The company still owns the code (and the copyright for it). A lot of people mistakenly think that GPL is anti-copyright. This isn't true - copyright is necesarry, or it would be impossible to enforce.
Some companies even dual-license their software. If you own the copyright to your software, you can release one version under the GPL and another version under a different license. I don't know that the FSF encourages this with GPL software, but it has been one way of making money using free software (Trolltech does this with their QPL licensed product, which also has a proprietary couterpart that can be bought and used in non-free software).
IPO doesn't require a company to divulge its so-called "Intellectual Property" to the general public.
What if I decide to sell my company? The software I've developed is certainly an integral part of the value of my company. Would GPL require me to publish all of the modified source code if I sell the company?
No. You don't even have to hand it over to the new owners if you don't want them to have it, unless, of course, you are letting them use the binaries.
The source and binaries accompany each other under the GPL, or at least they are both availble. Unless you are selling your company to the general public, you don't have to release your code to the general public.
BMRT got shut down on Copyright enfringement by Pixar.
Exluna, the company that once distributed BMRT (prior to being acquired by NVIDIA), has its own commercial, proprietary system called "Entropy."
Of course, BMRT was only distributed in binary form to begin with, but at least it was a cheap ("free") Renderman complient ray-tracer that was useful for learning the renderman system.
I remember opening up my Hotmail account years ago when It was on FreeBSD and there was no whiff of MSN or passport anywhere in the system.
Since Microsoft took over, the game has been to change the service to a profitable, for-pay service.
If they stuff my inbox with junk, then it will soon exceed the new, lower size limits. If I want to subscribe, then they will be happy to give me more space.
------ PS: But is all seriousness, my reluctance to make my move is based on the apparent lack of Sequencing software and hardware support for my music equipment (MIDI interfaces, multitracking recorder cards, etc.). What *does* exist out there only seems to be able to recognize a (*cough* *cough*) Sound Blaster MIDI port. Any suggestions? -------
Wait for me to finish my sequencing software. It'll let you pick which MIDI interface to send to, plus it'll have an editor/librarian.
If you have a real MPU-401, there is a Kernel driver for it, and ALSA is pretty good for MIDI. The Sound Blaster MIDI port isn't that bad, although it doesn't have its own processor, like the MPU-401. With today's machines, it doesn't matter much. I use the SB port to drive my outboard gear. I wish MOTU would release the specs on their MTP-AV, though.
Give me a couple years... a MIDI sequencer is pretty serious software.
I can't disagree with the point you make, because I think you are mostly right.
My intent (partly) with the analogies is that people tend to call things whatever they want to, that is convenient for them. I don't think this is wrong, and I think it was OK for Linus to call Linux "Linux" and be done with it. Typically, people just don't care.
I also don't believe that the stink RMS makes about it is (entirely) ego driven. I think that Linux has, in a way, fulfilled the dream that Stallman had with GNU; kind of beat him to the punch with the HURD if you like.
Except, Linux isn't quite the vision that he had, but that doesn't really matter. What he wants is that people understand the role of GNU in the whole thing, as a way of divulging its ideology. Having a successful system was only his secondary objective. Well, in a way Linus hijacked that by simply being less of an idealist than Stallman.
So I have to say that it is Stallman's fault after all. He should have accepted the Linux kernel into the GNU project, and then mostly we would all be certain of GNU's role in bringing it about.
Afterall, Stallman doesn't really care that you or I say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux." He knows that we know GNU's significance regardless of which way we prefer. He is more concerned with the advocacy of Linux. The GNU system was to be a means to an end. Somebody else picked it up and ran with it before he could properly finish it, and now he is seeing that end go down the drain.
Such things happen when you give away your ideas. In reality, I think we all got a little bit lucky. If Stallman were driving, I think Linux would be neither so popular nor advanced. His ideas are too much ahead of their time.
Microsoft has integrated a number of software features into the OS that tend to exclude similar software made by third parties. Is Windows modular such that these may be removed from the system so that other vendors can load their own software instead? Case in point: IE.
Your Argument:
Windows is modular.
Fallacy #1
We would expect that if you argue the case that Windows is modular, then you would come to conclusion that IE could be removed from the OS without harming it. This, afterall, is the whole basis for the discussion. Instead, you confirm that there are too many dependencies for this to happen without crippling Windows. For the sake of the discussion, you have contradicted your own argument and agreed with the position that, no, Windows isn't sufficiently modular to remove IE. You claim it is a "vital part" of the system.
Fallacy #2
To show how this isn't any different from Linux, you claim that Red Hat wouldn't work if you remove gtk+. This is misleading for two reasons. First, it is Gnome that won't work without gtk+. Gnome is not Red Hat Linux. Second, you have the option to not even install gtk or Gnome in the first place, therefore Red Hat Linux does not rely on either Gnome or gtk. You have no such option with Windows: it does rely on IE to properly function.
The only thing you prove with this comment is that, once installed, removing components ad-hoc is a bad thing. We know that. The issue is, can it not be installed at all?
Fallacy #3
You suspect that Windows may be more modular than Linux because of COM and WDM. The fallacy here is that, in the case of COM for example, Linux supports various alternative technologies. Indeed, there is a COM implementation for Linux, as well as RPC, Corba, Kparts, Bonobo, and others that all basically do similar things. Your argument seems to indicate that Windows has COM, but Linux doesn't suggest any particular inter-object protocol. It would seem that Linux is more modular in this respect, then, by your own admittance. As for drivers, Linux certainly allows for kernel modules to be written by any third party without needing a single line of kernel code. I do not see how this is any different than the Windows drivers.
In summary, your reasoning seems to support the overall sentiment that Windows is not modularly designed, in the context of the issue at hand.
Yes, we understand that modular design techniques were used in the implementation of Windows. We do not care about that. That is not the issue.
So what? Unix editors can not handle DOS line endings (^M) neither. You have to run dos2unix or do:%s/...
You don't have to search and replace DOS CRs in VIM. Just do:set fileformat=dos and VIM will support DOS mode files just fine, both reading and writing.
Go to Freshmeat sometime and click on "Random Project" a few times. You will notice that, of all the open source projects in the database, most of them have no vital signs.
It's pretty pointless to put any time-sensitive features in your product if, as chances may be, you probably will stop working on it at some point and won't have the interest or time to pick it up again.
Don't count on somebody else maintaining your code for you: the other interesting statistic on Freshmeat about most projects is that nobody else really cares about them either. Even once-popular programs tend to fade away over time.
Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is.
Maybe this is true. But while Apple struggled to sell the easy-to-use Macintoshes, people were flocking to DOS based PCs because they were cheaper. The PC revolution grew up on the back of DOS, which looked like CP/M, which looked like UNIX.
Perhaps times have changed and cheap isn't as good as convenient, but I suggest that sales figures are a better indication of marketing practices and consumer awareness than anything else.
I keep seeing the allegation that the Gimp is no match for Photoshop. Personally, I've never tried Photoshop, but I am curious to know what it has that the Gimp lacks.
I have been searching for an objective comparison between the two, and have found very little of substance. Mostly I have seen opinions on GUIs and learning curves, and some outdated comparisons on how to accomplish Photoshop tasks in the Gimp.
My conclusion thus far is that there is no reason to believe that the Gimp doesn't play in the same league as Photoshop, and that those who claim otherwise are Photoshop proselytes who wouldn't consider any alternative objectively.
Perhaps you could enlighten me, as there is little chance that I would take the interest to do a comparison myself.
Once.NET-like technologies become pervasive and everyone relies on the 'net for all of their computing, we'll be seeing things like this:
"It became clear to me (when my ISP was down for a week due to a DoS attack) that it's high time to finally divorce myself from an insecure, nebulous collection of anonymous machines and applications by using data and software accessible by a self-contained system as much as possible. I'm talking Visual IDEs, productivity apps, powerful, easy to use email client, etc, all presented to me consistently on a single, local desktop, as if I owned the software for my exclusive use! Is anyone seriously trying this? What are the best practices and best applications? What are the biggest shortcomings? Are there good web sites devoted to this noble goal?"
Yes, $5500 USD for Maya Complete is just ever so slightly out of freebie price range. Right down there with a nice used car, decent wedding ring, or Carribean Cruise.
I'm sure Maya is quite worthy of the two month's salary price tag, but for the poorer of us, we'll just have to settle with AC3D, Pov-Ray, BMRT, Blender, Ayam and the other low-cost or free rendering and modelling applications for Linux.
I guess by your logic the war in Palestine ended when Arafat and Sharon declared a cease fire.
My analogy was made for Linux, not WWII.
The leadership of Japan stopped fighting the war and surrendered. There was was consensus on both sides that the fighting was over. For those last Japanese fighters, the war went on.
There has been no surrender of Linux on the desktop; only by those not involved in it. I haven't seen KDE or Gnome throw in the towel yet. Or Enlightnement, or Blackbox, or Sawfish, or Afterstep.
In our case, it's the "soldiers" who speak for Linux. Just because some CEO says the war is over doesn't mean that the war is over. Unlike commercial software, Linux isn't directed by a single central authority. Linux enthusiasts keep saying that, but they themselves don't believe it; they keep getting suckered by presumptious CEOs.
1) The desktop war is only won when everybody has stopped fighting it. Prior to that time, claims of victory from any side is premature.
2) When Windows becomes so proprietary and expensive to develop for, deploy and own, and when Linux remains cheap and open, we might find a critical shift in applications development.
Right now the factor is who is willing to buy commercial software for Linux. It already has an edge in development, but lacks some necessary catalysts to start the transition.
So while I agree that Linux may not rule the desktop any time in the near future, I wouldn't say that it still isn't a possibility for the long term.
Check out the WyattERP project. It is an Open Source ERP for Linux. There is already at least one medium-sized company that runs nothing but WyattERP for all its needs - from the receptionist to invoicing to HR.
The only point I would argue with is #1. I would say open source software does have built-in support. It is supported by its users.
This may be unconventional, and probably not what a company is looking for. In practice, though, I think it is generally more effective than the paid support from the technician who may or may not actually use the product. The drawback here is that poor or unpopular open source products have poor support because they have few users.
The other drawback is that enterprise level support means hiring someone who can learn the code. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a better deal than some other commercial solutions that also assign a single technician to your case. Maybe more expensive, but you can get more customization from the open source support.
Actually, I think terrorism is exactly what it says it is, and that people are trying to apply the label to sundry other items in the hopes of promoting some personal agenda or ideal.
To understand terrorism, we need to understand what terror is. There is a dictionary definition for this word, so one would hope that its meaning isn't up for debate.
Terror is a sort of fear. Not simply your garden variety of fear, such as irrational phobias or fear of losing your job or fear of criticism, or anything like that.
Terror is the kind of fear that accompanies a very rational anxiety of physical harm, generally death, that is unexpected, un-prepared for, and likely to be violent or otherwise unpleasant.
Terrorism uses vivid real life examples to exploit these fears so that people become paranoid.
It is not important how well-orchestrated and politically motivated a DDoS attack happens to be. Such an act in and of itself, regardless of intent, does not invoke the feelings of terror in a human being. It simply is not terrorism.
Think of it this way. Suppose the heinous acts of 9/11 (and others similar) had never happened. Thus supposing, do you think computer crimes today would be publicized as "terrorism?" I would suggest that many computer crimes would continue to go unnoticed, much like the vandalism on a brick wall.
Let me also suggest that those who spread the misconception that computer crimes are equivalent to terrorism are guilty of inciting paranoia and irrational fear. Such people are far closer to the terrorists they claim to persecute.
Finally, I will admit that the potential for computer terrorism exists in those computer systems trusted to ensure safety and physical security, without which we would be vulnerable. When hackers target these systems in an attempt to kill innocent people for their cause, then they may be called terrorists.
Linus distancing himself from the zealots
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A lot of people have pointed out Linus' very empty, casual answers. A lot of these people are now predicting the doom and failure of Linux because "Linus doesn't care."
Well, mission accomplished; Linus has pissed off the Linux zealots. Hopefully, when these people find out that Linus doesn't share their religious fervor about the righteousness of Linux and the darkness of the Enemy, they will leave Linux alone so that it can gain some actual credibility.
In the article I read, they suggest that such atoms "condense" into a so-called superatom - that is, the atoms are indistiguishable from each other. The resulting blob looked to take up the same space as a single atom.
I don't understand how a superatom could assume a gas or liquid form. If multiple condensates were combined, wouldn't they simply condense again?
Slashdot Mirror
The company still owns the code (and the copyright for it). A lot of people mistakenly think that GPL is anti-copyright. This isn't true - copyright is necesarry, or it would be impossible to enforce.
Some companies even dual-license their software. If you own the copyright to your software, you can release one version under the GPL and another version under a different license. I don't know that the FSF encourages this with GPL software, but it has been one way of making money using free software (Trolltech does this with their QPL licensed product, which also has a proprietary couterpart that can be bought and used in non-free software).
IPO doesn't require a company to divulge its so-called "Intellectual Property" to the general public.
What if I decide to sell my company? The software I've developed is certainly an integral part of the value of my company. Would GPL require me to publish all of the modified source code if I sell the company?
No. You don't even have to hand it over to the new owners if you don't want them to have it, unless, of course, you are letting them use the binaries.
The source and binaries accompany each other under the GPL, or at least they are both availble. Unless you are selling your company to the general public, you don't have to release your code to the general public.
BMRT got shut down on Copyright enfringement by Pixar.
Exluna, the company that once distributed BMRT (prior to being acquired by NVIDIA), has its own commercial, proprietary system called "Entropy."
Of course, BMRT was only distributed in binary form to begin with, but at least it was a cheap ("free") Renderman complient ray-tracer that was useful for learning the renderman system.
Let me guess. You work for hotmail.
At least so it can run, with sound, on a modern PC.
It's like if Lucas were to release his next installment of Star Wars in the year 2050, when nobody has the equipment to view the originals anymore.
I remember opening up my Hotmail account years ago when It was on FreeBSD and there was no whiff of MSN or passport anywhere in the system.
Since Microsoft took over, the game has been to change the service to a profitable, for-pay service.
If they stuff my inbox with junk, then it will soon exceed the new, lower size limits. If I want to subscribe, then they will be happy to give me more space.
------
PS: But is all seriousness, my reluctance to make my move is based on the apparent lack of Sequencing software and hardware support for my music equipment (MIDI interfaces, multitracking recorder cards, etc.). What *does* exist out there only seems to be able to recognize a (*cough* *cough*) Sound Blaster MIDI port. Any suggestions?
-------
Wait for me to finish my sequencing software. It'll let you pick which MIDI interface to send to, plus it'll have an editor/librarian.
If you have a real MPU-401, there is a Kernel driver for it, and ALSA is pretty good for MIDI. The Sound Blaster MIDI port isn't that bad, although it doesn't have its own processor, like the MPU-401. With today's machines, it doesn't matter much. I use the SB port to drive my outboard gear. I wish MOTU would release the specs on their MTP-AV, though.
Give me a couple years... a MIDI sequencer is pretty serious software.
I can't disagree with the point you make, because I think you are mostly right.
My intent (partly) with the analogies is that people tend to call things whatever they want to, that is convenient for them. I don't think this is wrong, and I think it was OK for Linus to call Linux "Linux" and be done with it. Typically, people just don't care.
I also don't believe that the stink RMS makes about it is (entirely) ego driven. I think that Linux has, in a way, fulfilled the dream that Stallman had with GNU; kind of beat him to the punch with the HURD if you like.
Except, Linux isn't quite the vision that he had, but that doesn't really matter. What he wants is that people understand the role of GNU in the whole thing, as a way of divulging its ideology. Having a successful system was only his secondary objective. Well, in a way Linus hijacked that by simply being less of an idealist than Stallman.
So I have to say that it is Stallman's fault after all. He should have accepted the Linux kernel into the GNU project, and then mostly we would all be certain of GNU's role in bringing it about.
Afterall, Stallman doesn't really care that you or I say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux." He knows that we know GNU's significance regardless of which way we prefer. He is more concerned with the advocacy of Linux. The GNU system was to be a means to an end. Somebody else picked it up and ran with it before he could properly finish it, and now he is seeing that end go down the drain.
Such things happen when you give away your ideas. In reality, I think we all got a little bit lucky. If Stallman were driving, I think Linux would be neither so popular nor advanced. His ideas are too much ahead of their time.
I bought a Daimler/Chrysler/Dodge vehicle once. Found out it had Mitsubishi pieces in it.
During WWII Stalin said the Ilyushin IL-2 was as necessary to the army as bread an water, but everyone called these planes Sturmoviks.
When I take a business trip, I often fly on a 757. Most people couldn't tell you it was made by Boeing.
And whose work is the so called "Space Shuttle?"
I once cracked open a Compaq monitor, only to find some components from Texas Instruments.
You know that bargain tissue you can buy at the grocery store? I call it "Kleenex" even though it wasn't made by Kimberly Clark.
People say Windows all the time without mentioning Microsoft. I sometimes use Windows.
The "PC" was an IBM idea. Used to be IBM PC, if you remember. Now we just have PCs.
I know a man with a legislative award for discovering cyclooxygenase 2, but I don't see his name on Vioxx or Celebrex.
Flavored water with sugar in it is Kool Aid.
Plywood used to be called "Prest Wood" after its brand name.
There is no provision in the GPL to prefix your system with "GNU" if it happens to use pieces that belong to the GNU project.
The Linux Kernel doesn't belong to the GNU project. Nor does XFree86, nor Apache, nor Perl...
I'll take freedom over GNU/Freedom.
The issue:
Microsoft has integrated a number of software features into the OS that tend to exclude similar software made by third parties. Is Windows modular such that these may be removed from the system so that other vendors can load their own software instead? Case in point: IE.
Your Argument:
Windows is modular.
Fallacy #1
We would expect that if you argue the case that Windows is modular, then you would come to conclusion that IE could be removed from the OS without harming it. This, afterall, is the whole basis for the discussion. Instead, you confirm that there are too many dependencies for this to happen without crippling Windows. For the sake of the discussion, you have contradicted your own argument and agreed with the position that, no, Windows isn't sufficiently modular to remove IE. You claim it is a "vital part" of the system.
Fallacy #2
To show how this isn't any different from Linux, you claim that Red Hat wouldn't work if you remove gtk+. This is misleading for two reasons. First, it is Gnome that won't work without gtk+. Gnome is not Red Hat Linux. Second, you have the option to not even install gtk or Gnome in the first place, therefore Red Hat Linux does not rely on either Gnome or gtk. You have no such option with Windows: it does rely on IE to properly function.
The only thing you prove with this comment is that, once installed, removing components ad-hoc is a bad thing. We know that. The issue is, can it not be installed at all?
Fallacy #3
You suspect that Windows may be more modular than Linux because of COM and WDM. The fallacy here is that, in the case of COM for example, Linux supports various alternative technologies. Indeed, there is a COM implementation for Linux, as well as RPC, Corba, Kparts, Bonobo, and others that all basically do similar things. Your argument seems to indicate that Windows has COM, but Linux doesn't suggest any particular inter-object protocol. It would seem that Linux is more modular in this respect, then, by your own admittance. As for drivers, Linux certainly allows for kernel modules to be written by any third party without needing a single line of kernel code. I do not see how this is any different than the Windows drivers.
In summary, your reasoning seems to support the overall sentiment that Windows is not modularly designed, in the context of the issue at hand.
Yes, we understand that modular design techniques were used in the implementation of Windows. We do not care about that. That is not the issue.
So what? Unix editors can not handle DOS line endings (^M) neither. You have to run dos2unix or do
You don't have to search and replace DOS CRs in VIM. Just do
Go to Freshmeat sometime and click on "Random Project" a few times. You will notice that, of all the open source projects in the database, most of them have no vital signs.
It's pretty pointless to put any time-sensitive features in your product if, as chances may be, you probably will stop working on it at some point and won't have the interest or time to pick it up again.
Don't count on somebody else maintaining your code for you: the other interesting statistic on Freshmeat about most projects is that nobody else really cares about them either. Even once-popular programs tend to fade away over time.
Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is.
Maybe this is true. But while Apple struggled to sell the easy-to-use Macintoshes, people were flocking to DOS based PCs because they were cheaper. The PC revolution grew up on the back of DOS, which looked like CP/M, which looked like UNIX.
Perhaps times have changed and cheap isn't as good as convenient, but I suggest that sales figures are a better indication of marketing practices and consumer awareness than anything else.
I keep seeing the allegation that the Gimp is no match for Photoshop. Personally, I've never tried Photoshop, but I am curious to know what it has that the Gimp lacks.
I have been searching for an objective comparison between the two, and have found very little of substance. Mostly I have seen opinions on GUIs and learning curves, and some outdated comparisons on how to accomplish Photoshop tasks in the Gimp.
My conclusion thus far is that there is no reason to believe that the Gimp doesn't play in the same league as Photoshop, and that those who claim otherwise are Photoshop proselytes who wouldn't consider any alternative objectively.
Perhaps you could enlighten me, as there is little chance that I would take the interest to do a comparison myself.
Once .NET-like technologies become pervasive and everyone relies on the 'net for all of their computing, we'll be seeing things like this:
"It became clear to me (when my ISP was down for a week due to a DoS attack) that it's high time to finally divorce myself from an insecure, nebulous collection of anonymous machines and applications by using data and software accessible by a self-contained system as much as possible. I'm talking Visual IDEs, productivity apps, powerful, easy to use email client, etc, all presented to me consistently on a single, local desktop, as if I owned the software for my exclusive use! Is anyone seriously trying this? What are the best practices and best applications? What are the biggest shortcomings? Are there good web sites devoted to this noble goal?"
Yes, $5500 USD for Maya Complete is just ever so slightly out of freebie price range. Right down there with a nice used car, decent wedding ring, or Carribean Cruise.
I'm sure Maya is quite worthy of the two month's salary price tag, but for the poorer of us, we'll just have to settle with AC3D, Pov-Ray, BMRT, Blender, Ayam and the other low-cost or free rendering and modelling applications for Linux.
A: Give away your OS and clustering software, complete with source code.
I guess by your logic the war in Palestine ended when Arafat and Sharon declared a cease fire.
My analogy was made for Linux, not WWII.
The leadership of Japan stopped fighting the war and surrendered. There was was consensus on both sides that the fighting was over. For those last Japanese fighters, the war went on.
There has been no surrender of Linux on the desktop; only by those not involved in it. I haven't seen KDE or Gnome throw in the towel yet. Or Enlightnement, or Blackbox, or Sawfish, or Afterstep.
In our case, it's the "soldiers" who speak for Linux. Just because some CEO says the war is over doesn't mean that the war is over. Unlike commercial software, Linux isn't directed by a single central authority. Linux enthusiasts keep saying that, but they themselves don't believe it; they keep getting suckered by presumptious CEOs.
1) The desktop war is only won when everybody has stopped fighting it. Prior to that time, claims of victory from any side is premature.
2) When Windows becomes so proprietary and expensive to develop for, deploy and own, and when Linux remains cheap and open, we might find a critical shift in applications development.
Right now the factor is who is willing to buy commercial software for Linux. It already has an edge in development, but lacks some necessary catalysts to start the transition.
So while I agree that Linux may not rule the desktop any time in the near future, I wouldn't say that it still isn't a possibility for the long term.
Check out the WyattERP project. It is an Open Source ERP for Linux. There is already at least one medium-sized company that runs nothing but WyattERP for all its needs - from the receptionist to invoicing to HR.
The only point I would argue with is #1. I would say open source software does have built-in support. It is supported by its users.
This may be unconventional, and probably not what a company is looking for. In practice, though, I think it is generally more effective than the paid support from the technician who may or may not actually use the product. The drawback here is that poor or unpopular open source products have poor support because they have few users.
The other drawback is that enterprise level support means hiring someone who can learn the code. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't a better deal than some other commercial solutions that also assign a single technician to your case. Maybe more expensive, but you can get more customization from the open source support.
Actually, I think terrorism is exactly what it says it is, and that people are trying to apply the label to sundry other items in the hopes of promoting some personal agenda or ideal.
To understand terrorism, we need to understand what terror is. There is a dictionary definition for this word, so one would hope that its meaning isn't up for debate.
Terror is a sort of fear. Not simply your garden variety of fear, such as irrational phobias or fear of losing your job or fear of criticism, or anything like that.
Terror is the kind of fear that accompanies a very rational anxiety of physical harm, generally death, that is unexpected, un-prepared for, and likely to be violent or otherwise unpleasant.
Terrorism uses vivid real life examples to exploit these fears so that people become paranoid.
It is not important how well-orchestrated and politically motivated a DDoS attack happens to be. Such an act in and of itself, regardless of intent, does not invoke the feelings of terror in a human being. It simply is not terrorism.
Think of it this way. Suppose the heinous acts of 9/11 (and others similar) had never happened. Thus supposing, do you think computer crimes today would be publicized as "terrorism?" I would suggest that many computer crimes would continue to go unnoticed, much like the vandalism on a brick wall.
Let me also suggest that those who spread the misconception that computer crimes are equivalent to terrorism are guilty of inciting paranoia and irrational fear. Such people are far closer to the terrorists they claim to persecute.
Finally, I will admit that the potential for computer terrorism exists in those computer systems trusted to ensure safety and physical security, without which we would be vulnerable. When hackers target these systems in an attempt to kill innocent people for their cause, then they may be called terrorists.
A lot of people have pointed out Linus' very empty, casual answers. A lot of these people are now predicting the doom and failure of Linux because "Linus doesn't care."
Well, mission accomplished; Linus has pissed off the Linux zealots. Hopefully, when these people find out that Linus doesn't share their religious fervor about the righteousness of Linux and the darkness of the Enemy, they will leave Linux alone so that it can gain some actual credibility.
Good job, Linus.
In the article I read, they suggest that such atoms "condense" into a so-called superatom - that is, the atoms are indistiguishable from each other. The resulting blob looked to take up the same space as a single atom.
I don't understand how a superatom could assume a gas or liquid form. If multiple condensates were combined, wouldn't they simply condense again?
Does anyone know if a BEC maintains a mass consistent with the sum of its pieces, and how much comparative space it takes up?