If you wonder how the winning demo will look like and you only have an old fart amiga500, dual boot in your dusty windows (you know, that OS you use to play that one game) and download WinUAE (a href="http://www.codepoet.com/UAE/">http://www.cod e poet.com/UAE/), get 'Amiga In A Box' (http://www.codepoet.com/UAE/), then grab some kickstart rom from a friendly source (search for 'kick31.rom' on google) and you're ready to go! unpack the.lha archive in a directory and add it as a harddrive to WinUAE, and start it. A friendly amigaOS shell will welcome you.
After the rush and warm feelings you got inside by re-facing this screen of joy from the old days, go to the harddrive you assigned the lapsuus dir to (f.e. dh3:) and run the demo. Enjoy:)
When you select for the setting 'When connection to this resource, the content should come from' option 3: A redirection to a URL, (On the 'Home Directory' Tab in the website's properties in IIS4) you are still vulnerable. You are thus not vulnerable when you do response.redirect() kinda stuff in ASP.
when a software patent is violated? I mean, take for example the semaphore-free concurrent programming locking mechanism Dijkstra wrote. It's an excellent piece. Imagine he patents it. When is that patent violated?
When a program is binary equivalent allthough compiled with a different source and does the same?
When a program is binary different but compiled from the same source, and does the same?
When a program is binary different and sourcecode different but does the same?
This is somewhat important for your story and unclear for me. I assume the second option, but I'm not sure
If you make a cola-flavor that tastes just like Coca Cola and Coca Cola changes its recipe so it tastes different, you don't taste like Coca Cola anymore. So you have to change also.
You can easily develop a client driver for a different protocol than windows uses (Novell does it f.e.). So develop a Samba protocol, write a driver for win32 and live happily ever after. Then you don't have to watch out if MS' protocols will change. You control the protocl.
Look: the overall experience of XP by the majority of the users of it will INCREASE if the crappy videodrivers from manufacturers like f.e. ATI or Matrox, or soundcard drivers like the poop from Creative, are tested by the MS testlab if they are compatible with XP and don't crash the box.
This way, the name of 'crash-prone' OS windows has for decades will slowly vanish. That's the whole idea.
Now, to get to your point of choice: in win2k, you get a warning when you install a non-signed driver. If you continue, and the box crashes due to that driver, just when you were about to save that important document, are you still happy? Who will you blame? Yourself, because you were so utterly stupid to install that poopdriver? Or microsoft because 'their OS' crashes all the time?
I know the answer. So does Microsoft. That's why this option is included.
Who says I'm an MS employee and NOT an Open Source developer? What you seem to forget is that "Open Source" from the developer's perspective means just that: open up the source and THATS IT. There is NOTHING MORE. If YOU think there is some kind of political statement to be made by opening up the sourcecode, please do so, but don't think the other way around is also true: that when a developer opens up his sourcecode, he is sympathizing with A political statement BY opening up that sourcecode. I guess most developers are just opening up the sourcecode because they think it's cool others can hack on the code.
First:
Microsoft removed the Java environment from XP, thereby breaking thousands of Web sites that use Java. XP customers will face endless downloads to replace the functionality they'd come to expect.
Then:
Microsoft is bundling all kinds of services into XP in ways that block competition, from photography software to video/audio playback. If customers want to use other vendors' products they'll have to jump through Microsoft-designed hoops.
I see a contradiction here: first they remove some tech 'people have come to expect', which hurts the customer and then second: Microsoft bundles all kinds of tech, which seems to hurt the competition. So which one will it be, Dan: 1) remove it or 2) include it.
Or, Dan, are you afraid XP will be so rocksolid, users will never be asking for another Desktop OS again, not from any vendor/coder-group ?
Bundling/not bundling, wtf do you want!
on
Dan Gillmor on WinXP
·
· Score: 1, Troll
When they bundled their own technology with their OS, like IE, Windows Media Player, etc, everybody and their brother was crying that this was foul play and they shouldn't bundle their own products with the OS.
MS has listened to those people and has removed their OWN JVM from the OS. Fair deal, right?
I guess not. Now there is NO JVM bundled with the OS and it's again foul play? What do you want then? bundling/integration or unbundling/not integration?
Java is not their tech. They can include whatever they please with their OS. Last time I checked, Sun isn't shipping their Solaris product with IE either.
The coders just use and need code, to produce better code. Just as the 2 words say: "Open" and "Source". That is: not closed source. Very simple. You don't need a leader to open up YOUR source. Every 3 year old can do that by him/herself.
The fanatics however, who think politics instead of just sourcecode, need a leader, to 'fight' (haha, it's sourcecode, not a war) whatever they declare an enemy.
I don't see the relation between the.NET framework and the passport.com babbling here. These are 2 separate things: passport.com CAN be involved in services build ON TOP of.NET. It's not a PART of the.NET framework as submitted to ECMA and as it is distributed with the.NET SDK or VisualStudio.net.
Please keep these 2 things separated:
The.NET framework which is used by developers to build webservices, which CAN use Passport.com to do authentication services (but don't have to, you can build your own if you like)
The webservices build ON TOP of the.NET framework (like Hailstorm).
you definitely don't earn your money by selling the stuff you write for 12 hours a day. Otherwise you'd definitly be saying something else.
Don't get me wrong, software for free is fun and has been (freeware/pd) and will always be there, it's just that 'everything should be free' is a silly thing to say. Since it's not up to you what I do with my software. That's up to me to decide. After all, it's my IP. If you disagree on that, how about taking some GPL-ed software and change the license on that? Since I all of a sudden can do whatever I want with it, not? You know the answer on that one, I'm sure.:) --
If I write a piece of software that I want to sell so I can put bread on the table for my wife and myself, I can't do that if that software is given away for free. Or better: claimed to be someone's property so that person can do whatever he/she pleases, like giving it away.
All the developers who have a job at a software house are dependent of the selling of that software. If selling software is 'out of the question', they're out of a job.
And who will then write all those software? You? All other college students? HA! --
What I find odd is that a lot of people think that when the government asks for something, it has to be done, especially in this situation. Afaik, there is a separation between the justice system and the government/state. (I'm no US of A citizen but that separation is a cornerstone for all western societies). So the government can ask all they want, if the justice system decides otherwise, all the government can do is sigh and move on.
When a government put pressure on the justice system to take a certain decision, the necessary separation between the justice system AND the state is in jeopardy. No matter what the case is, microsoft, drugs, whatever, the separation should be in tact. Only THEN a justice system can be truely independent. --
They can disrespect human rights human rights if they like, but not respecting the GPL is too much. We must fight to protect software freedom in China and save the GPL!
Seriously, as far as I'm concerned, software license abuse in China is not the top priority...
For what's worth: neither does the US of A. Executing people, even retarted, is against Human Rights. What china does is wrong, but the US of A shouldn't be shouting that hard towards china, but look in the mirror first. --
Let me get this straight: when a company puts GPL-ed code in their own closed project, it violates the GPL and you all go bezerk (you have all right to do so). OK. Now, Microsoft gives out this closed source piece of software, under their own license which states you are not allowed to reverse engineer it.
Doing so will violate that license. Saying that reverse enginering software, even if the license it comes with states it's not allowed, is OK, is stupid, to say the least. By agreeing that reverse engineering of software should be allowed even if the license doesn't allow it, you automatically also agree with the fact that people shouldn't obey YOUR licenses. Copyright anyone? --
There are simply not enough people who will BUY (that's right, pay for the software) the linux games, since almost everyone and his brother uses windows to run games. Because developing a game takes a lot of money, when there is no market, it's not a very wise thing to do. --
Ever wondered why creditcard companies give out cards without asking for massive amounts of cash on your bankaccounts?
Exactly: they track whatever you do with the card. Build databases with it, run OLAP queries on it. But you did know that, didn't you? So when you wanted a creditcard, you lied with bogus information so they couldn't use the info they gathered from your usage of the card. Oh wait, then you can't succesfully USE the card.
I don't get it when you complain about the passport account you have to create, when you get the MSDN cd's mailed to your doorstep and had to pay for these cd's with probably that creditcard mentioned above. What do you think will happen when you give out REAL information? Will they kill your family ? torture you to give them your creditcard? No. Just less than what happens when you purchase something with your creditcard at wallmart.
Please, answer me: What's the difference between a) giving information (and I mean: a lot of info, ever registered an MSDN universal or professional subscription? that's what THIS is all about!) and registering your online ID at the MSDN server or b) giving informatoin about your subscription to Microsoft and register your online ID at the Passport server?
There is no 'forcing', it's just that they switch over to another authentication system. I won't comment on yuor last paragraph since that makes totally NO sence at all --
MSDN subscribers have to login to get to the download section. So you have to store your credentials, online ID etc. at a Microsoft server. Now they want to change that to their own Passport service, which does.... exactly the same: store credentials like online ID etc.
What's the big f*cking deal? Both are Microsoft servers, both do the same thing. And before anyone is crying along, people who want to customize their MSDN site, already HAVE TO register with passport since last year.
Anyway, it's for access to microsoft software, to download that software. Hmmm... Sounds like an interesting topic for an open source developer, not? --
You must remember that this is MS running the servers. Now, last I checked, they didn't exactly have a very good track record on security.
In the past that is. When you eventually have some money to spend and think of buying stock, which stock would you buy? a) the one that made a lot of money for brokers 2 years ago or b) the one that will probably make you a lot of money because they have their things worked out ok and are making it better every day?
As he said, since maintaining hte sourcecode is no longer necessary, PLUS contracts hold back the release of the sourcecode. (read the damn post!).
So to cook it all up: OSS-ing OS/2 will put him out of a job and will generate a lot of lawsuits.
Seems to me, OSS-ing OS/2 is not the way to go.
Besides: OSS-ing OS/2 doesn't make it automatically GPL-ed. In fact, GPL-ing an OS is the most stupid thing you can do: you can't run binaries that are closed sourced. (that's why Linux has the extension in the license). --
If you think that your life is useful to others by calling a company's license an 'SS license', with the clear intention to make the link with the WW2 holocaust, you seriously should consider counseling.
After all, it's just software. Zealotery from any side of the virtual fence is redundant poop. --
There is more on earth than the GPL and there is more in the world of open source than the GPL. He's not attacking Open Source or the concept of opening up sourcecode because you, as the developer, think that's fun and necessary. He's attacking the viral aspect of the GPL and states that people should look closely at the GPL before arguing that the GPL is an overall good thing. That's clearly ALL he says. --
Slashdot Mirror
After the rush and warm feelings you got inside by re-facing this screen of joy from the old days, go to the harddrive you assigned the lapsuus dir to (f.e. dh3:) and run the demo. Enjoy :)
When you select for the setting 'When connection to this resource, the content should come from' option 3: A redirection to a URL, (On the 'Home Directory' Tab in the website's properties in IIS4) you are still vulnerable. You are thus not vulnerable when you do response.redirect() kinda stuff in ASP.
- When a program is binary equivalent allthough compiled with a different source and does the same?
- When a program is binary different but compiled from the same source, and does the same?
- When a program is binary different and sourcecode different but does the same?
This is somewhat important for your story and unclear for me. I assume the second option, but I'm not sureYou can easily develop a client driver for a different protocol than windows uses (Novell does it f.e.). So develop a Samba protocol, write a driver for win32 and live happily ever after. Then you don't have to watch out if MS' protocols will change. You control the protocl.
bug in slash?
This way, the name of 'crash-prone' OS windows has for decades will slowly vanish. That's the whole idea.
Now, to get to your point of choice: in win2k, you get a warning when you install a non-signed driver. If you continue, and the box crashes due to that driver, just when you were about to save that important document, are you still happy? Who will you blame? Yourself, because you were so utterly stupid to install that poopdriver? Or microsoft because 'their OS' crashes all the time?
I know the answer. So does Microsoft. That's why this option is included.
Microsoft removed the Java environment from XP, thereby breaking thousands of Web sites that use Java. XP customers will face endless downloads to replace the functionality they'd come to expect.
Then: Microsoft is bundling all kinds of services into XP in ways that block competition, from photography software to video/audio playback. If customers want to use other vendors' products they'll have to jump through Microsoft-designed hoops.
I see a contradiction here: first they remove some tech 'people have come to expect', which hurts the customer and then second: Microsoft bundles all kinds of tech, which seems to hurt the competition. So which one will it be, Dan: 1) remove it or 2) include it.
Or, Dan, are you afraid XP will be so rocksolid, users will never be asking for another Desktop OS again, not from any vendor/coder-group ?
MS has listened to those people and has removed their OWN JVM from the OS. Fair deal, right?
I guess not. Now there is NO JVM bundled with the OS and it's again foul play? What do you want then? bundling/integration or unbundling/not integration?
Java is not their tech. They can include whatever they please with their OS. Last time I checked, Sun isn't shipping their Solaris product with IE either.
The fanatics however, who think politics instead of just sourcecode, need a leader, to 'fight' (haha, it's sourcecode, not a war) whatever they declare an enemy.
Please keep these 2 things separated:
- The
.NET framework which is used by developers to build webservices, which CAN use Passport.com to do authentication services (but don't have to, you can build your own if you like)
- The webservices build ON TOP of the
.NET framework (like Hailstorm).
Thank you.--
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6690267.html? tag=mn_hd
hehe :)
--
Don't get me wrong, software for free is fun and has been (freeware/pd) and will always be there, it's just that 'everything should be free' is a silly thing to say. Since it's not up to you what I do with my software. That's up to me to decide. After all, it's my IP. If you disagree on that, how about taking some GPL-ed software and change the license on that? Since I all of a sudden can do whatever I want with it, not? You know the answer on that one, I'm sure. :)
--
All the developers who have a job at a software house are dependent of the selling of that software. If selling software is 'out of the question', they're out of a job.
And who will then write all those software? You? All other college students? HA!
--
When a government put pressure on the justice system to take a certain decision, the necessary separation between the justice system AND the state is in jeopardy. No matter what the case is, microsoft, drugs, whatever, the separation should be in tact. Only THEN a justice system can be truely independent.
--
For what's worth: neither does the US of A. Executing people, even retarted, is against Human Rights. What china does is wrong, but the US of A shouldn't be shouting that hard towards china, but look in the mirror first.
--
Doing so will violate that license. Saying that reverse enginering software, even if the license it comes with states it's not allowed, is OK, is stupid, to say the least. By agreeing that reverse engineering of software should be allowed even if the license doesn't allow it, you automatically also agree with the fact that people shouldn't obey YOUR licenses. Copyright anyone?
--
There are simply not enough people who will BUY (that's right, pay for the software) the linux games, since almost everyone and his brother uses windows to run games. Because developing a game takes a lot of money, when there is no market, it's not a very wise thing to do.
--
Exactly: they track whatever you do with the card. Build databases with it, run OLAP queries on it. But you did know that, didn't you? So when you wanted a creditcard, you lied with bogus information so they couldn't use the info they gathered from your usage of the card. Oh wait, then you can't succesfully USE the card.
I don't get it when you complain about the passport account you have to create, when you get the MSDN cd's mailed to your doorstep and had to pay for these cd's with probably that creditcard mentioned above. What do you think will happen when you give out REAL information? Will they kill your family ? torture you to give them your creditcard? No. Just less than what happens when you purchase something with your creditcard at wallmart.
Think about it.
--
There is no 'forcing', it's just that they switch over to another authentication system. I won't comment on yuor last paragraph since that makes totally NO sence at all
--
What's the big f*cking deal? Both are Microsoft servers, both do the same thing. And before anyone is crying along, people who want to customize their MSDN site, already HAVE TO register with passport since last year.
Anyway, it's for access to microsoft software, to download that software. Hmmm... Sounds like an interesting topic for an open source developer, not?
--
In the past that is. When you eventually have some money to spend and think of buying stock, which stock would you buy? a) the one that made a lot of money for brokers 2 years ago or b) the one that will probably make you a lot of money because they have their things worked out ok and are making it better every day?
--
So to cook it all up: OSS-ing OS/2 will put him out of a job and will generate a lot of lawsuits.
Seems to me, OSS-ing OS/2 is not the way to go.
Besides: OSS-ing OS/2 doesn't make it automatically GPL-ed. In fact, GPL-ing an OS is the most stupid thing you can do: you can't run binaries that are closed sourced. (that's why Linux has the extension in the license).
--
After all, it's just software. Zealotery from any side of the virtual fence is redundant poop.
--
There is more on earth than the GPL and there is more in the world of open source than the GPL. He's not attacking Open Source or the concept of opening up sourcecode because you, as the developer, think that's fun and necessary. He's attacking the viral aspect of the GPL and states that people should look closely at the GPL before arguing that the GPL is an overall good thing. That's clearly ALL he says.
--