Canonical: Revenue: $30 Million Owner(s): Mark Shuttleworth Employees: 200+
Red Hat: Type: Public (NYSE: RHT) Revenue: $652.57 million USD (2009) Net income: 78.72 million USD (2009) Employees: 2800 (2009)
Yeah, you see, having a business model helps. Someone's gotta actually write that software that Canonical gives away for free, you know...
Re:Using a monopoly to destroy competing technolog
on
Wikipedia To Add Video
·
· Score: 1
Describe to me the harm that would arise against the good of humanity if Microsoft and Apple through customer demand were forced to implement Ogg Vorbis and Theora support in their browsers.
When you're done, you can continue by describing the harm that was inflicted on humanity when Microsoft was forced to start producing a web browser for Windows so that people wouldn't use non-Microsoft software.
unused packages removal - ie, if a a package is only installed as a dependency, and if no package which depend on it are still installed, the package can be automatically removed.
yum install yum-utils package-cleanup --leaves
suggested packages, ie., packages has a list of packages which enhances the package in quesiton.
recommended packages, ie, packages which are not strictly required but should normally be installed with a package.
I don't think so, but as crush mentioned PackageKit will sometimes suggest packages to install.
support for packages deprecating and/or providing other packages
Sure.
support for running configuration utilities and such during installation
No, RPM package installation is completely non-interactive by design.
Normally: at this point RH & <evil company> would enter a cross licensing agreement, but I doubt that RH will do that, it will be interesting to see what they do do.
They might, but to be consistent with what they've done before and with their stated intentions they would have to licence the other party's patents for all open source software (or perhaps all GPL:d software). I think they'd do that, even if they have to throw some cash into the deal as well.
I don't have a clue about Red Hat's intentions, but I do know that they can't not protect its intellectual property without risk of losing rights to it.
NOOOO! That's about _trademarks_. Patents do NOT work that way.
Your internets are slow? Maybe it's not the users' fault.
My ISP provides me with internet access at advertised speeds, and they don't charge me an arm and a leg. I think it has something to do with there being a working market with ISPs that actually compete with quality.
"Doesn't patent-enforcement and claims for damages, etc, require ongoing, active enforcement?"
No it does not. This is sadly a very common misconception. You're thinking about trademark law. Patents and copyrights are valid until they expire or are explicitly invalidated in court or similar.
And yes, this is one of the many problems with patent law.
What is it you're actually patenting? Let's say you invent a really compact word processor built from tiny copper and steel elements. Sure, you've probably done something rather innovative there, making such tiny and intricate machinery actually work. You can go ahead and patent those ideas. because you've found new ways to work with the forces of nature. That's technology. But the rest, how it pushes characters/bits/numbers/whatever around, is just information processing, just like software. It is possible to draw a line between the two, and it's a good idea to do so.
Oh, I could go on for several paragraphs about why I feel IPSEC right now shouldn't and can't be used as a primary means of securing communications, but it was a bit off-topic. Let's just say I tried using it and found that it was too easy to slip and have everything working fine, but without proper encryption and authentication, and that it really didn't solve the key distribution any better - no, quite on the contrary - compared to SSL+x509 and Kerberos. I just don't trust it. When SSL or Kerberos are used, you know when they're doing their job and there's usually a switch somewhere which you can toggle to make the application actually stop working unless it's secure. That's what you want, and it really isn't that hard.
IPSEC is fine though for setting up your VPN between a laptop and a router, or between two routers, but then you're giving up end-to-end security unless you also use some secure higher-level protocols to go with that.
I always find font rendering in Windows to be really bad anyway, whether on a CRT or LCD, with or without ClearType. The only decent setting is with all antialiasing turned off. Maybe that's why so many people seem to dislike antialiasing.
FreeType - with no patent-infringing algorithms enabled - looks much better than Windows and MacOS X on both high- and low-resolution LCD displays and with subpixel rendering enabled.
Yeah. Except they always seem to end up disabling initrd for some unknown reason ("initrd is hard, man..."... not), and then forget to reenable it when they switch back!
> and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Yup. 0, to me, except if I do some forms of kernel hacking.
The statment "Everyone serious compiles their own kernel anyway" is just not true.
> Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground
I call bullshit. I see lots of v6 everywhere. There is IPv6 native in the backbones in Europe, there are ISP:s with v6, there are large organizations with v6, and important servers. From many places I've seen, a traceroute to the SourceForge download mirror in Ireland shows exactly the same path regardless of if you use IPv6 or IPv4. That is, it's native all the way, no tunnels.
IPv6 is here. The only piece missing is home ISP:s (unless you count 6to4, in which case it already works) and getting it enabled by default in Windows (where Vista is almost but not quite there yet).
And why resist? IPv6 is a good solution to many problems. Are you afraid your leet NAT workaround skills will become obsolete?
Hmm, trying to avoid platitudes here... The article isn't completely bad, but the study it's based on does seem rather shallow. I guess each of us have to find our ways to find friends and the internet doesn't change that, it only adds some new ways and perhaps also makes some other ways more difficult.
Congratulations! You get the pleasure of saying "Fuck you, I'm not buying another HDTV set just to make you happy!" when someone tries to sue/whatever you for using the Chinese decryption+D/A converter thingy. No pain no gain, of course, but that's life.
Heh, The Red Hat/Fedora way of builing X packages is actually much more sane than the FreeBSD ports way... (RPM will build everything once and split it into multiple binary sub-packages, instead of unpacking and maybe even builing all the sources once for each sub-packages like ports does (or so they tell me).)
So essentially the answer to the complexity of SELinux is to simply add rules to ignore whatever it complains about? Great:).
Hehe, of course you should be careful. For example, if you need to have web content outside/var/www/html, the solution is not to relax the SELinux protection around httpd, but rather to relabel the web content:
# up2date --install selinux-policy-targeted-sources
# cd/etc/selinux/targeted/src/policy
# cat >file_contexts/misc/local.fc <<END /my/web/content(/.*)? system_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t
END
# make relabel
FWIW, I think for 99% of users standard Unix DAC is just about right on the security/convenience tradeoff curve, and there is/far/ more to be gained from programmatic defenses against errors in code (as OpenBSD, Fedora, RHEL have done) without a loss in convenience.
Possibly, yeah.
BTW, the unlabeled cases - you really want to go label the files concerned instead.
In my case they're files in AFS. There should really be an afs_t though. But see below.
The cifs_t case is simply a fundamental weakness of SELinux (AIUI), to solve that you'd have to go add a cifs_and_http_t type (which seems about the same security as Unix groups, for a/whole/ lot more complexity).
Yeah. Maybe in the network filesystem case we should just trust the existing layer.
Slashdot Mirror
The release notes mentions an experimental ATI driver that you could try.
Canonical:
Revenue: $30 Million
Owner(s): Mark Shuttleworth
Employees: 200+
Red Hat:
Type: Public (NYSE: RHT)
Revenue: $652.57 million USD (2009)
Net income: 78.72 million USD (2009)
Employees: 2800 (2009)
Yeah, you see, having a business model helps. Someone's gotta actually write that software that Canonical gives away for free, you know...
Describe to me the harm that would arise against the good of humanity if Microsoft and Apple through customer demand were forced to implement Ogg Vorbis and Theora support in their browsers.
When you're done, you can continue by describing the harm that was inflicted on humanity when Microsoft was forced to start producing a web browser for Windows so that people wouldn't use non-Microsoft software.
yum install yum-utils
package-cleanup --leaves
I don't think so, but as crush mentioned PackageKit will sometimes suggest packages to install.
Sure.
No, RPM package installation is completely non-interactive by design.
Moblin has about as much Fedora roots as it has SUSE roots and the package management does come from Fedora, not from SUSE, AFAICT.
Given the Microsoft-Red Hat deal in February, are we seeing Red Hat's 'Novell Moment?'"
Oh, you mean the one where Red Hat got exactly what they wanted: A no-patent deal with Microsoft.
It's good that people are watchful of Red Hat, but this article is just an implicit accusation taken out of thin air.
That's exactly what it is, which is why the laws and their interpretation at the patent office and the courts must change.
Normally: at this point RH & <evil company> would enter a cross licensing agreement, but I doubt that RH will do that, it will be interesting to see what they do do.
They might, but to be consistent with what they've done before and with their stated intentions they would have to licence the other party's patents for all open source software (or perhaps all GPL:d software). I think they'd do that, even if they have to throw some cash into the deal as well.
I don't have a clue about Red Hat's intentions, but I do know that they can't not protect its intellectual property without risk of losing rights to it.
NOOOO! That's about _trademarks_. Patents do NOT work that way.
No, there's a Java-based player for Vorbis+Theora. Here's an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ubuntu_install_and_remove.ogg
Your internets are slow? Maybe it's not the users' fault.
My ISP provides me with internet access at advertised speeds, and they don't charge me an arm and a leg. I think it has something to do with there being a working market with ISPs that actually compete with quality.
Of course, I live in Europe.
"Doesn't patent-enforcement and claims for damages, etc, require ongoing, active enforcement?"
No it does not. This is sadly a very common misconception. You're thinking about trademark law. Patents and copyrights are valid until they expire or are explicitly invalidated in court or similar.
And yes, this is one of the many problems with patent law.
That reminds me of this one...
"Reciprocal Cosmology": http://www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/r3/index.html
No, it's not reasonable.
What is it you're actually patenting? Let's say you invent a really compact word processor built from tiny copper and steel elements. Sure, you've probably done something rather innovative there, making such tiny and intricate machinery actually work. You can go ahead and patent those ideas. because you've found new ways to work with the forces of nature. That's technology. But the rest, how it pushes characters/bits/numbers/whatever around, is just information processing, just like software. It is possible to draw a line between the two, and it's a good idea to do so.
Oh, I could go on for several paragraphs about why I feel IPSEC right now shouldn't and can't be used as a primary means of securing communications, but it was a bit off-topic. Let's just say I tried using it and found that it was too easy to slip and have everything working fine, but without proper encryption and authentication, and that it really didn't solve the key distribution any better - no, quite on the contrary - compared to SSL+x509 and Kerberos. I just don't trust it. When SSL or Kerberos are used, you know when they're doing their job and there's usually a switch somewhere which you can toggle to make the application actually stop working unless it's secure. That's what you want, and it really isn't that hard.
IPSEC is fine though for setting up your VPN between a laptop and a router, or between two routers, but then you're giving up end-to-end security unless you also use some secure higher-level protocols to go with that.
I always find font rendering in Windows to be really bad anyway, whether on a CRT or LCD, with or without ClearType. The only decent setting is with all antialiasing turned off. Maybe that's why so many people seem to dislike antialiasing.
FreeType - with no patent-infringing algorithms enabled - looks much better than Windows and MacOS X on both high- and low-resolution LCD displays and with subpixel rendering enabled.
> Any serious Linux user is capable of
... not), and then forget to reenable it when they switch back!
Yeah. Except they always seem to end up disabling initrd for some unknown reason ("initrd is hard, man..."
> and knows the value of compiling their own kernel.
Yup. 0, to me, except if I do some forms of kernel hacking.
The statment "Everyone serious compiles their own kernel anyway" is just not true.
> Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground
I call bullshit. I see lots of v6 everywhere. There is IPv6 native in the backbones in Europe, there are ISP:s with v6, there are large organizations with v6, and important servers. From many places I've seen, a traceroute to the SourceForge download mirror in Ireland shows exactly the same path regardless of if you use IPv6 or IPv4. That is, it's native all the way, no tunnels.
IPv6 is here. The only piece missing is home ISP:s (unless you count 6to4, in which case it already works) and getting it enabled by default in Windows (where Vista is almost but not quite there yet).
And why resist? IPv6 is a good solution to many problems. Are you afraid your leet NAT workaround skills will become obsolete?
> IPv6SEC is not yet implemented.
Use secure protocols, instead.
> Autoconfiguration in a truly native v6 environment (i.e. no v4 at all) doesn't have a mechanism for learning about DNS servers.
I'm pretty sure DHCPv6 solves this. There's also anycast DNS.
Hi Zorin, it's Oddie. :)
Hmm, trying to avoid platitudes here... The article isn't completely bad, but the study it's based on does seem rather shallow. I guess each of us have to find our ways to find friends and the internet doesn't change that, it only adds some new ways and perhaps also makes some other ways more difficult.
Congratulations! You get the pleasure of saying "Fuck you, I'm not buying another HDTV set just to make you happy!" when someone tries to sue/whatever you for using the Chinese decryption+D/A converter thingy. No pain no gain, of course, but that's life.
Do they trust that Windows will continue to have good OpenGL support? Maybe it won't.
Heh, The Red Hat/Fedora way of builing X packages is actually much more sane than the FreeBSD ports way... (RPM will build everything once and split it into multiple binary sub-packages, instead of unpacking and maybe even builing all the sources once for each sub-packages like ports does (or so they tell me).)
Lobbying for software patents: Bad.
Applying for software patents: Sometimes necessary today, but shouldn't be.
Bragging about granted software patents: Impresses stock market, pisses me off.
Using patents offensively: Bad.
Using patents only defensively: Ok.
We'll see what Google does...
Hehe, of course you should be careful. For example, if you need to have web content outside /var/www/html, the solution is not to relax the SELinux protection around httpd, but rather to relabel the web content:
# up2date --install selinux-policy-targeted-sources /etc/selinux/targeted/src/policy
/my/web/content(/.*)? system_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t
Possibly, yeah. In my case they're files in AFS. There should really be an afs_t though. But see below. Yeah. Maybe in the network filesystem case we should just trust the existing layer.# cd
# cat >file_contexts/misc/local.fc <<END
END
# make relabel