I guess I just don't get it. You are required to make source code available upon request to anyone to whom you have distributed the binary. If you can modify and redistribute, surely you have the source code? How can this be a problem? Remember, it's only for them that want it. You aren't required to force it down the customer's throat.
Well, while we may have the source code, it might not be in a form acceptable for redistribution. We generally build from a source control repository... hundreds of packages at once, or at least dozens, with some already available as source and binaries. Our build processes generally are tuned to this source code repository -- if not makefiles per se, then the scripts that perform many GETs and makes.
The GPL requires the code to be distributed in a a manner that programmers usually use. A straight archive of source packages wouldn't build without difficulty, espescially considering inter-package dependencies. RPM and DEB help a bit, but aren't a complete solution. So, packaging a source distribution actually takes a bit of time the first time around, and is usually not a priority for the lead developers. Of course, in our case, we were aggregating GPL and non-GPL programs and this complicated matters further because WE built both at the same time, but our customers wouldn't.
As for Remember, it's only for them that want it. You aren't required to force it down the customer's throat. -- you can either distibute source with binaries (or make it accessable the same way, i.e. via a web site, or provide a TRANSFERABLE offer to provide it. The transferable part is the rub -- often you are willing to support your customers, but not all to which your customers may distribute binaries -- you want your customers to support those to whom they distribute. This can't happen unless you distribute source to your customers at the same time as binaries because of the transferable offer clause.
Now, in our case, we were aggregating GPL code with proprietary stuff in a commercial product -- separate apps running on GNU/Linux, with some free apps and utilities. But, for the most part, we were not in the "Here world, have some code" business. So, providing source to our direct customers was not an issue, but having to provide it to their customers was.
The sad part is that a lot of the utility code (much written by me) is GPL, but will likely never see general distribution because our customers don't redistribute. I suppose I could ask my former employer for a copy and distribute it myself.
In closing, I want to point out that our circumstance was not the "embrace free software 100%" case, but rather "employ free software to the degree permitted with non-free software". So, we were really free software parasites, in a way. I recognized this and tried to establish policies to give back as much as possible to the community in that environment, the first priority being strict GPL complience. (The second was to make everything that wasn't really a "trade secret", i.e. lots of utilities and simple apps, GPL).
This whole issue hinges on who has changed the code... you or your company. If you made the changes for the company, then they own them, IMHO. It is up to them to comply with the GPL if they distribute.
However, further access and work within the company with this modified code, does not, IMHO, count as having distributed the code -- it has not left the control of the company -- it continues to run on company controlled machines.
(Of course, RMS may disagree here).
Now, where it gets really grey is if some employees telecommute, and work with the modified code on their personal computers at home. Since the company has permitted a company asset to leave control of the company (except by virtue of employment contract constraints), I'd think that would count as distribution, and I'm fairly certain RMS would agree -- it's very similar to the subcontracting scenario.
1) installing modified GPL code on a machine for a customer to evaluate -- RMS has told me that if the customer controls the machine, it is distribution, but if the code modifier controls the machine, it is not.
We ran into this when installing a system for a customer for acceptance testing.
2) Distributing binaries ahead of source (i.e. to subcontractors). RMS has made it clear to me that this is verboten. He sympathized with our plight, but could find no way that the GPL would permit this. OTOH, in practical terms, as long a source was distributed as rapidly as possible, we would likely not face allegations of violation.
We ran into this when sending "the latest, greatest build of code" to subcontractors, or potential customers for evaluation on machines we do not control. Sometimes we'd want to ship an installation CD, or download updates to someone as part of work in progress. This is a technical violation.
3) redistribution within an organization. This is a real grey area -- is the organization in control of the code or the individuals who have access to it? Personally, I have taken the former approach, but have never refused to give mods to GPL code to coworkers, when asked.
I have little sympathy for civilians that cheer at the loss of relatively innocent people's lives, even if the dead willingly accepted the rule of a detested regime. Such a display forfeits civilian status. Yeah, get them. By all means.
Unfortunately, these people mill about among bona-fide civilians who, while probably as grudgingly accepting of their government's (recognized or otherwise) policies as we are of ours, don't support the notion of raining death upon their counterparts. Do we get them too? To what degree do we hold them accountable for their bretheren?
It is one thing to be pleased that an enemy has been weakened, but quite another to celebrate at their loss of life: it's the extremely fine difference between being glad that another's misfortune might compel them to do less of what you detest, and actually wishing such misfortune upon them to achieve those ends. And, prudence suggests repressing such glee at the former, lest it be misinterpreted, at least for today, and some number of tomorrows.
The big difficulty in all this is the vague and distributed nature of the enemy (and yes, people who kill you and yours have no legitimate objection to being treated in kind) -- just who do we strike back at, lest we descend to the level of our enemies?
Since the problem is distinguishing civil opposition ("we hate you and want you to stop being the way you are") from war-like behaviour ("we hate you and will try to kill you"), perhaps the first step is to force people to choose: "Just who's side are you on, given the choice between those who want us dead, and those who don't?" Note, I didn't say, "... those who like us and those who don't..."? Initial foriegn policy should take a "under the circumstances, who goes there, friend or foe?..." stance, "...cause we're sure gonna beat the crap out of our foes."
It is time for the rest of the world to choose, and mourn for those who get trapped among the enemy.
These views are my own and do not represent those of any other party, employer, family, friends, or government, except by happy coincidence.
Even your wastebasket will kind of vibrate with happiness when trash is thrown into it. So you want the cubicle to love you and care for you, kind of a womb experience.
At Teradyne, we welcomed RMS to educate our developers on the GPL. His presentation was professional, and happily received, by management as well as staff.
- Rene S. Hollan
Since I started working for my current employer, I've averaged 60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, since November, 1997. Some weeks, I've worked 115 hours.
I did take two weeks off when I got sick... I spent one of them in the hospital. Other than that, and the odd day off, I haven't been able to take any vacation (I do take Christmas off and the odd day whem I have to run a personal errand).
Some of this time is spent making sure that we do not violate the GPL when distributing beta versions of our new product software.
Perhaps because many of the members of this "community" (a common characteristic does not, IMHO, a community make), believe they have been shat on enough already to make fighting back worthwile.
And I, for one, would not disagree with anyone who felt that way. No, I am not black.
This is interesting. Unlike Bill Choisser, my face blindness is very mild, but I do have trouble recognizing and remembering faces -- I recognize people by their acomplishments, and recounted shared experiences (including past conversations).
In my case, it manifests itself as an uncertainty that a person is who I think they are: I can group faces into a few generic groups quite well, but am often afraid that someone I think I recognize is actually someone in the same face group.
So, I usually wait for people to recognize me, than vice versa.
I remember when I had the fourth telco pair installed in my old home. (I had 1 voice, one dial-up data, one employer-paid voice, and was adding one employer-paid dial-up -- telecommuting from a dead zone: no DSL, too far for ISDN).
Installer comes in, ask's where I want the jack, and I tell him, "Oh, punch it down anywhere on the 110 block marked 'telco' and I can jumper it to house pair 4." He was so flabbergasted that he even punched down the jumper. Or maybe it was the fact that I had a 110 punch ready for him so he wouldn't have to go back to the truck.
My understanding is that no point on a wall should be more than six feet from an outlet.
So, that means that on each wall of 12 feet or less, one outlet in the middle; on each wall over 23 feet, one outlet six feet from each corner, and every 12 feet toward the middle from there.
Of course, if you have a 14 foot wall, you'd not put two outlets two feet apart in the middle, you'd spread them out evenly.
Basically, you either (a) start 6 feet from one corner and lay outlets every 12 feet after that until you are within 6 feet of the next corner; or (b) evenly distribute outlets every floor(wall length / 6) feet.
In fact, I considered this in an initial run at the problem. There are plenty of opportunities to add IP control fields, including internal otherwise non-routable IP addresses.
However, there is the potential for a problem if routers along the path drop such packets because they see an IP option they do not understand, hence the IP tunnelled through IP approach. Of course, a separate control field would be more efficient.
On the issue of using NAT tricks to make server access work, this will be a problem for some protocols, like IPSec, IIRC. I think IPIP tunnelling will handle that as well.
Yes, such tunnelling is hokey, and the overhead bad, but no worse than say, PPPoE (which, IMHO is a real protocol abortion). If you want to be lean and mean get a real IP address.
This should be considered as prior art for anyone thinking about patenting the idea.
While the solution presented is interesting, it suffers from the problem of requiring a third party relay network. Basically, what this does is relay traffic over a virtual network to the non-publicly reachable hosts. The trouble stems from having to rely on a third party to maintain this network.
A far better approach, IMHO, is for the client to establish a tunnel for this purpose with the assiatance of server side tunnelling endpoints. Yes, this requires server side work, as well as client-side work, but eliminates the need for a third party to set up the tunnel. Of course, it does not preclude a third party from doing this, if desired.
Basically, the client runs a DNS proxy that returns LOCAL IP addresses for remote hosts that are otherwise inaccessable through the internet, and routes traffic to such addresses via an appropriate tunnel.
The client DNS proxy knows when a remote host needs to be contacted via such a tunnel by mapping the remote host domain name to an IP address in the public DNS database and then reverse resolving that same IP address. If the names do not match, it is presumed that the IP address provided is that for a server-side "inverse NAT" proxy.
This server-side inverse NAT proxy is contacted (by the client-side DNS proxy) to resolve the same remote host domain name to an INTERNAL IP address routable only in the server-side network (basically, a private non-routable IP address).
Armed with a server-side private IP address, and the means to generate a client-side private IP address, unique in their respective (server, and client) IP address spaces, it then becomes trivial to proxy traffic between the two using a virtual network set up between the two proxies.
I've been planning to come up with a proof of concept implementation for GNU/Linux (to be essentially free for use in GPL code, but not otherwise), but lack the time. Anyone interested in helping is strongly urged to contact me.
Have got patches to RH 6.2 Anaconda that permit this, right down to selecting kickstart options depending on whether console is serial terminal, or keyboard/monitor.
Will also (re)format automatically IFF an "auto-install" dongle is in place on serial port. (Don't want to inadvertantly reformat just by booting of a CD now, do we?)
Anyway, when product that uses this is released, the patches will be available with it (and possibly separately) (cause Anaconda is GPL).
people don't become prosperous through socialism or caring and sharing...
Perhaps not, but communal cooperatives, that is, pooling resources to produce something that benefits all, certainly reduces the overhead of living. It isn't as much about "getting rich", as it is about "living cheaper". This, of course, creates opportunities for secondary wealth creation through savings and investment, which may lead to prosperity.
The interesting thing about software is that, unlike most resources, once created, it is not scarce, and can be duplicated at very low marginal cost. As a result, the barrier to becoming a member of a cooperative open source software community is very low: it can afford leaches, as it were, and STILL benefit it's contributing members. This directly leads to reduced costs of scrutinizing just who should join the community.
Licenses like the GPL, which keep open source code free, serve to encourage community participation, via that direct benefit, and the comfort that one's "free" (as in beer) code won't be usurped for someone else's profit.
So, while the open source model might be called communal, or cooperative, it is certainly not communist, in that there is an aparatus that oversees what will be coded for who's benefit. Nor is it socialist: there is no agent that forces participatory behaviour for the greater good.
Indeed, voluntary communities that practice "sharing and caring" to reduce some burden on each individual member, are no different than organizations that assemble for profit motives. Socialism and Communism rear their ugly heads when participation is no longer voluntary
There is nothing more important than wealth creation.
Depends. Reducing overhead strikes me as a necessary prerequesite to creating and preserving wealth (i.e. profit) in a competitive market place.
Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
How generous of Mr. Gates. Unfortunately, the wealth that Microsoft creates stems from the reduction in overhead of the tasks it performs. Otherwise, why would anyone buy, sorry, license, it. The time saved is deemed worth the money spent. So, Microsoft's revenue is some fraction of this wealth. Subtract their expenses (which are lower than those who can't create software as well, enabling the venture to be profitable), and something is left over. A small fraction of this is redistributed (a large fraction, in a socialist society, due to taxation).
With free software, the same wealth is created, but it remains where it was created, in terms of time and effort freed from the automation the software provides. This translates into increased efficiency, more free time, greater opportunity to spend the time earning money (ask anyone who does their "books" by hand about this), which eventually puts money into the economy. So, the same wealth is created, but we do not notice because there isn't a clear concentration point.
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country.
Again, it isn't socialist, because participation is voluntary. Created wealth does not have to be concentrated to be beneficial. Some would argue that extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing. I agree, and happen to see government wealth concentration, with the stated goal of beneficial redistribution, as the flip side of the corporate wealth creation coin. I'd rather see small amounts of wealth created in many places than concentrated in one.
If this happens, you get barely affluent
people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't pursue any philanthropic activity.
Actually, most charity comes from individuals, either in the obvious form of money, or other forms of assistance. It just isn't as obvious as multi-million or -billion dollar donations.
For the record, I have no opposition to companies becoming wealthy because they invent "the next big thing". However, such wealth concentration is not stable -- you can't keep accumulating wealth unless others continue to perceive value in what you provide. Left to themselves, most monopolies do disappear (I'm told the average life span is 15 years) If the monopolist "abuses" their position to raise profits, this creates incentive for others to compete. Of course, government monopoly-busting activities serve the interests of those for whom alternatives wouldn't come "fast enough". The market is efficient in the long term, but may be slow to respond in the short term. Libertarians like myself would argue that intervening in the natural process does more harm than good in the long-term. Of course, I acknowledge that it is necessary to eat today as opposed to next week, as it were, and this leads to interventionist policies (Personally, I'd prefer "ability to get food insurance" instead).
So, the prospect of riches does allow a vibrant society to progress through the pursuit of innovation. However, much innovation has come about because of accident, or inspiration, without a wealth motive. I see the rate of innovation decreasing as the wealth previous innovations created accumulates in a concentrated spot. So, for-profit ventures are useful, but not when they reach the point of stagnation, or using accumulated wealth to stave off natural decay or competition (corporatism).
In the end, I see value both in community cooperatives and for-profit ventures, and I belive that it is healthy for a society when either option is available to make one's life easier.
Ya, know, in the old days, when a bunch of people would get riled up about something, they'd protest outside the offices of the offending organization. What about doing this electronically?
We all know how a dDOS attack works. An individual floods some networked service, usually using compromised systems to aid in the dirty work. This is of course, wrong. But, what if an electronic service is shut down, not because of an individual, but rather because of the combined requests of many individuals, who, of their own accord, wish to use it? When this happens accidentally, we call it slashdotting. Would it be wrong if it happened on purpose?
Consider. I am upset with some company's policy. So, I fire off an email telling them so. Others may too. What if we organized and did it at the same time?
Imagine if you will a chatroom where people can voice their beefs. Imagine further that a gathering is organized in that room at a particular time to attract a virtual crowd. Finally, imagine that if you, as an individual agree with a particluar comment made at a particular time, you could click a button near the comment, causing it to be emailed to the address of the offender, with the pre- and post-amble of your choice. Or pressing another button would pull up their web page to see if they recanted their offensive possition. A human DDOS attack, if you will.
Clearly no individual action will harm the target systems, but the aggregate effect could be staggering. And, we're all acting of our own volition (though I see a bot somewhere in all this, he he), peacefully protesting.
I suppose that actions could be taken against the organizers of such an event, but what if it's relatively spontaneous? Someone posts a Slashdot article about a nasty practice, and people start to gather "outside the web site and mail server", as it were.
Could action be taken against the developper of the technilogy (the e-protest chat client)? If so, then action would have to be taken against anyone who facilitates the forming of a crown (city planners, road builders, etc.).
IIRC, I send the EFF some $200 (2x$100) since this all started; specifically to help fight this case.
Certainly, it isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but I like to think that it helps some.
Seeing quality work like this brief encourages me to believe that I'm getting my money's worth and makes it more likely that I'll donate more in the future.
I remember someone offering to buy me a book after I helped them with a problem. Without blinking, I selected "The Art of Computer Programming," D.E. Knuth. He happily paid (at the time CA$127.50) for all three volumes.
It's the equivalent of one hell of an expensive loan, if you do a financial analysis: the 'loan' part comes from the premium you pay for the service over market rates for the same service.
That said, there are times when this might make sense. When I moved to the U.S. I took a loss on my house in Canada (which was in a real estate slump at the time), and so had to accept a 95% LTV mortgage. Yup, you said it, PMI.
'Course the difference is that I can apply extra cash each month against the mortgage without penalty (and thus extricate myself from PMI real soon now) -- for me, cash on hand was the problem, and not a revenue stream. You can't pay MSN "extra" to make them go away sooner.
Still, if online chatting and email take the place of long distance phone calls, or other expense, the MSN "deal" might be worth it for some people who would otherwise might not be able to get an adequate computer. It is sad though, that the cost of entry is greatest for those who can least afford it. Perhaps a cooperative that provides financing to such people can reduce this burden.
Consider a secure process that modulates use of swap space. This affects the running performance of other, non-secure processes. Measureing your own running performance allows you to use such a method for inter (secure to non-secure) process communication.
Basically, ANY time you share a resource, you can monitor how others use it. The CPU is such a resource.
I am a libertarian. Philosophically, my libertarian views stem from contractarianism. So, it should come as no surprise that I consider this a very good article. But, it strikes the mark a bit bluntly.
I am not opposed to patents -- restricting others from exploiting my idea... as long as those others have agreed to do so.
From a contractarian perspective, actions are either moral, immoral or amoral.
A moral action is one where those involved agree to the action. If you believe that prostitution, or illicit drug use have little measurable effect on non-participants, then these are moral acts because the participants engage in the action willingly. Many libertarians who base their political views on ethical contractarianism accept prima facie prostitution and drug use as acceptable.
An immoral action is one where there is no concent between participants. Rape is an immoral act.
An amoral actionm is one where concent can not be determined. Generally, any law passed by government is amoral.
So, patents are fine, for those who accept their associated restrictions. One can imagine a drug company, for example, coming up with a cure for AIDS, but only offering it to affiliate hospitals that accept their terms, including scrutinizing administration to patients, to avoid copycats.
Many new ideas are the result of millions of dollars worth of research, even though they are "obvious" once discovered. Traditionally, they get patent protection. In a non-patent market, they would require enforcable contract protection.
Would that be better? I think so, but it would certainly be different. Machiavelli noted that any atempt to effect change will be opposed to those who benefit from the status quo, and thus, abolishing patents would be met with much opposition and FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I just don't get it. You are required to make source code available upon request to anyone to whom you have distributed the binary. If you can modify and redistribute, surely you have the source code? How can this be a problem? Remember, it's only for them that want it. You aren't required to force it down the customer's throat.
Well, while we may have the source code, it might not be in a form acceptable for redistribution. We generally build from a source control repository... hundreds of packages at once, or at least dozens, with some already available as source and binaries. Our build processes generally are tuned to this source code repository -- if not makefiles per se, then the scripts that perform many GETs and makes.
The GPL requires the code to be distributed in a a manner that programmers usually use. A straight archive of source packages wouldn't build without difficulty, espescially considering inter-package dependencies. RPM and DEB help a bit, but aren't a complete solution. So, packaging a source distribution actually takes a bit of time the first time around, and is usually not a priority for the lead developers. Of course, in our case, we were aggregating GPL and non-GPL programs and this complicated matters further because WE built both at the same time, but our customers wouldn't.
As for Remember, it's only for them that want it. You aren't required to force it down the customer's throat. -- you can either distibute source with binaries (or make it accessable the same way, i.e. via a web site, or provide a TRANSFERABLE offer to provide it. The transferable part is the rub -- often you are willing to support your customers, but not all to which your customers may distribute binaries -- you want your customers to support those to whom they distribute. This can't happen unless you distribute source to your customers at the same time as binaries because of the transferable offer clause.
Now, in our case, we were aggregating GPL code with proprietary stuff in a commercial product -- separate apps running on GNU/Linux, with some free apps and utilities. But, for the most part, we were not in the "Here world, have some code" business. So, providing source to our direct customers was not an issue, but having to provide it to their customers was.
The sad part is that a lot of the utility code (much written by me) is GPL, but will likely never see general distribution because our customers don't redistribute. I suppose I could ask my former employer for a copy and distribute it myself.
In closing, I want to point out that our circumstance was not the "embrace free software 100%" case, but rather "employ free software to the degree permitted with non-free software". So, we were really free software parasites, in a way. I recognized this and tried to establish policies to give back as much as possible to the community in that environment, the first priority being strict GPL complience. (The second was to make everything that wasn't really a "trade secret", i.e. lots of utilities and simple apps, GPL).
However, further access and work within the company with this modified code, does not, IMHO, count as having distributed the code -- it has not left the control of the company -- it continues to run on company controlled machines. (Of course, RMS may disagree here).
Now, where it gets really grey is if some employees telecommute, and work with the modified code on their personal computers at home. Since the company has permitted a company asset to leave control of the company (except by virtue of employment contract constraints), I'd think that would count as distribution, and I'm fairly certain RMS would agree -- it's very similar to the subcontracting scenario.
1) installing modified GPL code on a machine for a customer to evaluate -- RMS has told me that if the customer controls the machine, it is distribution, but if the code modifier controls the machine, it is not.
We ran into this when installing a system for a customer for acceptance testing.
2) Distributing binaries ahead of source (i.e. to subcontractors). RMS has made it clear to me that this is verboten. He sympathized with our plight, but could find no way that the GPL would permit this. OTOH, in practical terms, as long a source was distributed as rapidly as possible, we would likely not face allegations of violation.
We ran into this when sending "the latest, greatest build of code" to subcontractors, or potential customers for evaluation on machines we do not control. Sometimes we'd want to ship an installation CD, or download updates to someone as part of work in progress. This is a technical violation.
3) redistribution within an organization. This is a real grey area -- is the organization in control of the code or the individuals who have access to it? Personally, I have taken the former approach, but have never refused to give mods to GPL code to coworkers, when asked.
Unfortunately, these people mill about among bona-fide civilians who, while probably as grudgingly accepting of their government's (recognized or otherwise) policies as we are of ours, don't support the notion of raining death upon their counterparts. Do we get them too? To what degree do we hold them accountable for their bretheren?
It is one thing to be pleased that an enemy has been weakened, but quite another to celebrate at their loss of life: it's the extremely fine difference between being glad that another's misfortune might compel them to do less of what you detest, and actually wishing such misfortune upon them to achieve those ends. And, prudence suggests repressing such glee at the former, lest it be misinterpreted, at least for today, and some number of tomorrows.
The big difficulty in all this is the vague and distributed nature of the enemy (and yes, people who kill you and yours have no legitimate objection to being treated in kind) -- just who do we strike back at, lest we descend to the level of our enemies?
Since the problem is distinguishing civil opposition ("we hate you and want you to stop being the way you are") from war-like behaviour ("we hate you and will try to kill you"), perhaps the first step is to force people to choose: "Just who's side are you on, given the choice between those who want us dead, and those who don't?" Note, I didn't say, "... those who like us and those who don't..."? Initial foriegn policy should take a "under the circumstances, who goes there, friend or foe?..." stance, "...cause we're sure gonna beat the crap out of our foes."
It is time for the rest of the world to choose, and mourn for those who get trapped among the enemy.
These views are my own and do not represent those of any other party, employer, family, friends, or government, except by happy coincidence.
Shudder. Shades of:
Please enjoy your trip through this door.
and
Glad to be of service!
A bit rambling, but an excellent post. To bad I got no mod points today.
At Teradyne, we welcomed RMS to educate our developers on the GPL. His presentation was professional, and happily received, by management as well as staff. - Rene S. Hollan
Yeah, yeah, bad form to follow myself up, but I thought it relevent to add that I spend most of my time fixing buggy code written by others.
I did take two weeks off when I got sick... I spent one of them in the hospital. Other than that, and the odd day off, I haven't been able to take any vacation (I do take Christmas off and the odd day whem I have to run a personal errand).
Some of this time is spent making sure that we do not violate the GPL when distributing beta versions of our new product software.
And I, for one, would not disagree with anyone who felt that way. No, I am not black.
In my case, it manifests itself as an uncertainty that a person is who I think they are: I can group faces into a few generic groups quite well, but am often afraid that someone I think I recognize is actually someone in the same face group.
So, I usually wait for people to recognize me, than vice versa.
Installer comes in, ask's where I want the jack, and I tell him, "Oh, punch it down anywhere on the 110 block marked 'telco' and I can jumper it to house pair 4." He was so flabbergasted that he even punched down the jumper. Or maybe it was the fact that I had a 110 punch ready for him so he wouldn't have to go back to the truck.
So, that means that on each wall of 12 feet or less, one outlet in the middle; on each wall over 23 feet, one outlet six feet from each corner, and every 12 feet toward the middle from there.
Of course, if you have a 14 foot wall, you'd not put two outlets two feet apart in the middle, you'd spread them out evenly.
Basically, you either (a) start 6 feet from one corner and lay outlets every 12 feet after that until you are within 6 feet of the next corner; or (b) evenly distribute outlets every floor(wall length / 6) feet.
However, there is the potential for a problem if routers along the path drop such packets because they see an IP option they do not understand, hence the IP tunnelled through IP approach. Of course, a separate control field would be more efficient.
On the issue of using NAT tricks to make server access work, this will be a problem for some protocols, like IPSec, IIRC. I think IPIP tunnelling will handle that as well.
Yes, such tunnelling is hokey, and the overhead bad, but no worse than say, PPPoE (which, IMHO is a real protocol abortion). If you want to be lean and mean get a real IP address.
A far better approach, IMHO, is for the client to establish a tunnel for this purpose with the assiatance of server side tunnelling endpoints. Yes, this requires server side work, as well as client-side work, but eliminates the need for a third party to set up the tunnel. Of course, it does not preclude a third party from doing this, if desired.
Basically, the client runs a DNS proxy that returns LOCAL IP addresses for remote hosts that are otherwise inaccessable through the internet, and routes traffic to such addresses via an appropriate tunnel.
The client DNS proxy knows when a remote host needs to be contacted via such a tunnel by mapping the remote host domain name to an IP address in the public DNS database and then reverse resolving that same IP address. If the names do not match, it is presumed that the IP address provided is that for a server-side "inverse NAT" proxy.
This server-side inverse NAT proxy is contacted (by the client-side DNS proxy) to resolve the same remote host domain name to an INTERNAL IP address routable only in the server-side network (basically, a private non-routable IP address).
Armed with a server-side private IP address, and the means to generate a client-side private IP address, unique in their respective (server, and client) IP address spaces, it then becomes trivial to proxy traffic between the two using a virtual network set up between the two proxies.
I've been planning to come up with a proof of concept implementation for GNU/Linux (to be essentially free for use in GPL code, but not otherwise), but lack the time. Anyone interested in helping is strongly urged to contact me.
Have got patches to RH 6.2 Anaconda that permit this, right down to selecting kickstart options depending on whether console is serial terminal, or keyboard/monitor.
Will also (re)format automatically IFF an "auto-install" dongle is in place on serial port. (Don't want to inadvertantly reformat just by booting of a CD now, do we?)
Anyway, when product that uses this is released, the patches will be available with it (and possibly separately) (cause Anaconda is GPL).
Perhaps not, but communal cooperatives, that is, pooling resources to produce something that benefits all, certainly reduces the overhead of living. It isn't as much about "getting rich", as it is about "living cheaper". This, of course, creates opportunities for secondary wealth creation through savings and investment, which may lead to prosperity.
The interesting thing about software is that, unlike most resources, once created, it is not scarce, and can be duplicated at very low marginal cost. As a result, the barrier to becoming a member of a cooperative open source software community is very low: it can afford leaches, as it were, and STILL benefit it's contributing members. This directly leads to reduced costs of scrutinizing just who should join the community.
Licenses like the GPL, which keep open source code free, serve to encourage community participation, via that direct benefit, and the comfort that one's "free" (as in beer) code won't be usurped for someone else's profit.
So, while the open source model might be called communal, or cooperative, it is certainly not communist, in that there is an aparatus that oversees what will be coded for who's benefit. Nor is it socialist: there is no agent that forces participatory behaviour for the greater good.
Indeed, voluntary communities that practice "sharing and caring" to reduce some burden on each individual member, are no different than organizations that assemble for profit motives. Socialism and Communism rear their ugly heads when participation is no longer voluntary
There is nothing more important than wealth creation.
Depends. Reducing overhead strikes me as a necessary prerequesite to creating and preserving wealth (i.e. profit) in a competitive market place.
Wealth creation allows for true redistribution of wealth. Companies such as Microsoft have made tons of money and now Bill Gates is giving billions away.
How generous of Mr. Gates. Unfortunately, the wealth that Microsoft creates stems from the reduction in overhead of the tasks it performs. Otherwise, why would anyone buy, sorry, license, it. The time saved is deemed worth the money spent. So, Microsoft's revenue is some fraction of this wealth. Subtract their expenses (which are lower than those who can't create software as well, enabling the venture to be profitable), and something is left over. A small fraction of this is redistributed (a large fraction, in a socialist society, due to taxation).
With free software, the same wealth is created, but it remains where it was created, in terms of time and effort freed from the automation the software provides. This translates into increased efficiency, more free time, greater opportunity to spend the time earning money (ask anyone who does their "books" by hand about this), which eventually puts money into the economy. So, the same wealth is created, but we do not notice because there isn't a clear concentration point.
The kind of socialist ideal implied by open source, where no-one makes pits of money is very bad for the country.
Again, it isn't socialist, because participation is voluntary. Created wealth does not have to be concentrated to be beneficial. Some would argue that extreme concentration of wealth is a bad thing. I agree, and happen to see government wealth concentration, with the stated goal of beneficial redistribution, as the flip side of the corporate wealth creation coin. I'd rather see small amounts of wealth created in many places than concentrated in one.
If this happens, you get barely affluent people - people such as yourself, who in the main don't pursue any philanthropic activity.
Actually, most charity comes from individuals, either in the obvious form of money, or other forms of assistance. It just isn't as obvious as multi-million or -billion dollar donations.
For the record, I have no opposition to companies becoming wealthy because they invent "the next big thing". However, such wealth concentration is not stable -- you can't keep accumulating wealth unless others continue to perceive value in what you provide. Left to themselves, most monopolies do disappear (I'm told the average life span is 15 years) If the monopolist "abuses" their position to raise profits, this creates incentive for others to compete. Of course, government monopoly-busting activities serve the interests of those for whom alternatives wouldn't come "fast enough". The market is efficient in the long term, but may be slow to respond in the short term. Libertarians like myself would argue that intervening in the natural process does more harm than good in the long-term. Of course, I acknowledge that it is necessary to eat today as opposed to next week, as it were, and this leads to interventionist policies (Personally, I'd prefer "ability to get food insurance" instead).
So, the prospect of riches does allow a vibrant society to progress through the pursuit of innovation. However, much innovation has come about because of accident, or inspiration, without a wealth motive. I see the rate of innovation decreasing as the wealth previous innovations created accumulates in a concentrated spot. So, for-profit ventures are useful, but not when they reach the point of stagnation, or using accumulated wealth to stave off natural decay or competition (corporatism).
In the end, I see value both in community cooperatives and for-profit ventures, and I belive that it is healthy for a society when either option is available to make one's life easier.
I'd likely PAY for a bunch of those... email me
We all know how a dDOS attack works. An individual floods some networked service, usually using compromised systems to aid in the dirty work. This is of course, wrong. But, what if an electronic service is shut down, not because of an individual, but rather because of the combined requests of many individuals, who, of their own accord, wish to use it? When this happens accidentally, we call it slashdotting. Would it be wrong if it happened on purpose?
Consider. I am upset with some company's policy. So, I fire off an email telling them so. Others may too. What if we organized and did it at the same time?
Imagine if you will a chatroom where people can voice their beefs. Imagine further that a gathering is organized in that room at a particular time to attract a virtual crowd. Finally, imagine that if you, as an individual agree with a particluar comment made at a particular time, you could click a button near the comment, causing it to be emailed to the address of the offender, with the pre- and post-amble of your choice. Or pressing another button would pull up their web page to see if they recanted their offensive possition. A human DDOS attack, if you will.
Clearly no individual action will harm the target systems, but the aggregate effect could be staggering. And, we're all acting of our own volition (though I see a bot somewhere in all this, he he), peacefully protesting.
I suppose that actions could be taken against the organizers of such an event, but what if it's relatively spontaneous? Someone posts a Slashdot article about a nasty practice, and people start to gather "outside the web site and mail server", as it were.
Could action be taken against the developper of the technilogy (the e-protest chat client)? If so, then action would have to be taken against anyone who facilitates the forming of a crown (city planners, road builders, etc.).
Maybe it's time to write some radical code.
Certainly, it isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but I like to think that it helps some.
Seeing quality work like this brief encourages me to believe that I'm getting my money's worth and makes it more likely that I'll donate more in the future.
I remember someone offering to buy me a book after I helped them with a problem. Without blinking, I selected "The Art of Computer Programming," D.E. Knuth. He happily paid (at the time CA$127.50) for all three volumes.
That said, there are times when this might make sense. When I moved to the U.S. I took a loss on my house in Canada (which was in a real estate slump at the time), and so had to accept a 95% LTV mortgage. Yup, you said it, PMI.
'Course the difference is that I can apply extra cash each month against the mortgage without penalty (and thus extricate myself from PMI real soon now) -- for me, cash on hand was the problem, and not a revenue stream. You can't pay MSN "extra" to make them go away sooner.
Still, if online chatting and email take the place of long distance phone calls, or other expense, the MSN "deal" might be worth it for some people who would otherwise might not be able to get an adequate computer. It is sad though, that the cost of entry is greatest for those who can least afford it. Perhaps a cooperative that provides financing to such people can reduce this burden.
Since I work in telecom, Shannon's Law is close to my work, and I'm saddned by his death.
-RSH
Basically, ANY time you share a resource, you can monitor how others use it. The CPU is such a resource.
I am not opposed to patents -- restricting others from exploiting my idea... as long as those others have agreed to do so.
From a contractarian perspective, actions are either moral, immoral or amoral.
A moral action is one where those involved agree to the action. If you believe that prostitution, or illicit drug use have little measurable effect on non-participants, then these are moral acts because the participants engage in the action willingly. Many libertarians who base their political views on ethical contractarianism accept prima facie prostitution and drug use as acceptable.
An immoral action is one where there is no concent between participants. Rape is an immoral act.
An amoral actionm is one where concent can not be determined. Generally, any law passed by government is amoral.
So, patents are fine, for those who accept their associated restrictions. One can imagine a drug company, for example, coming up with a cure for AIDS, but only offering it to affiliate hospitals that accept their terms, including scrutinizing administration to patients, to avoid copycats.
Many new ideas are the result of millions of dollars worth of research, even though they are "obvious" once discovered. Traditionally, they get patent protection. In a non-patent market, they would require enforcable contract protection.
Would that be better? I think so, but it would certainly be different. Machiavelli noted that any atempt to effect change will be opposed to those who benefit from the status quo, and thus, abolishing patents would be met with much opposition and FUD.