3.2 kernel with modules from earlier compiler is a no-no) and a couple of source files which glue it in to the kernel's API. Red Hat is not free to redistribute them, and they would not even if they were free to do so. Without the source, Red Hat can not support the drivers.
but it is more of "their" standards, not what the community wants
I, on the other hand, see Red Hat giving users exactly what they want. They make timely releases. They issue timely errata for security problems. When users proclaimed that Linux would never succeed because the distinction between GNOME and KDE's look-and-feel confused new users, Red Hat did the grunt work for a new theme and menu system so that both environments had a more coherent look-and-feel.
Red Hat produces the best system available for general use, and some damn fine work in Advanced Server. Anyone is free to flex as they like; users will choose what they like best. You don't get to complain when the majority of people choose Red Hat Linux.
Arguments about first use and trademark applications ignore what the case is really about: big money vs. everything/anything else. Visa is about money, so they can basically bend the law to suit whatever way they see it.
That's about what I was thinking, myself... Which leads me to believe that MS is doing this because with these monitors, they get tithed for TWO copies of the Windows OS rather than just one for every PC sold.;-)
I wonder where the libc quoted came from? iabervon said they were "local builds", so they're probably all unstripped, possibly even with debugging symbols. All of those sizes are much bigger than the size of the binaries on RHL8.0 on ix86. Red Hat's glibc package as a whole is only 9 MB, and that contains all of the standard C libraries (far more than libc.a) as well as character conversion libaries.
It's not the author's license that makes it illegal at all. The DMCA may make it illegal for the author to tell you about the problem, because that information can be used to circumvent digital security.
All the crap about not reading the description if you're an American is not about "licensing" the information. The author is trying to protect himself from prosecution for violating the DMCA *himself*. If you read the information he's posted, it's not you who've violated the DMCA, it's the author (potentially).
Despite the +5 Insightful rating, this post is completely wrong. The problem, as it was acturately described originally in the story, is that the patch fixes a problem that could be used to bypass "digital security - i.e. computer security".
The DMCA made it illegal to discuss techniques that allowed users to bypass digital security, and because of the broad wording of the bill, it may be illegal to discuss such vulnerabilities at all. In this case, it is not because the author in question says you can't read the description of the problem; the DMCA says that he can't tell you what the problem is because you might then use that information to bypass security restrictions.
I sent Eugenia a letter that contained (among a few less significant others) these two points, which are probably worth pointing out here, too:
For me, that is one more reason why X just doesn't cut it
This is a problem in A driver for A video card. It is not an issue with X, or really even XFree86. NVidia's own drivers were also unable to probe the correct DAC from the card. NVidia is responsible for addressing this issue.
After running a bit happy with them at the resolution and refresh rate I wanted, X would crash.
Again, this is NVidia's responsibility to fix. They distribute a driver which is, in part, binary-only. The binary portion of this driver was compiled with an earlier compiler, and is not compatible with the kernel compiled by gcc 3.2. NVidia was informed of this situation by Red Hat, and their response was to release a driver that had the information identifying the compiler stripped out, so that the Red Hat tools could not warn users that the binary wasn't compatible.
This behavior is extremely irresponsible, and NVidia needs to address it properly.
The FSF FAQ covers this point here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#h elplinu s
Generally, the FSF and likeminded people aren't much interesed in Linus' opinion of what the OS is called; his motivations don't reflect those of the Free Software movement.
In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.
2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed
What the.. are you talking about? I fail to see either where GNU "failed" or Linus succeeded withough them. GNU has a reputation for providing a highly reliable OS that provides it users with freedoms not available with other OS's.
3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say
So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.
I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.
4: Because I don't call programs made/depending on MS Visual Studio 6 "MSVS/[program name]"
The GNU part of the name isn't in there because Linux is compiled by GNU tools... It's there because Linux is a kernel and that's it. Linux is not a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux is.
Poor compiler optimization is no reason to go around half-cocked
It's not poor compiler optimization. The P4 has a *minute* L1 data cache. It just isn't suitable for complex computations. See this commment and its parent: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39831 &cid=4249 911
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who will correct you for that, too. The name of the business is "Red Hat". Their software distribution is "Red Hat Linux".
Blackdown isn't a free implementation, it's a port of Sun's JVM to Linux. It bears the same license.
*Anyone* who distributes GPL'd code could would have to stop distributing it, if it infringes Caldera's patent. Except Caldera of course.
That would only be true if Linux were entirely Caldera's product. If that were the case, Caldera could distribute the product, and the GPL would have no meaning. Customers who received the product from Caldera would have no license for redistribution.
However, Linux is not Caldera's product, and they must abide by its license. The license terms state that if your customers can not be given the full rights that you have under the GPL, then you must not distribute the software to them at all. If Caldera put patented code into Linux without a non-exclusive license, they would not be allowed to distribute the product.
If you're in the business of auditing mail systems, care to share your thoughts on Courier-MTA? It's my mta of choice, so I'm curious.
Personally, I'm a big fan of Courier, and I publish pre-compiled packages for Red Hat Linux 7.3 here:- package s/7.3/i386/
;)
http://www.dragonsdawn.net/ftp/dragonsdawn
For other rpm-based systems, it's very easy to compile the package. For non-rpm systems... follow the documentation
For a basic installation, all you need are the courier, courier-imap, and courier-maildrop packages. List your local domains in the "locals" file and set the SMTP daemon to start up in the esmtpd file and you should be good to go. Should take about 5-10 minutes.
Courier's web page:
http://www.courier-mta.org/
There's a mailing list as well. If you have trouble, join up (assuming you're not testing software that you're not familiar with on your only mail server).
Even your pseudo-code would SEGV. I believe it should be done thusly:
opinion *shared;
if( shared == &mouth ) {
shared = &money;
}
And if you did, would it be masturbation?
you don't get chicks by riding the bus
;)
Actually, you don't get chicks by being troll.
I hate to burst your bubble, but money doesn't make you better than anyone else. I'm 24 years old. I don't have a car. I wasn't even licensed to drive until about two months ago. During the last year, I met not one, but two very hot "chicks" while riding the bus. Course... I was (and am) already dating someone else, so they're friends.
Compare this Microsoft cluster's performance:c _result_detail .asp?id=101091903u lt_detail .asp?id=102111202
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc
with this single Red Hat Linux server:
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_res
The Microsoft server has a higher max performance, but it requires 80 times the CPU's to get 10x performance. Consider also that Oracle clusters on Linux and I wonder how long it'll be before the #1 spot is held by a cluster of Red Hat Linux boxes running Oracle.
/me raises hand.
I'm just asking because I did not, in any way, get that Mozilla was hurt by a new browser that didn't use their engine. What the hell? The mozilla developers don't seem to care at all. Why should they? Competition is good.
I actually got a totally different spin out of the article. What I read several times in there amounted to "we don't care that KHTML doesn't always work right, because it was easy to use". Not exactly the sort of rationalization that I go in for.
I, for one, would never underestimate people's creativity. I read about an insurance scam once...
r son.htm
Good example, but like many "virus warnings" that circulate, it's a fake:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/ciga
MP3 Licence costs USD 60k even BEOS could afford it.. Redhat can't ?
Doesn't matter, licensing MP3 technology from Thompson is not an option. The GPL requires that all recipients of the software be free to use the software in any way (including resale) without license fees. If that can not be the case, as with patent fees, then the software can simply not be distributed. It's very clear on this, so the GPL does not allow anyone to redistribute MP3 software in areas where it is patented and requires that license fees be paid to Thompson for commercial use. The GPL was an inappropriate license for those pieces of software, if their goal was for redistribution everywhere. The software can still be redistributed in places where the MP3 technology is not patented, though.
I have source NVIDIA GLX and kernel tarballs here.
Yes, and those source tarballs contain a binary only module compiled with gcc 3.0 (which is known to cause problems, mixing gcc 3.2 kernel with modules from earlier compiler is a no-no) and a couple of source files which glue it in to the kernel's API. Red Hat is not free to redistribute them, and they would not even if they were free to do so. Without the source, Red Hat can not support the drivers.
They also buy Monster Power supplies. :-)
but it is more of "their" standards, not what the community wants
I, on the other hand, see Red Hat giving users exactly what they want. They make timely releases. They issue timely errata for security problems. When users proclaimed that Linux would never succeed because the distinction between GNOME and KDE's look-and-feel confused new users, Red Hat did the grunt work for a new theme and menu system so that both environments had a more coherent look-and-feel.
Red Hat produces the best system available for general use, and some damn fine work in Advanced Server. Anyone is free to flex as they like; users will choose what they like best. You don't get to complain when the majority of people choose Red Hat Linux.
I would have posted something funny here, but chrisd beat me to it without even a chance. :-)
Neverwhere was good... I just finished it for the second time a couple of weeks ago.
Arguments about first use and trademark applications ignore what the case is really about: big money vs. everything/anything else. Visa is about money, so they can basically bend the law to suit whatever way they see it.
How long can we ignore the obvious?
That's about what I was thinking, myself... Which leads me to believe that MS is doing this because with these monitors, they get tithed for TWO copies of the Windows OS rather than just one for every PC sold. ;-)
$ ls -l /usr/lib/libc.a /usr/lib/libc.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2233342 Sep 5 15:59
I wonder where the libc quoted came from? iabervon said they were "local builds", so they're probably all unstripped, possibly even with debugging symbols. All of those sizes are much bigger than the size of the binaries on RHL8.0 on ix86. Red Hat's glibc package as a whole is only 9 MB, and that contains all of the standard C libraries (far more than libc.a) as well as character conversion libaries.
It's not the author's license that makes it illegal at all. The DMCA may make it illegal for the author to tell you about the problem, because that information can be used to circumvent digital security.
All the crap about not reading the description if you're an American is not about "licensing" the information. The author is trying to protect himself from prosecution for violating the DMCA *himself*. If you read the information he's posted, it's not you who've violated the DMCA, it's the author (potentially).
Does that clear it up?
Despite the +5 Insightful rating, this post is completely wrong. The problem, as it was acturately described originally in the story, is that the patch fixes a problem that could be used to bypass "digital security - i.e. computer security".
The DMCA made it illegal to discuss techniques that allowed users to bypass digital security, and because of the broad wording of the bill, it may be illegal to discuss such vulnerabilities at all. In this case, it is not because the author in question says you can't read the description of the problem; the DMCA says that he can't tell you what the problem is because you might then use that information to bypass security restrictions.
Should I file this under "reason not to use binary drivers?", or "why drivers should be open source?"?
Consider filing it under reasons not to buy NVidia cards.
I sent Eugenia a letter that contained (among a few less significant others) these two points, which are probably worth pointing out here, too:
For me, that is one more reason why X just doesn't cut it
This is a problem in A driver for A video card. It is not an issue with
X, or really even XFree86. NVidia's own drivers were also unable to
probe the correct DAC from the card. NVidia is responsible for
addressing this issue.
After running a bit happy with them at the resolution and refresh rate
I wanted, X would crash.
Again, this is NVidia's responsibility to fix. They distribute a driver
which is, in part, binary-only. The binary portion of this driver was
compiled with an earlier compiler, and is not compatible with the kernel
compiled by gcc 3.2. NVidia was informed of this situation by Red Hat,
and their response was to release a driver that had the information
identifying the compiler stripped out, so that the Red Hat tools could
not warn users that the binary wasn't compatible.
This behavior is extremely irresponsible, and NVidia needs to address it
properly.
... Yes, your honor. He stepped away from the mouse in a very threatening manner. I had no option but to shoot him.
1: because Linus does
h elplinu s
.. are you talking about? I fail to see either where GNU "failed" or Linus succeeded withough them. GNU has a reputation for providing a highly reliable OS that provides it users with freedoms not available with other OS's.
The FSF FAQ covers this point here:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#
Generally, the FSF and likeminded people aren't much interesed in Linus' opinion of what the OS is called; his motivations don't reflect those of the Free Software movement.
In other words: Who cares what Linus calls the OS? Even smart people can be wrong.
2: Because Linus succeeded where GNU failed
What the
3: Because GNU/Linux is too damn long to say
So is Windows 2000 or Mac OS X, but they're the proper names.
I'd be willing to bet that you don't call Mac OS X "Mach", though that's the kernel it uses, and is a shorter name.
4: Because I don't call programs made/depending on MS Visual Studio 6 "MSVS/[program name]"
The GNU part of the name isn't in there because Linux is compiled by GNU tools... It's there because Linux is a kernel and that's it. Linux is not a UNIX-like OS. GNU/Linux is.
Poor compiler optimization is no reason to go around half-cocked
1 &cid=4249 911
It's not poor compiler optimization. The P4 has a *minute* L1 data cache. It just isn't suitable for complex computations. See this commment and its parent:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3983