Read again... Was the intended goal of his actions to disrupt 911 services or was the intended goal getting the others in trouble? If the latter the 911 disruptions were nothing more than collateral damage.... I am not saying that the 911 disruption shouldn't be accounted to him, just that it wasn't terrorism.
I think for something to be called terrorism there needs to be atleast some intend... This guy never intended to disrupt 911 services, he intended his 18 victims to have problems... While not nice it still isn't anywere near terrorism.
Although you could say the same about the apache group... they don't decide it either...
Right now we have the apache group saying: 'You shouldn't just accept anybodies interpetration, oh by the way here is ours, you should accept ours without doubt'
Actually coax was designed with high frequencies in mind....The problem with cable tv systems is that they were not designed for signals going both ways, the coax cables don't mind.
Also POTS lines are used for carying frequencies far higher than the 50/60 Hz of the power system. Most modern POTS systems use twisted pair cabling that are pretty good for transporting RF.
Okay, so you say you are valuable during emergency situations, but if the power was out, then there would be no interference with your signals. So you could still be used during emergencies.
So when the power is out we can talk... with whom??? All the other suckers were the power happens to be out?
They promised linux support when they announced the chipset....
You seriously want to sent them a message saying 'Yay intel! Although you have been lying for over a year and still aren't supporting linux as promised we are going to buy your things to show there is a market full of idiots that buy your stuff no matter what lies you tell..."
Except for the fact that they have been promising to support linux for almost a year already.... If they had just released some specs how long ago do you think I would have been able to fully use my centrino based laptop?
The rhetoric of "selling licenses is so old sk00L... now we make our money from servicing those programs and coding customizations" has been proven false. Don't people realize that *those* tasks can easily be outsourced too? There's always some talented person in some corner of the world who's willing to work for a few dollars cheaper than you are. By giving up control over who gets to sell your product that you developed, you are essentially coding yourself into a wonderful unemployment situation.
This argument has nothing to do with free software... There will also be some talented person in some corner of the world who is willing to produce proprietry software for a few dollars cheaper. Welcome to the capitalistic world.
Add to that that most software is already custom written instead of the 'license selling' you mention... Practically every above average company has tons of custom software. And think about all the embedded stuff. The licensed 'desktop' stuff is the most visible, but only a small part of the software bussiness and an even smaller part of the IT bussiness as most shops that are in the 'IT' bussiness are really just implementing and managing premade sollutions.
Why would I have to prove this 'cosmic egg' to counter creationism? With all the evidence sugesting that there was some big thing a few bilion years ago it is a lot more convincing.... Certainly more than the creationist view that argues that somehow this god being just existed (no explaination whatsoever) no questions asked. There are several theories about what was before the big bang... And some that say you simply can't know because the laws of physics didn't exist yet... All give more prove than creationism or take just as much fait to believe.
I have seen far more evidence that supports evolution than creation.... Funny how people can see such differences.... About the only thing creationists have as evidence is 'Because the book says so' and not so long ago it would be followed by 'and if you don't believe us were gonna burn ya' Seriously, what evidence are you basing your creation theory on? The majority oppinion of the people around you? My evidence is a bunch of skeletons showing the various stages of evolution, got anything better?
Because then you would have several layers of old junk that would have to be maintained. Add to that that this compatibility layer will get increasingly difficult and complex since the underlaying architecture will continue to evolve and you end up with a nightmare for the poor bastard having to do this. And all that just to make binary only driver writters happy? I don't think you are going to find many volunteers.
You got it wrong... There are two parts to this license thing:
One part goes as follows: KERNEL DEVELOPER: "Yes Jimmy you can load your binary only driver but we don't want anything to do with it."
JIMMY: "My kernel crashed!"
KERNEL DEVELOPER: "Told you you shouldn't taint your kernel with this module... Don't waste my time complaining, I can't do anything about it"
The other part goes like this: KERNEL DEVELOPER: "See Jimmy, we use this license called the GPL and because of that all of linux and its derivatives are free (speach). Since some of use kernel developers interprete this license in a way that you can't legally distribute binary only drivers since we consider them to derivative works we won't let you commit a crime"
How often have YOU (The user) developed a windows driver? I was talking from a manufacturer/developper perspective... A company can release a linux driver and keep up with years of linux changes and it still would take less time than a single windows driver.
The 'tainted' message has no influence on the working of your system... So users can indeed do anything they want with it. Its just a convinient way for developpers to say they don't want anything to do with it.
You forget that you need somebody to keep this old API up to date. As the internals are changing this will keep getting harder and harder. You end up with a lot of cruft nobody really wants anything to with only to make it easier on some companies that aren't really getting the filosophy behind linux and free software.
Binary only modules have always been dangerous from a GPL perspective... Its how you interpetrate it that matters, it can range from impossible to only slightly possible. Even Linus himself has said that practictly all binary only modules violate the license. The Nvidia video drivers were the only ones were he thought it might be legal since they were (arguably) developped completly without any gpled code. And a lot of people don't even agree on that. Its not about changing the rules, its clarifying them.
And it was basicly for mouses and keyboards. I don't think anybody ever did anything more with it... Its API also wasn't compatible with the later ones so writting a single unified windows driver still doesn't go...
And we would have to suffer our mistakes for eternity to come.... The reason the API changes is because of improvements, not some secret desire to make live hard on other people....
Some kernel developers (me included) don't like the idea of making functions in the kernel available for use by closed source drivers. This way the module loader prevents certain modules from using certain functions. But the most important is bug reports. If you load a non open module your kernel gets 'tainted' and this is reported in oopses. If you then send this oops to one of the kernel maintainers they can just ignore you. Since you have a piece of unknown code in use in your system they can't do anything usefull anyway.
The only thing that is difficult is that you have to keep up with the development of the kernel itself. As for complicated... having had a look at some windows drivers source code and writting my own linux drivers I can say that it is way easier to write a linux driver than a windows driver. (Even if you have to port it to a new major kernel release every few years)
They don't have linux support, period. They only have a x86 binary only driver and some newbie fans going crazy because they can run quake with accelerated 3d on their system.
Slashdot Mirror
Read again... Was the intended goal of his actions to disrupt 911 services or was the intended goal getting the others in trouble? If the latter the 911 disruptions were nothing more than collateral damage....
I am not saying that the 911 disruption shouldn't be accounted to him, just that it wasn't terrorism.
Jeroen
I think for something to be called terrorism there needs to be atleast some intend...
This guy never intended to disrupt 911 services, he intended his 18 victims to have problems...
While not nice it still isn't anywere near terrorism.
Jeroen
3) They read it yesterday....
It is already on groklaw for a while.
Jeroen
Nah... there just reporting what the rest of the world already knew. Even in the unlikely event of a fair trial they are screwed.
Jeroen
Although you could say the same about the apache group... they don't decide it either...
Right now we have the apache group saying: 'You shouldn't just accept anybodies interpetration, oh by the way here is ours, you should accept ours without doubt'
Jeroen
Actually coax was designed with high frequencies in mind....The problem with cable tv systems is that they were not designed for signals going both ways, the coax cables don't mind.
Also POTS lines are used for carying frequencies far higher than the 50/60 Hz of the power system.
Most modern POTS systems use twisted pair cabling that are pretty good for transporting RF.
Jeroen
Okay, so you say you are valuable during emergency situations, but if the power was out, then there would be no interference with your signals. So you could still be used during emergencies.
So when the power is out we can talk... with whom??? All the other suckers were the power happens to be out?
Jeroen
They promised linux support when they announced the chipset....
You seriously want to sent them a message saying 'Yay intel! Although you have been lying for over a year and still aren't supporting linux as promised we are going to buy your things to show there is a market full of idiots that buy your stuff no matter what lies you tell..."
Yeah, real smart....
Jeroen
Except for the fact that they have been promising to support linux for almost a year already....
If they had just released some specs how long ago do you think I would have been able to fully use my centrino based laptop?
Jeroen
According to the article:
:)
The new sign, which will be known as a "commat," consists of the signals for "A" (dot-dash) and "C" (dash-dot-dash-dot), with no space between them.
This means that the @ is: dit-da-da-dit-da-dit so I don't mind the spammers listning for da-dit-da-dit-da-dit
Jeroen
The rhetoric of "selling licenses is so old sk00L... now we make our money from servicing those programs and coding customizations" has been proven false. Don't people realize that *those* tasks can easily be outsourced too? There's always some talented person in some corner of the world who's willing to work for a few dollars cheaper than you are. By giving up control over who gets to sell your product that you developed, you are essentially coding yourself into a wonderful unemployment situation.
This argument has nothing to do with free software... There will also be some talented person in some corner of the world who is willing to produce proprietry software for a few dollars cheaper.
Welcome to the capitalistic world.
Add to that that most software is already custom written instead of the 'license selling' you mention... Practically every above average company has tons of custom software. And think about all the embedded stuff. The licensed 'desktop' stuff is the most visible, but only a small part of the software bussiness and an even smaller part of the IT bussiness as most shops that are in the 'IT' bussiness are really just implementing and managing premade sollutions.
Jeroen
Why would I have to prove this 'cosmic egg' to counter creationism?
With all the evidence sugesting that there was some big thing a few bilion years ago it is a lot more convincing....
Certainly more than the creationist view that argues that somehow this god being just existed (no explaination whatsoever) no questions asked.
There are several theories about what was before the big bang... And some that say you simply can't know because the laws of physics didn't exist yet...
All give more prove than creationism or take just as much fait to believe.
Jeroen
I have seen far more evidence that supports evolution than creation.... Funny how people can see such differences....
About the only thing creationists have as evidence is 'Because the book says so' and not so long ago it would be followed by 'and if you don't believe us were gonna burn ya'
Seriously, what evidence are you basing your creation theory on? The majority oppinion of the people around you?
My evidence is a bunch of skeletons showing the various stages of evolution, got anything better?
Jeroen
Because then you would have several layers of old junk that would have to be maintained.
Add to that that this compatibility layer will get increasingly difficult and complex since the underlaying architecture will continue to evolve and you end up with a nightmare for the poor bastard having to do this.
And all that just to make binary only driver writters happy? I don't think you are going to find many volunteers.
Jeroen
You got it wrong...
There are two parts to this license thing:
One part goes as follows:
KERNEL DEVELOPER: "Yes Jimmy you can load your binary only driver but we don't want anything to do with it."
JIMMY: "My kernel crashed!"
KERNEL DEVELOPER: "Told you you shouldn't taint your kernel with this module... Don't waste my time complaining, I can't do anything about it"
The other part goes like this:
KERNEL DEVELOPER: "See Jimmy, we use this license called the GPL and because of that all of linux and its derivatives are free (speach). Since some of use kernel developers interprete this license in a way that you can't legally distribute binary only drivers since we consider them to derivative works we won't let you commit a crime"
Jeroen
How often have YOU (The user) developed a windows driver?
I was talking from a manufacturer/developper perspective... A company can release a linux driver and keep up with years of linux changes and it still would take less time than a single windows driver.
Jeroen
The 'tainted' message has no influence on the working of your system... So users can indeed do anything they want with it.
Its just a convinient way for developpers to say they don't want anything to do with it.
Jeroen
You forget that you need somebody to keep this old API up to date. As the internals are changing this will keep getting harder and harder.
You end up with a lot of cruft nobody really wants anything to with only to make it easier on some companies that aren't really getting the filosophy behind linux and free software.
Jeroen
Binary only modules have always been dangerous from a GPL perspective...
Its how you interpetrate it that matters, it can range from impossible to only slightly possible.
Even Linus himself has said that practictly all binary only modules violate the license.
The Nvidia video drivers were the only ones were he thought it might be legal since they were (arguably) developped completly without any gpled code.
And a lot of people don't even agree on that.
Its not about changing the rules, its clarifying them.
Jeroen
And it was basicly for mouses and keyboards.
I don't think anybody ever did anything more with it...
Its API also wasn't compatible with the later ones so writting a single unified windows driver still doesn't go...
Jeroen
And we would have to suffer our mistakes for eternity to come....
The reason the API changes is because of improvements, not some secret desire to make live hard on other people....
Jeroen
Some kernel developers (me included) don't like the idea of making functions in the kernel available for use by closed source drivers. This way the module loader prevents certain modules from using certain functions.
But the most important is bug reports. If you load a non open module your kernel gets 'tainted' and this is reported in oopses. If you then send this oops to one of the kernel maintainers they can just ignore you. Since you have a piece of unknown code in use in your system they can't do anything usefull anyway.
Jeroen
The only thing that is difficult is that you have to keep up with the development of the kernel itself.
As for complicated... having had a look at some windows drivers source code and writting my own linux drivers I can say that it is way easier to write a linux driver than a windows driver. (Even if you have to port it to a new major kernel release every few years)
Jeroen
They don't have linux support, period.
They only have a x86 binary only driver and some newbie fans going crazy because they can run quake with accelerated 3d on their system.
Jeroen
2 Install new kernel just like any other.
Jeroen