This is not the first such study, there was a paper published in the early nineties which tested various standard unix command-line tools from a variety of vendors. They subjected the tools to horrendous stress and abuse, and found (to their suprise) that the GNU tools were the most reliable, with approximately a 1% failure rate in their bank of tests. The second best was HP, with about 8% failure rate, and everyone else was between 12-20%.
I don't have a link, but the paper was pretty widely publicised at the time, and should be fairly easy to track down. It was the first major study to really show an emperical link between openness and reliability, but it was far from the last. This latest one is merely one more in a long list.
Now if I could figure out how to use the/. search facility
Forget the slashdot search utility, a google search for "six degrees of bacon" or "oracle of bacon" will take you to The Oracle of Bacon, where you can find the most up-to-date Bacon# for OBL -- or anyone else -- yourself. (It runs a live IMDB search.) Today, the answer is 3.
BTW, I should give credit to the Onion [theonion.com] for my sig.
On my Debian box, in Vim, they're assigned to, "Switch the case the next 6 or 7 characters and beep a lot".
Interesting. Is that in X, or at the console? I can't duplicate the behavior in either case. Sounds like it might be worth sending off an email to the Debian vim maintainer and see if he has any ideas or suggestions. (Unless this is the side-effect of some odd customization you performed for your own benefit, in which case, never mind...:)
it's self-replicating, it spreads to any code it gets in contact with[...]
Hogwash! First of all, simple aggregation is clearly excluded. Second of all, it's not different from any other piece of copyrighted code in that respect. If I post a useful subroutine on my web page, and I don't include any license, and that code mysteriously "spreads" to your application, then you've been "infected" with copyright violation, and I've got a solid basis for a lawsuit.
it does so without input or consent of the larger host.
Uh-huh, just like my copyrighted, license-free code. Which just somehow "insinuated" itself into your app without your knowledge or consent. What a crock. The only thing the GPL does is provide you with an optional automatic defense against charges of copyright violation. You can at your choice release the derivative work under the same terms (GPL). But that's a choice -- your code does not automatically become GPL'd just because you included GPL'd bits.
That's it, the only difference between unlicensed code and GPL'd code is that the GPL'd code allows you an optional out from accusations of copyright violation. No matter how unpalatable you may find that option, GPL'd code is no more (or less) viral than unlicensed code.
Now, if you want to argue that unlicensed code is also viral, then I'd at least give you points for consistency. But in that case, it's not the GPL that makes the code viral, it's simply that the GPL fails to "de-viralize" the code. Thus, rather than being a virus itself, the GPL is simply a "non-de-viralizing" license, unlike, say, the BSDL which we can now classify as a "de-viralizing" license. That, at least, would be an interesting argument, unlike the troll you posted.
Oh, and BTW, when you said, "even a minute amount of code is enough to infect," that's also BS. Since it's copyright law that makes the code "contagious," any defense against copyright violation (such as fair use) will work as a defense against accusations of GPL-violation, since it's actually copyright law, not the GPL, that's being violated in such cases.
Linux is GPL, any changes made to Linux *become* GPL. Period
Not exactly. Linux as a whole must remain GPL'd. However, individual components may be licensed under other terms, as long as the whole remains GPL'd. This means that the licenses for the components must be compatible with the GPL, and must allow sublicensing. BSD (except the old, 4 clause BSD), MIT/X, and LGPL are all examples of licenses that meet these criteria.
This is done all the time -- most of the networking code in Linux is, AFAIK, still under BSD license. Yes, that means that someone could, in theory, extract the BSD-licensed code from the Linux kernel and use it in their proprietary system, but so what? They could just as easily have gotten it directly from one of the BSD projects in the first place.
I send a message to cryto-gram, including a key. This key can then be used to send it to me
You want the newsletter, then it's up to you to make sure you can receive it. I think there's pretty near zero chance that Bruce is going to waste his time jumping through hoops for your benefit and your benefit alone. Well, ok, I won't speak for Bruce, but speaking as a Debian developer, if you send me a question or request for help, and my response bounces because I'm not on your whitelist, I'm simply going to delete your question/request, and will probably add your name to my killfile, just so I don't have to deal with that crap in the future.
It's not actually a linux client, it's a linux-x86 client. It won't do you any good if you run linux-ppc, linux-alpha, linux-mips, linux-m68k, linux-sparc, linux-hppa etc., etc.
Calling it a "linux" client is like releasing a widget that only works on Fords, and calling it a "widget for cars".
Um, that's just silly. Until we make contact with intelligent life on other planets, we have no way of knowing whether or not those intelligent life forms on other planets (assuming they exist) would debate the matter.
On thing seems abundantly clear: There's no life left on the world it came from.
There's no evidence that it came from a world. Organic compounds form in interstellar space, and it has been speculated that life (or something eerily like it) could form in space. Or not, but in any case, I think you're trying to read far too much into this.
Sure, and lots of organically-created compounds are right-handed, e.g. most sugars (hence the name "dextrose"). But the important part in this discussion is that (unlike what the original poster stated) earth-life-derived amino acids are levorotary, just like the ones found in this meteor, which supports the contention (but not necessarily the conclusion) that terrestrial contamination is involved.
If earth-life used l-amino acids, and the meteor contained mostly r-amino acids (or vice versa), then we'd have something really interesting to ponder. As it is, the evidence is ambiguous and leaves us with more questions than answers.
Arguments 2 and b aren't arguments, they're polemicizing. Arguments 1 and a are both true (AFAIK). So, basically it comes down to a matter of taste. However, I'll point out that the speed of the protocol is unlikely to matter anywhere near as much as the speed of your server & pipe.
Quite the contrary, all life on Earth uses left-handed (levorotary) amino acids. Typing "levorotary" into Google and clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" returns this short-but-informative article.
First, we're just talking about the Linux kernel and some device drivers.
And that's what Linux is. A kernel. This might be one of the rare cases where everyone agrees we can leave off the "GNU/" at the beginning, so just hush up!:)
This has nothing to do with the general "popularity" of Linux.
It has everything to do with the general popularity of Linux. Name five other kernels that scale from cell-phones to super-clusters.
"Linux is the only operating system and should be used in everything from PCs to microwaves" rally. Doesn't that sound a whole lot like what Microsoft has been saying since the mid 1990s?
The big difference is that Linus isn't trying to leverage his desktop monopoly into control of cell-phones and super-clusters. He's just offering his software up to the world, and letting the world make its own choices. Moreover, Linus isn't saying, "here's my system, you should use it everywhere," he's saying, "here's my system, if you like, you can adapt it to fit your needs," and people are responding, "oh cool, look, I can adapt it to fit here...and here...and here...."
But the biggest difference is that Linus isn't saying "use my software to run your cell-phone and super-cluster, or I'll do everything in my power to lock your system out of talking to my desktop."
Well, I didn't at first, but then I realized that this was slashdot, so chances were near-certain that the "editors" had mispelled something, so the thought crossed my mind that Abba might be what they meant. But then I read closer, and saw that they really did mean the Bar Association.
Of course, I haven't read the article yet, and given that the slashdot "editors" are about as good with content as they are with spelling, I refuse to dismiss the possibility that it really is the swedish musical group that's being discussed....:)
Geeze, we're talking about a low-budget production by a basic-cable channel. If you were expecting a special-effects extravaganza, then you were obviously going in with a complete lack of clue. Hell, I was impressed by the mere fact that they tried to show sandworms!:)
What I was hoping for (and what I got) from the SciFi Channel version was focus on the story. The Lynch version was incoherent and confusing, and all the fancy FX merely distracted from and obscured what little bits of the story he had left in. If I want fancy FX, I'll go watch the latest Lucas potboiler. But in general, I'd rather have unconvincing backdrops and a good script than the most realistic computer-generated Jar-Jar.:)
No, acceptance of the GPL is completely voluntary. If they don't want to publish their code, then it's a simple copyright violation case, no different than if they'd stolen the code from someone's copyrighted book, or used someone's copyrighted image in their work without permission.
That's not going to stop people from saying it the way it is most commonly known, as "nine tenths".
I ran a quick googlefight between "possession is nine points" and "possession is nine tenths", and the former was the overwhelming winner (by an order of magnitude). So, it seems you're wrong -- while "nine tenths" is common, it isn't even close to being most common.
Spam is a technical problem, so why can't we come up with a technical solution?
I don't know, why can't "we"? "We"'ve been trying for nearly a decade, and haven't made the slightest dent in the onslaught.
Note that post-delivery filtering ignores the main problem of spam -- the cost to the ISPs and mailhosts, who need bigger pipes and bigger servers to deal with the massive loads of incoming spam. The cost of these pipes and servers is, of course, passed along to us, the customers.
For example, it should be impossible to forge headers
Sure, we'll just design new protocols, get everyone in the world to agree on them, create implementations, debug them, and then deploy them everywhere. That should only take, oh, say, a few more decades!
Why rely on a legal solution...
Who said anything about relying on it? What's wrong with a multi-pronged attack? Technical solutions have (so far) got us nowhere. Surely it can't hurt (much) to try some other approaches.
Furthermore, spam is not entirely a technical problem. It's also a social problem. Many (possibly most) spammers refuse to admit that what they're doing is wrong. After all (they argue), if it were wrong, surely it would be illegal? So, making it illegal will completely undermine that argument.
the people who have brought us such brilliant solutions as the DMCA
And the people who brought us laws against dueling and slavery and junk faxes. Yeah, not all laws are perfect, and many lawmakers are stupid or corrupt. But to go from that to "we shouldn't have any laws" is just silly.
"In any way?" Yes. Will it be perfect? No. Will it stop all spam? No. Will it cause some reduction in the amount of spam that clogs our ISPs servers, and drives the prices of our internet accounts up? Very likely. Will it cause a major reduction? Who knows?
I've been watching spam since the infamous green-card spam hit the nets. I've seen people advocating technical solutions all along, and I've seen spam continue to grow steadily. I think at this point, we owe it to ourselves to at least try a legal solution.
Note that many spammers steadfastly refuse to admit that there's anything wrong with spamming. If it were to start becoming illegal, then the argument, "I'm not doing anything wrong!" becomes a lot harder to support!:)
You honestly believe that Bush (Sr.) and Perot partisans would have refused to try something like this if it had occurred to them back in '92? If so, I have a bridge you might be interested in investing in.
When it comes down to an honor system with no consequences, the results may not be as intended.
And I think this may actually be a point in its favor. Since there were no binding agreements made (and no way to make the agreements binding), the whole thing devolves to "just talk". And just-talk (especially on political matters) is definitely protected speech.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the first such study, there was a paper published in the early nineties which tested various standard unix command-line tools from a variety of vendors. They subjected the tools to horrendous stress and abuse, and found (to their suprise) that the GNU tools were the most reliable, with approximately a 1% failure rate in their bank of tests. The second best was HP, with about 8% failure rate, and everyone else was between 12-20%.
I don't have a link, but the paper was pretty widely publicised at the time, and should be fairly easy to track down. It was the first major study to really show an emperical link between openness and reliability, but it was far from the last. This latest one is merely one more in a long list.
Now if I could figure out how to use the /. search facility
:)
Forget the slashdot search utility, a google search for "six degrees of bacon" or "oracle of bacon" will take you to The Oracle of Bacon, where you can find the most up-to-date Bacon# for OBL -- or anyone else -- yourself. (It runs a live IMDB search.) Today, the answer is 3.
BTW, I should give credit to the Onion [theonion.com] for my sig.
Funny, that's what I said when I saw it.
On my Debian box, in Vim, they're assigned to, "Switch the case the next 6 or 7 characters and beep a lot".
Interesting. Is that in X, or at the console? I can't duplicate the behavior in either case. Sounds like it might be worth sending off an email to the Debian vim maintainer and see if he has any ideas or suggestions. (Unless this is the side-effect of some odd customization you performed for your own benefit, in which case, never mind...:)
it's self-replicating, it spreads to any code it gets in contact with[...]
Hogwash! First of all, simple aggregation is clearly excluded. Second of all, it's not different from any other piece of copyrighted code in that respect. If I post a useful subroutine on my web page, and I don't include any license, and that code mysteriously "spreads" to your application, then you've been "infected" with copyright violation, and I've got a solid basis for a lawsuit.
it does so without input or consent of the larger host.
Uh-huh, just like my copyrighted, license-free code. Which just somehow "insinuated" itself into your app without your knowledge or consent. What a crock. The only thing the GPL does is provide you with an optional automatic defense against charges of copyright violation. You can at your choice release the derivative work under the same terms (GPL). But that's a choice -- your code does not automatically become GPL'd just because you included GPL'd bits.
That's it, the only difference between unlicensed code and GPL'd code is that the GPL'd code allows you an optional out from accusations of copyright violation. No matter how unpalatable you may find that option, GPL'd code is no more (or less) viral than unlicensed code.
Now, if you want to argue that unlicensed code is also viral, then I'd at least give you points for consistency. But in that case, it's not the GPL that makes the code viral, it's simply that the GPL fails to "de-viralize" the code. Thus, rather than being a virus itself, the GPL is simply a "non-de-viralizing" license, unlike, say, the BSDL which we can now classify as a "de-viralizing" license. That, at least, would be an interesting argument, unlike the troll you posted.
Oh, and BTW, when you said, "even a minute amount of code is enough to infect," that's also BS. Since it's copyright law that makes the code "contagious," any defense against copyright violation (such as fair use) will work as a defense against accusations of GPL-violation, since it's actually copyright law, not the GPL, that's being violated in such cases.
Linux is GPL, any changes made to Linux *become* GPL. Period
Not exactly. Linux as a whole must remain GPL'd. However, individual components may be licensed under other terms, as long as the whole remains GPL'd. This means that the licenses for the components must be compatible with the GPL, and must allow sublicensing. BSD (except the old, 4 clause BSD), MIT/X, and LGPL are all examples of licenses that meet these criteria.
This is done all the time -- most of the networking code in Linux is, AFAIK, still under BSD license. Yes, that means that someone could, in theory, extract the BSD-licensed code from the Linux kernel and use it in their proprietary system, but so what? They could just as easily have gotten it directly from one of the BSD projects in the first place.
I send a message to cryto-gram, including a key. This key can then be used to send it to me
You want the newsletter, then it's up to you to make sure you can receive it. I think there's pretty near zero chance that Bruce is going to waste his time jumping through hoops for your benefit and your benefit alone. Well, ok, I won't speak for Bruce, but speaking as a Debian developer, if you send me a question or request for help, and my response bounces because I'm not on your whitelist, I'm simply going to delete your question/request, and will probably add your name to my killfile, just so I don't have to deal with that crap in the future.
On my Debian box, those are assigned to Meta, and I use them all the time.
I would be glad to dump my "obsolete" keyboard if I could replace it with a 104-button mouse. :)
It's used to support the "Magic SysReq key" feature of the Linux kernel. See kernel docs (or google) for more info.
It's not actually a linux client, it's a linux-x86 client. It won't do you any good if you run linux-ppc, linux-alpha, linux-mips, linux-m68k, linux-sparc, linux-hppa etc., etc.
Calling it a "linux" client is like releasing a widget that only works on Fords, and calling it a "widget for cars".
Only on earth could it be hotly debated...
Um, that's just silly. Until we make contact with intelligent life on other planets, we have no way of knowing whether or not those intelligent life forms on other planets (assuming they exist) would debate the matter.
On thing seems abundantly clear: There's no life left on the world it came from.
There's no evidence that it came from a world. Organic compounds form in interstellar space, and it has been speculated that life (or something eerily like it) could form in space. Or not, but in any case, I think you're trying to read far too much into this.
Sure, and lots of organically-created compounds are right-handed, e.g. most sugars (hence the name "dextrose"). But the important part in this discussion is that (unlike what the original poster stated) earth-life-derived amino acids are levorotary, just like the ones found in this meteor, which supports the contention (but not necessarily the conclusion) that terrestrial contamination is involved.
If earth-life used l-amino acids, and the meteor contained mostly r-amino acids (or vice versa), then we'd have something really interesting to ponder. As it is, the evidence is ambiguous and leaves us with more questions than answers.
Arguments 2 and b aren't arguments, they're polemicizing. Arguments 1 and a are both true (AFAIK). So, basically it comes down to a matter of taste. However, I'll point out that the speed of the protocol is unlikely to matter anywhere near as much as the speed of your server & pipe.
no life on Earth uses left-handed Animo Acids.
Quite the contrary, all life on Earth uses left-handed (levorotary) amino acids. Typing "levorotary" into Google and clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" returns this short-but-informative article.
First, we're just talking about the Linux kernel and some device drivers.
:)
And that's what Linux is. A kernel. This might be one of the rare cases where everyone agrees we can leave off the "GNU/" at the beginning, so just hush up!
This has nothing to do with the general "popularity" of Linux.
It has everything to do with the general popularity of Linux. Name five other kernels that scale from cell-phones to super-clusters.
"Linux is the only operating system and should be used in everything from PCs to microwaves" rally. Doesn't that sound a whole lot like what Microsoft has been saying since the mid 1990s?
The big difference is that Linus isn't trying to leverage his desktop monopoly into control of cell-phones and super-clusters. He's just offering his software up to the world, and letting the world make its own choices. Moreover, Linus isn't saying, "here's my system, you should use it everywhere," he's saying, "here's my system, if you like, you can adapt it to fit your needs," and people are responding, "oh cool, look, I can adapt it to fit here...and here...and here...."
But the biggest difference is that Linus isn't saying "use my software to run your cell-phone and super-cluster, or I'll do everything in my power to lock your system out of talking to my desktop."
(this was about a swedish musical group)
:)
Well, I didn't at first, but then I realized that this was slashdot, so chances were near-certain that the "editors" had mispelled something, so the thought crossed my mind that Abba might be what they meant. But then I read closer, and saw that they really did mean the Bar Association.
Of course, I haven't read the article yet, and given that the slashdot "editors" are about as good with content as they are with spelling, I refuse to dismiss the possibility that it really is the swedish musical group that's being discussed....
Farscape wasn't that bad! :)
Geeze, we're talking about a low-budget production by a basic-cable channel. If you were expecting a special-effects extravaganza, then you were obviously going in with a complete lack of clue. Hell, I was impressed by the mere fact that they tried to show sandworms! :)
:)
What I was hoping for (and what I got) from the SciFi Channel version was focus on the story. The Lynch version was incoherent and confusing, and all the fancy FX merely distracted from and obscured what little bits of the story he had left in. If I want fancy FX, I'll go watch the latest Lucas potboiler. But in general, I'd rather have unconvincing backdrops and a good script than the most realistic computer-generated Jar-Jar.
No, acceptance of the GPL is completely voluntary. If they don't want to publish their code, then it's a simple copyright violation case, no different than if they'd stolen the code from someone's copyrighted book, or used someone's copyrighted image in their work without permission.
That's not going to stop people from saying it the way it is most commonly known, as "nine tenths".
I ran a quick googlefight between "possession is nine points" and "possession is nine tenths", and the former was the overwhelming winner (by an order of magnitude). So, it seems you're wrong -- while "nine tenths" is common, it isn't even close to being most common.
Secondly, there is no way a person could legally download more than 1 gig in a day.
:)
You obviously aren't running Debian unstable and getting daily updates of Gnome, KDE, Mozilla, and OpenOffice.
Spam is a technical problem, so why can't we come up with a technical solution?
...
I don't know, why can't "we"? "We"'ve been trying for nearly a decade, and haven't made the slightest dent in the onslaught.
Note that post-delivery filtering ignores the main problem of spam -- the cost to the ISPs and mailhosts, who need bigger pipes and bigger servers to deal with the massive loads of incoming spam. The cost of these pipes and servers is, of course, passed along to us, the customers.
For example, it should be impossible to forge headers
Sure, we'll just design new protocols, get everyone in the world to agree on them, create implementations, debug them, and then deploy them everywhere. That should only take, oh, say, a few more decades!
Why rely on a legal solution
Who said anything about relying on it? What's wrong with a multi-pronged attack? Technical solutions have (so far) got us nowhere. Surely it can't hurt (much) to try some other approaches.
Furthermore, spam is not entirely a technical problem. It's also a social problem. Many (possibly most) spammers refuse to admit that what they're doing is wrong. After all (they argue), if it were wrong, surely it would be illegal? So, making it illegal will completely undermine that argument.
the people who have brought us such brilliant solutions as the DMCA
And the people who brought us laws against dueling and slavery and junk faxes. Yeah, not all laws are perfect, and many lawmakers are stupid or corrupt. But to go from that to "we shouldn't have any laws" is just silly.
is this in any way enforceable?
:)
"In any way?" Yes. Will it be perfect? No. Will it stop all spam? No. Will it cause some reduction in the amount of spam that clogs our ISPs servers, and drives the prices of our internet accounts up? Very likely. Will it cause a major reduction? Who knows?
I've been watching spam since the infamous green-card spam hit the nets. I've seen people advocating technical solutions all along, and I've seen spam continue to grow steadily. I think at this point, we owe it to ourselves to at least try a legal solution.
Note that many spammers steadfastly refuse to admit that there's anything wrong with spamming. If it were to start becoming illegal, then the argument, "I'm not doing anything wrong!" becomes a lot harder to support!
You honestly believe that Bush (Sr.) and Perot partisans would have refused to try something like this if it had occurred to them back in '92? If so, I have a bridge you might be interested in investing in.
When it comes down to an honor system with no consequences, the results may not be as intended.
And I think this may actually be a point in its favor. Since there were no binding agreements made (and no way to make the agreements binding), the whole thing devolves to "just talk". And just-talk (especially on political matters) is definitely protected speech.