This essentially means that any Windows system which Microsoft thinks is "pirated" isn't going to get security updates. I can't wait for the rash of legitimate users who get caught up in this, trying to update their systems and Windows Update tells them their product key is not valid. (It happened to me on a legitimate licensed copy on trying to install SP1, and I still have no resolution at all on it.)
And consider an alternative form of volunteering: open source projects. Get involved with your favorite open source project. I've gotten one job from the strength of having worked on an open source project the hiring manager was familiar with, and through networking with him got another consulting job. Get involved in something high-profile or at least interesting.
My resume says that I work on a project that competes with Microsoft Exchange. I also have listed IETF working groups that I participate in. (What, you don't? Find one that interests you and get involved.) It also shows an open source project I maintained for the $UNIVERSITY for over eight years.
Yes, that's what it stands for, but don't tell anybody.
I love perl for what it was designed to do: process text in just about any way imaginable. I hate it for the purpose proposed here: CGI scripts.
I usually use PHP for Web pages, a mixture of PHP, Perl and Bourne shell (and whatever else is at hand) for the back end, and I wouldn't touch MySQL for a database if my life depended on it, when there are vastly superior OSS altrernatives available.
I disagree. The most significant change between Windows 9x/ME and Windows NT/2000/XP is the stability gained by dropping real-mode code. Buggy applications that caused a BSOD on Windows 9x will only crash themselves on current versions.
Well sure, but I expect that of any modern operating system. Granted, your typical Joe Sixpack probably doesn't care about preemptive multitasking or memory protection, in those terms, but if you put them in terms such as "you can do more things at once" and "one badly behaving program will not take down your entire computer" then they might start caring.
Besides, you NEED preemptive multitasking and memory protection for all those damned tray applications.
From what I've seen, most linux users are always comparing linux to windows 95 and 98...most of them having bailed out of using windows around then...and they basically are fighting against the ghost of windows past. Whereas I don't see many of these people ever saying "yes, I use winddows xp / server2003 almost constantly in an attempt to understand what I'm up against here."
I switched to Linux once and for all in 1995, after trying out a beta copy of Windows 95 (on 13 floppy disks!). Since then I've been exposed to Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, and Windows XP. For the most part the useful changes in Windows are in the user interface. There's less "configuration" of hardware devices with each iteration of Windows, and the interface itself gets "prettier." (Except for XP, which reminds me of Fisher-Price toys.)
Microsoft has incorporated good ideas into Windows, such as autoconfiguring hardware, automatically recognizing file types on removable media and launching the appropriate program, etc. But for someone for whom the computer is a tool to accomplish work, Windows is, at least for me, a royal pain in the ass in other ways: I can't configure it to my personal tastes. I can't customize it to work the way I want to work. This is where Linux is a big win: it lets me work the way I want (or need!) to work.
Case in point: Even when I'm managing files in Nautilus, I frequently find myself sliding the mouse over to a terminal and running a command on the files. It's easier for me. It's very difficult to manage files with CMD.EXE, however, as anyone who's tried can attest.
As a developer, I'm comparing Linux to (now) Windows XP, and yes, it has some shortcomings that will have to be addressed, and in each case I've found a shortcoming, I've also found a project working on addressing it. So I have nothing to do.:-) (Not exactly true; the project I'm working on aims to replace Exchange and possibly Active Directory.)
It still remains, though, that my productivity drops sharply on a Windows platform, simply because the tools available do not lend themselves well to efficiency and productivity. They do, however, look really pretty.
Unless rms is actually willing to come testify in court as to what some phrase in the GPL "means" then I'm going to have to stick with what's actually written, at least until GPL3 is out, and hopefully it will address this issue. I am NOT willing to have Microsoft come sue me because I violated their EULA.
Yes, but did they fix the bug where NetStumbler sends packets out? I find this unacceptable in a wireless monitoring tool, and that's why I'm using kismet. Well, that and the fact that I would never sully my laptop with the required Windows operating system.
The authors have used part three as a technical reference, including some frank talk about Linux vs. Windows in chapter six. Sure, many people like Linux better, however you have to take into consideration who will be using the system. In a system the whole family uses, it has to be user-friendly enough for the whole family to use.
Four year olds can use Linux easily. But Windows frustrates four year olds as much as the rest of us. I sincerely hope this chapter discloses this hard truth...
OK, this vulnerability is not new. It's been around for years, in fact. I recall exploits being used as early as 1996-1997. I'd have to do some heavy digging to find them, and I don't even think I have a hard drive or tape that old around anymore, so no clue if I've got one backed up somewhere..
So when you go to build your SETUP.EXE of your GPL'd application, you're going to have to distribute MSVCR71.DLL along with it. Unless you write the special exception, then you also have to distribute the source code, which you can't do under the Microsoft EULA. But if you write the special exception, then everything's OK with both licenses.
Oh, and I forgot another important point: In the free compiler, the C runtime and STL are only available as statically linked libraies. So you know what that means...you HAVE to distribute it because it's part of your.EXE!
Doesn't the GPL already include an exception for this?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Yes, it does. But the important part is this phrase:
unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
In the new version of the compiler, they've changed the C runtime library; they even changed its NAME. It's now MSVCR71.DLL, and it's NOT included with any version of Windows, not even XP SP2 (I checked a fresh installation for it last night, and it was absent).
So when you go to build your SETUP.EXE of your GPL'd application, you're going to have to distribute MSVCR71.DLL along with it. Unless you write the special exception, then you also have to distribute the source code, which you can't do under the Microsoft EULA. But if you write the special exception, then everything's OK with both licenses.
I know some of you guys are none too knowledgeable about women, but -- that is not a brunette. She is what is known as a "blonde". Lara Croft is a brunette, as are most of the women in Asian pr0n.
After looking at her, I think I would have taken the PS2 myself. And I don't even want a PS2.
Now for the mischief. There's nothing stopping you from punching in someone else's number, adding 25 cents and reducing there time to 15 minutes! Essentially guaranteeing a ticket.
In Portland you stick the receipt on your curb side window with the attached sticker and this proves you paid, so nobody could cause you to get a ticket this way.
I ran into this with VS.net 7.1. Upon discussion with the legal types, we determined this:
In order to release our application under the GPL, we would have to write a "special exception" permitting linking with Microsoft runtime libraries, same as we currently do with linking against OpenSSL and some other BSD-licensed stuff.
Not too difficult, but it does tend to become annoying to write all those special execptions. I proposed a minor change to the GPL's wording to address this type of situation, but who knows if it'll make it into GPL 3.
Though there would be no problem compiling existing apps with this toolkit, as long as you didn't distribute the resulting binaries.
This post is not legal advice. Check with your attorney first before doing anything. The issues raised here are quite complex legal issues and you are going to need a damn good lawyer, especially since you're dealing with Microsoft here.
The problem here is your "Microsoft Administrators" have only one frame of reference for the question, and that's Windows, which is
user-friendly
vulnerable
and so they think anything that's user friendly must be vulnerable. A classic logic error, whose name I forget right now.
User friendly does NOT imply vulnerable, nor vice versa. I've posted before about building secure systems and securing existing ones. The techniques are, for the most part, well known albeit tedious, though I do anyway. (I even posted a security advisory to BUGTRAQ today...)
As long as the people making Linux user friendly keep security in mind when designing and implementing the new features, there will be no problem.
If my experience is any indication, Windows users are not ready for the Linux desktop. I recently sat a Windows user down in front of my fairly stock Gentoo/GNOME 2.6 installation, and she could not, even after being shown where the Web browser was, figure out how to open a Web site - or even find the Web browser icon again!
Come on, everybody's been doing this, for decades, even. I'm sure a few people around here remember VMS's "FIELD" login with password "SERVICE" which nobody ever bothered to change because, theoretically, nobody knew about it. As it turned out, it was common knowledge among crackers...
So I went to the SF project, and there's only one file, binaries-2.0.1605.0.zip. And it's downloading freaking SLOW. And somehow I think I'm not going to find a whole lot of source code in here.
OK, it finally finished, and as I suspected, there isn't ANY obvious source code in here. So why is this thing on SourceForge?
Archive:/home/error/binaries-2.0.1605.0.zip testing: ca/sca.wixlib OK testing: ca/scaexec.dll OK testing: ca/scasched.dll OK testing: ca/wixca.dll OK testing: candle.exe OK testing: CPL.TXT OK testing: dark.exe OK testing: doc/WiX.chm OK testing: light.exe OK testing: light.exe.manifest OK testing: lit.exe OK testing: mergemod.dll OK testing: wix.dll OK testing: wixcab.dll OK No errors detected in compressed data of/home/error/binaries-2.0.1605.0.zip.
So I went to the SF project, and there's only one file, binaries-2.0.1605.0.zip. And it's downloading freaking SLOW. And somehow I think I'm not going to find a whole lot of source code in here.
Slashdot Mirror
This essentially means that any Windows system which Microsoft thinks is "pirated" isn't going to get security updates. I can't wait for the rash of legitimate users who get caught up in this, trying to update their systems and Windows Update tells them their product key is not valid. (It happened to me on a legitimate licensed copy on trying to install SP1, and I still have no resolution at all on it.)
And why in the hell would you pull out your laptop while in the NYC subway system?
My resume says that I work on a project that competes with Microsoft Exchange. I also have listed IETF working groups that I participate in. (What, you don't? Find one that interests you and get involved.) It also shows an open source project I maintained for the $UNIVERSITY for over eight years.
I love perl for what it was designed to do: process text in just about any way imaginable. I hate it for the purpose proposed here: CGI scripts.
I usually use PHP for Web pages, a mixture of PHP, Perl and Bourne shell (and whatever else is at hand) for the back end, and I wouldn't touch MySQL for a database if my life depended on it, when there are vastly superior OSS altrernatives available.
What are you talking about, gnome-terminal is feature complete and bug-free!
Well sure, but I expect that of any modern operating system. Granted, your typical Joe Sixpack probably doesn't care about preemptive multitasking or memory protection, in those terms, but if you put them in terms such as "you can do more things at once" and "one badly behaving program will not take down your entire computer" then they might start caring.
Besides, you NEED preemptive multitasking and memory protection for all those damned tray applications.
I switched to Linux once and for all in 1995, after trying out a beta copy of Windows 95 (on 13 floppy disks!). Since then I've been exposed to Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, and Windows XP. For the most part the useful changes in Windows are in the user interface. There's less "configuration" of hardware devices with each iteration of Windows, and the interface itself gets "prettier." (Except for XP, which reminds me of Fisher-Price toys.)
Microsoft has incorporated good ideas into Windows, such as autoconfiguring hardware, automatically recognizing file types on removable media and launching the appropriate program, etc. But for someone for whom the computer is a tool to accomplish work, Windows is, at least for me, a royal pain in the ass in other ways: I can't configure it to my personal tastes. I can't customize it to work the way I want to work. This is where Linux is a big win: it lets me work the way I want (or need!) to work.
Case in point: Even when I'm managing files in Nautilus, I frequently find myself sliding the mouse over to a terminal and running a command on the files. It's easier for me. It's very difficult to manage files with CMD.EXE, however, as anyone who's tried can attest.
As a developer, I'm comparing Linux to (now) Windows XP, and yes, it has some shortcomings that will have to be addressed, and in each case I've found a shortcoming, I've also found a project working on addressing it. So I have nothing to do. :-) (Not exactly true; the project I'm working on aims to replace Exchange and possibly Active Directory.)
It still remains, though, that my productivity drops sharply on a Windows platform, simply because the tools available do not lend themselves well to efficiency and productivity. They do, however, look really pretty.
Would it be possible to direct the sound of the "boom" upward so that nobody on the surface hears it?
Unless rms is actually willing to come testify in court as to what some phrase in the GPL "means" then I'm going to have to stick with what's actually written, at least until GPL3 is out, and hopefully it will address this issue. I am NOT willing to have Microsoft come sue me because I violated their EULA.
We already have a standard, and it's called POSIX. Even Windows can aspire to POSIX compliance...
Yes, but did they fix the bug where NetStumbler sends packets out? I find this unacceptable in a wireless monitoring tool, and that's why I'm using kismet. Well, that and the fact that I would never sully my laptop with the required Windows operating system.
Polyethylene glycol is found in a lot of cosmetics and even some foods. It is sometimes used to treat constipation. Remember, Google is your friend.
Four year olds can use Linux easily. But Windows frustrates four year olds as much as the rest of us. I sincerely hope this chapter discloses this hard truth...
And now I wait to be modded -1, Troll...
OK, this vulnerability is not new. It's been around for years, in fact. I recall exploits being used as early as 1996-1997. I'd have to do some heavy digging to find them, and I don't even think I have a hard drive or tape that old around anymore, so no clue if I've got one backed up somewhere..
Oh, and I forgot another important point: In the free compiler, the C runtime and STL are only available as statically linked libraies. So you know what that means...you HAVE to distribute it because it's part of your .EXE!
Yes, it does. But the important part is this phrase:
In the new version of the compiler, they've changed the C runtime library; they even changed its NAME. It's now MSVCR71.DLL, and it's NOT included with any version of Windows, not even XP SP2 (I checked a fresh installation for it last night, and it was absent).
So when you go to build your SETUP.EXE of your GPL'd application, you're going to have to distribute MSVCR71.DLL along with it. Unless you write the special exception, then you also have to distribute the source code, which you can't do under the Microsoft EULA. But if you write the special exception, then everything's OK with both licenses.
After looking at her, I think I would have taken the PS2 myself. And I don't even want a PS2.
My guess it only costs $ 1 092 each now because of limited production runs. Once they ramp up production the price per unit should drop dramatically.
In Portland you stick the receipt on your curb side window with the attached sticker and this proves you paid, so nobody could cause you to get a ticket this way.
In order to release our application under the GPL, we would have to write a "special exception" permitting linking with Microsoft runtime libraries, same as we currently do with linking against OpenSSL and some other BSD-licensed stuff.
Not too difficult, but it does tend to become annoying to write all those special execptions. I proposed a minor change to the GPL's wording to address this type of situation, but who knows if it'll make it into GPL 3.
Though there would be no problem compiling existing apps with this toolkit, as long as you didn't distribute the resulting binaries.
This post is not legal advice. Check with your attorney first before doing anything. The issues raised here are quite complex legal issues and you are going to need a damn good lawyer, especially since you're dealing with Microsoft here.
- user-friendly
- vulnerable
and so they think anything that's user friendly must be vulnerable. A classic logic error, whose name I forget right now.User friendly does NOT imply vulnerable, nor vice versa. I've posted before about building secure systems and securing existing ones. The techniques are, for the most part, well known albeit tedious, though I do anyway. (I even posted a security advisory to BUGTRAQ today...)
As long as the people making Linux user friendly keep security in mind when designing and implementing the new features, there will be no problem.
If my experience is any indication, Windows users are not ready for the Linux desktop. I recently sat a Windows user down in front of my fairly stock Gentoo/GNOME 2.6 installation, and she could not, even after being shown where the Web browser was, figure out how to open a Web site - or even find the Web browser icon again!
Come on, everybody's been doing this, for decades, even. I'm sure a few people around here remember VMS's "FIELD" login with password "SERVICE" which nobody ever bothered to change because, theoretically, nobody knew about it. As it turned out, it was common knowledge among crackers...
OK, it finally finished, and as I suspected, there isn't ANY obvious source code in here. So why is this thing on SourceForge?
So I went to the SF project, and there's only one file, binaries-2.0.1605.0.zip. And it's downloading freaking SLOW. And somehow I think I'm not going to find a whole lot of source code in here.