Setup Clisp as their login shell. No I'm not kidding it actually is possible, see http://clisp.cons.org/clash.html
Although it is security through obscurity, you'll be hard pressed find a more amusing setup, and to top it off it's more painful for the user. By security by obscurity standards you'll be hard pressed to do much better - they have to solve the chicken egg problem of getting to the man pages to figure out the command prompt. And that's the advanced users.
I have this great mental image of a black hat trying to run his newfangled worm on a machine with a clisp prompt...:-)
You DID contact the author and discuss your problem, right? There are often ways around these difficulties - offer to license the code non-exclusively for this purpose and pay some $$$, as him/her to release a version under lgpl or some otherwise usable license, etc. If there's more than one author it can be hard, but there are often ways to work this stuff out.
I agree that government funded code should be more widely available than GPL - I have no inherant problem with companies using it to make their own stuff better. After all, they pay taxes too. But the original code must remain free, and allow free derivative works. That's the key point.
BS. Public good != commercial software. People CAN use his software, just on his own terms. That is EXACTLY what commercial software does, using considerably more restrictive licenses. GPL simply demands payment in the form of giving back to the community, rather than money.
You sound like you're saying since some definition of public good overrides his desire to license HIS code under GPL, so anyone should be able to do whatever they like with his code. If this is what you ment to convey, I'll have to go dig up a cluestick...
I think the point of the GPL is not that you can't sell it (you can) but that you can't freeload off of someone else's work. Don't like that? Then contact the original author (who holds copyright and isn't bound by the GPL on his/her own work) and offer to license the libraries non exclusively and commercially. What's so hard about that? They will probably see it as a good way to fund their work.
That's pretty much the only way on Earth you're going to force people who don't want to learn anything to get up to speed. One way to make the process smoother however, would be to lay out a simple series of steps they need to follow, and write it up into a little instruction sheet for them to refer to until they get the hang of it. It sounds like you'll be writing something like that, but remember simple and clear whenever possible. Golden rules in documentation writing.
Another point which will help (at least it would help ME in such a position) would be to explain to them in detail why these procedures are a good thing and what bad stuff might happen (besides being shut down) if they aren't followed. People may be less resistant to the changes if they know that said changes aren't just time wasting BS.
I guess that doesn't really help you if the people really don't want to learn, period. Then it's back to the "or else" stuff. But you can try to make them at least willing to do it by making them part of the "in the know" crowd who understand why these changes are made. You might find some of them will even support the improvements! So I guess I'd say try to change them from unwilling to willing, which lord knows is easier said than done.
A very good article, but there are a couple of points I would like to make:
Free software development has a different set of standards to work by than commercial software. What this article says is probably true for commercial software, but there the motivation is to make it work and sell it. Free software is different in that selling isn't a factor. Usage is nice, but the most skilled open source programmers are artists. And it shows! We may not have produced a full MSOffice clone, but I'm writting this from a Linux box in Galeon, using Mozilla. I don't have Windows on my machine, and don't want it - Linux is an excellent system. Mozilla is a tremendous piece of work - in my estimation, the rewrite has done a lot of good. Yes we had to wait, but in the end it produced results.
Maybe the results are not so good for Netscape the company, but Netscape the browser is a lot better off. In free software, the program means more than the company, which is a very foreign mindframe to corporate types. Understandable.
But that's why people are interested in a total redesign of X - we don't have to care whether or not it takes five years or ten, whether we will have enough market share to pay costs. It's developed as a hobby by people who love doing it. We aren't sweating timelines or market share. Berlin is very slow, and may or may not ever replace X, but so what? They like developing it, it undoubtedly has advantages and flexibility, and may someday change the world of free software. Same with GNU Hurd or EROS. Totally cool ideas, total rewrites of everything, not fully developed but really neat and potentially very useful.
So while it wouldn't make sense IN A COMMERCIAL SETTING to replace X, in the artistic world of free software it does. And since both X and whatever replaces it can be maintained and work together (Both DirectFB and Quartz can handle X running alongside them, for example, and if Berlin can't yet it will surely be able to) we can be backwards compatible and functional while reaching for the stars feature and style wise.
Or DVD on the better ones. My physics professor got a bunch of these for some reason, so I just scrape off or cover the annoying stickers and have a high quality cd case. I really think they must be getting the cases from the same place as the DVD people. They're even better than music cd style jewel cases since they don't crack as easily, and they're a heck of a lot better than those thin ones.
If they really want to make a splash, why not collect the cases, devise some easy and cheap way to get the stickers off, and resell them by the crate? Making a profit off of junk mail - now THAT would be a story:-)
I see some highly moderated comments that are saying that ssh is no longer to be trusted, and what's left now?
My contention is that there NEVER WAS any software as secure as these people seem to have though ssh was, and there never will be. It's just too complex a game, and there are people who seem to live on nothing but attacking systems. Given that combination, there will be weaknesses found, as long as humans are a part of the development equation.
The situation has been improperly defined by the assumptions we've apparently made. Don't expect UNCRACKABLE software - that's just silly. What we have seen with openssh/openssl is exactly what we should be seeing - inevitable problems being openly discussed and fixed quickly. What if someone were to put a trojaned MS update onto one of Microsoft's servers? Would we even know for months? This kind of crap happens. It's part of the cost and reality of using computers.
Take the rash of reports of vulnerability as a GOOD thing - it's better to know and fix, than wait for a black hat to find it. Of course we try to code and design to avoid weeknesses, but the reality is that life doesn't work like that, and we need to be ready to handle the problems that crop up. Whether or not this is an indication of a design flaw in ssh doesn't really matter either - that can also be fixed. That's what ongoing development is all about.
So don't diss SSH too much. Constructive discussion only, please. Remember, it's free, it helps, and it's only getting better. If you don't think it's good enough, help them! You can, you know - open source at it's best.
No, not for lobbyists. That's what we've got now. I mean the following:
Undoubtedly, Disney would stand to lose $$$$$$$ if Mickey Mouse were released from copyright, and it is in their interests to do whatever it takes to preserve it. I can in fact sympathize with that. It is a huge corporate symbol for them, and losing it would hurt bad.
But in order to keep Mickey Mouse, they utterly trash the copyright system, totally destroying the idea of public domain. Some would argue that this is intended, but I'm not quite that cynical. (Yet.)
Why can't we have a sliding scale, where if a corporation wants to hold onto copyright longer than the default, they pay some nontrivial amount of money every few years past the default time in order to renew. That way symbols like Mickey Mouse, which are still viable moneymakers for corporations, can be maintained as long as they are profitable. And anything which isn't lapses into the public domain. Why should that bother them? A few tens of thousands wouldn't even make Disney blink.
Really, I don't think we are out to grab Mickey Mouse away from Disney. What happened to finding a middle ground? I thought that's what American politics was all about.
I agree it's not unfair, but I'll believe it's not hard when I see it happen.
That may be overkill, but let me explain.
You probably know more about the technology out there for this, so if you say the tools are sufficient I'll accept that as a basis for discussion. (Aside question - I wonder about support for multiple languages, though - are there tools to address that?)
Many commercial sites use all sorts of tricks to add visual effects to their pages, and many did/do not consider the audio side of things. This means re-evaluating their page from the point of view of a blind user. Consider that a larger company may have hundreds/thousands of pages needing evaluation. That's a job in and of itself. Then site wide corrections need to be made. Or, alternately, a parallel site specifically designed for audio may be developed, which would also be a large task. If the webpage writers don't know the first thing about audio display, they have to learn about it. More time and money.
If the tools and protocals do in fact exist, that will help a great deal. But the sheer amount of content that needs to be re-evaluated will make it a huge task. Maybe not for well designed and implimented sites using largely standard protocals, but I guess I'm too cynical to believe that most commercial websites are implimented that way.
There may be an underlying assumption I'm making that you're not - companies will undertake this solely and only to reduce their legal vulnerability. I.e., the want to make it very hard for anyone to even bring a lawsuit, since any legal action at all costs money. I suspect they will worry about people saying that because the site doesn't have feature a or b they are treating blind people as second class citizens. I don't know how you or the law define usable, but unless this law is different from most other legal matters it will need to be interpreted in court. More time and money for companies. So if they reason it out and decide that they will likely get sued in any case, and since so many of them settle out of court even when they could win, they may conclude that the effort it would take to do a good audio presentation of their poorly written site isn't worth the extra time and money.
This is just my take on it. I hope I'm wrong and you're right - it would be better for everyone. And indeed a small effort would likely make a big difference. But in my perhaps overly cynical view it's a lot of work for a dubious monetary payoff (helping blind people use the web better is worth a lot, but doesn't show up on quarterly profit reports) since they likely will be sued by someone regardless.
Problems: Stores might rig their doornobs to download your personal information as you go in the store. Privacy issue. Or someone could touch you, and have all your information stored. Think potential stalkers/criminals/etc. Scary. Of course you could always turn it off, I suppose, but if you forget it's a problem. I assume I'm not the only absent minded human around.
However, there are some interesting possibilities:
A credit card reader could read your body's electrical signal, as it is also scanning the card. Added consumer security. Even cooler would be if each person had a unique electrical signal their body generates, but I don't know anything about that. Either way, interesting.
You could make long distance calls from anywhere, and have the phone read your calling card number automatically when you pick up the phone.
Possibility of electronic "keys" for car/house stored in PDA. Not so good if PDA is lost or crashes, but if you can call the company and say "My PDA is gone - please scramble my house key codes until we can resolve the issue" it might work. Locking the house would be great - simply disable the electronic circuit from the inside and there is no lock to pick. As for someone who tries to crack it while you're out, simply have the system stop taking input for five seconds if it gets a bad signal. With billions of possibilities at five seconds a try, it wouldn't work real well trying to crack it. If you're paranoid, have it take thirty seconds. No more fumbling with keys or those little remote control keychains, either - just touch and open.
Many issues to resolve, but some very cool possibilities as well.
"Everything became screwed up when the tag was introduced and people started to use HTML as a substitute for PDF, and later Flash. HTML is a markup, not a layout language."
A very good point. Unfortunately, most business sites seem to prefer to make their own layout decisions, rather than let the browser do it. That's actually a very interesting idea - a pdf based web. PDF has hyperlinking abilities - with expanded animation support it might actually work well.
Audio internet is not a hard problem unless you are an amateur trying to do a professional's job.
That's just it - a lot of smaller companies and non-profits can't afford to hire a professional web designer. Meaning a real pro, not just someone trained in Dreamweaver or Frontpage. Some of the most interesting stuff on the web is offered by smaller companies. Also, what about individual pages? A casual stamp collector, for example, who lists a few stamps for sale but is not really a full time dealer? Where is the line drawn? That's what makes things tough.
Um, I think you missed the point. Namely, that some lawsuits aren't being undertaken for the purposes of compelling the non-compliant business to comply, but to make $$$.
I agree that making the effort is the thing to do, but even if you do it may not avoid a lawsuit attempting to make money, regardless of the merit of the case. Disability issues aren't the issue, making money easily is. This is just a reason to haul someone with money into court, whether or not they are compliant. Many larger businesses settle just to avoid the fight. Which of course encourages more such lawsuits.
So your points are valid, but so are his - this issue can and I suspect sometimes is used as a money making device. The real issue with that problem is not the issue under discussion, but the fact that businesses settle rather than fight such cases. That's another discussion, but I'll say this about it - my opinion is that if businesses fought and kept fighting the invalid lawsuits, and only settle when they know they are at fault, things would eventually improve. But there is an up-front cost associated with that course of action which is higher than the cost of settlements. And businesses always seem to think short term, probably their great weakness.
"It amazing me at the lack of professionalism in the web developer community for not addressesing this issue w/o legal being required to."
The problem is, many websites are not done by professionals. At a public university, for example - you are quite capable of this type of development, but are all the professors, students, etc. who will be putting up pages? Time is rare for professors, who have already many demands on their time, but they will be writing pages related to the university. Where is the line drawn? Where is the legal limit of liability? Who is responsible? I don't know the answers, so these are not rhetorical questions.
I agree that good web coding practices are a big part of the solution, but look at how many pages don't even properly adhere to the standards for visual display. It's a problem with no simple solution.
I don't know how the law is written, but the technology problems to handle in such a case are highly nontrivial.
Consider. We have plenty of trouble now with websites which can only be viewed in one browser. This is visual display, mind you, which the vast majority of browsers are built to do by default. We can't even follow the standards well enough to handle the default access method well.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Then there is the problem of economnic considerations - without a simple standard in widespread use, implimenting an audio interface becomes costly. It is desirable for handicapped people to be able to participate, but statistically they represent a fraction of the viewership. There won't be money in it, so companies aren't going to be happy about it. This will inevitably show up in the final result.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most difficult point - how do we update the truly staggering amount of content already out there, much if unskillfully written and poorly maintained in the first place?
Total access is a good goal, but the technological tools just aren't robust enough yet to handle it. The law needs to take that into account - this isn't a matter of adding a ramp, lowering telephones, handicapped parking or other straightforward and easily solved problems. Audio internet is a HARD problem, converting content on the internet is even harder, and it's just not going to be happening in the short term.
In the end I think it is a good one to solve, both for the sake of those who need it and the fact that a more robust audio structure on the internet is likely to have many other benefits, as well. But that kind of work takes years and years. I don't know if the legal system will be able to figure that out.
for VNC would be rootless window display. I know it works by basically intercepting the desktop visual signal and sending it elsewhere, but wouldn't it be possible to just do that with applications? I suppose it's quite possible that this wouldn't work (thank you, Microsoft) but if it were workable it would limit bandwidth usage, at least. Anyone know the details of this problem?
Of course, that wouldn't let us do our favorite trick - freaking people out when they see a computer doing work by itself! More people know about it now, of course, but if you can find someone who doesn't know, and don't warn them ahead of time, the reactions can be quite interesting.:-)
OK, I should have been clearer. For the vast majority of what computers are used for by the general business and home user, the Pentium II will do the job with little to no waiting, at least with Windows 98 and Office 97. This includes:
Word Processing Spreadsheet Web Browsing Email Instant Messaging
In all my experience, these are the most popular uses for home computers, and also cover much of the spectrum for any non technical and non graphics use. Hence this is where I set my bar, perhaps inaccurately, but I tried to pick the processor at which the above tasks with Windows 98 era software could do with very little visible waiting by the user. Maybe it isn't the Pentium II, but I'd be surprised if much more was needed. There are without question tasks that need mucho power - I listed a few myself. But for the MAJORITY, which is what drives bulk sales and thus the market, there is no such need. Hence the market slowdown, relative to a couple years ago.
And you make a valid point about the Mac. For basic functionality in the tasks above, it is probably sufficiently capable to do the work, if a bit slowly. However, most people use Windows, which eats more resources than it should. I am working from the basis of Windows 98 being the most common installed OS. That may not be as valid with Me and XP out now, I don't know. But as you point out, much could be done on the original Macs. Heck, we did a lot with 386 machines. It's amazing what you can do with limited resources at need. Eye candy is nice, and I'd hate to use a computer without it, but if you strip the interface down to the mid eighties concepts you can get a lot of milage and functionality out of the system without too much trouble. It might be less fun, though.
Actually, I'd argue for most users the Pentium II was the point where things got fast enough to be usable. For paper writing, email and web, a Pentium II will do just fine. I know because I've been able to do all of these on a Pentium 200, which is significantly slower. (granted I was using Linux, but still.)
Where processor speed helps in my experience is a) heavy duty mathematical software and b) compiling software. For graphics, acceleration cards do far more than a processor upgrade, and memory is also a common bottleneck (or was - with the really cheap memory we have now I suspect it's less of a problem.) A fast processor can help if you have lots of excess toys running, but for doing your job the Pentium II was when that task was effectively solved.
There is a reason the computer market is saturating. People don't feel the need to upgrade so much. If they upgrade their software, it may demand more resources, but people don't feel the need to use Office XP or whatever if 97 does the job. And despite what we all think of Microsoft, it does do the job. Hence Microsoft's consideration of subscription licenses - their revenue stream is likely falling off somewhat, or at least not growing as fast.
Don't confuse Want with Need. From a marketing standpoint they may look the same, but they actually aren't. In a recession we notice that fact more.
If they're taking him seriously, they're even more insane than I thought! (I got a headache just trying to read it!) Although, it would explain a lot about Hollywood...
The only movie I've seen this guy work well in was The Matrix, basically because he was perfect for the roll without needing to act. (Ok, I was entertained somehow by Speed, but don't ask me why. I haven't figured it out.)
In all fairness, it's probably pretty hard to find someone who can play the role. My take on it is that they should find some actor who isn't known to the public. If someone has played other characters, it's kinda hard to get over that association. No one thinks of Superman as someone you'd know from somewhere else.
(Sort of on topic - I was very glad to hear the news that Christopher Reeve has regained some sensation and muscular control. http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/09/13/reeves.reco ve ry.ap/index.html There's a real story of inspiration and hope. My hat's off to him. This is why you never give up.)
What might be argued, though, is that long patents on software amount to an anti-competitive monopoly - i.e. the definition of temporary in software is different from most other areas where patents are granted.
If you think about it, Microsoft built it's monopoly up so fast and so strong that it puts all other attempts at molopoly power to shame. The software industry moves very fast, and the lifetime of a product is very short. There's no point in using expired patented concepts in many cases - they are dead and useless in the current market. The market basically out races the patent system, and any company that can stay ahead can keep their monopoly.
Don't make the case that patents are anti-competitive - make the case that LONG patent times are anti-competitive. That can be defended successfully.
Now if fewer dumb patents were granted it might not be as bad, but I wouldn't want to build the assumption of a competent patent office too deeply into the legislation.
"Dancing. A little under three years ago a friend at work turned me on to ballroom dance, and it's how I get most of my exercise now. It's proof positive that exercise is not necessarily a hideous, awful affair."
That was number 4 on "things I will never see on/."
Quick, someone bash Microsoft before it gets normal in here.
I see many people here aren't real fond of Lotus, but what would happen if IBM really decided to shoot the whole works on Linux and release Lotus as open source on Linux/Unix platforms? Here are some points for and against it - I suppose only IBM really knows how they would balance out.
For:
1) Would be a huge boost to their Linux effort, and might convince a lot of companies to get a Linux solution from IBM.
2) As open source, people could finally start to address all the things they don't care for in Lotus. Perhaps a license could be arrived at which retained for IBM exclusive rights to distribute binaries for non-open platforms, and include on those platforms innovations submitted by the open developers. For open platforms such as Linux and BSD, full availability.
3) As a free and open solution, Lotus might begin to do some serious damage to that end of Microsoft's business, and at the same time focus more IT departments interest on IBM.
4) Support contracts could still be offered, and in large scale operations would probably still be bought. Even with an open Lotus, IBM is still the logical supporter for the programs.
Against:
1) IBM wouldn't get any direct license fee income from Lotus on Linux.
2) Legal issues with releasing the code could be considerable.
OK, I can understand that people don't like the idea of forcing people to use open source. I agree that it is not a preferable way to go. But I think there is an important point here beyond the politics.
Governments handle much of our crucial information - defense info, Social Security, tax stuff, etc. I have no doubt that most office workers doing their thing use Office tools in the government, and commercial programs for critical data processing. On the face of it, it would seem silly not to. Commercial software is supported.
But what happens if a major software provider for the government goes bust? No source code, no way to fix problems. That isn't acceptable. Period. So maybe the thing to do is to ensure that, rather than force the government to use open source software, have things work so that any license the government gets for software includeds a copy of the source, and the right to maintain it should the company supporting it go bust or EOL the product. That would be justifiable and a good idea.
Open source has the advantage of already being fully available. But mandating open source is overkill. Mandating consideration of open source, including the cost of adding features to or creating a new project - that I can see and would approve of. Not mandating open source for all uses. Some software is hard to develop in an open environment, such as specialized research software for scientific applications.
Where I can see mandating open code, either BSD or public domain licensing, is in software government employees write, excepting critical security code. If they do some useful database software with taxpayer money, why shouldn't we use it? But that doesn't restrict government usage of commercial software.
Just my opinion of course, but to me it makes sense. Make sure that govenment used software doesn't become unmaintainable (not unmaintained, note, just not unmaintainable) and that government written software is open and available whenever possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Setup Clisp as their login shell. No I'm not kidding it actually is possible, see http://clisp.cons.org/clash.html
:-)
Although it is security through obscurity, you'll be hard pressed find a more amusing setup, and to top it off it's more painful for the user. By security by obscurity standards you'll be hard pressed to do much better - they have to solve the chicken egg problem of getting to the man pages to figure out the command prompt. And that's the advanced users.
I have this great mental image of a black hat trying to run his newfangled worm on a machine with a clisp prompt...
You DID contact the author and discuss your problem, right? There are often ways around these difficulties - offer to license the code non-exclusively for this purpose and pay some $$$, as him/her to release a version under lgpl or some otherwise usable license, etc. If there's more than one author it can be hard, but there are often ways to work this stuff out.
I agree that government funded code should be more widely available than GPL - I have no inherant problem with companies using it to make their own stuff better. After all, they pay taxes too. But the original code must remain free, and allow free derivative works. That's the key point.
BS. Public good != commercial software. People CAN use his software, just on his own terms. That is EXACTLY what commercial software does, using considerably more restrictive licenses. GPL simply demands payment in the form of giving back to the community, rather than money.
You sound like you're saying since some definition of public good overrides his desire to license HIS code under GPL, so anyone should be able to do whatever they like with his code. If this is what you ment to convey, I'll have to go dig up a cluestick...
I think the point of the GPL is not that you can't sell it (you can) but that you can't freeload off of someone else's work. Don't like that? Then contact the original author (who holds copyright and isn't bound by the GPL on his/her own work) and offer to license the libraries non exclusively and commercially. What's so hard about that? They will probably see it as a good way to fund their work.
That's pretty much the only way on Earth you're going to force people who don't want to learn anything to get up to speed. One way to make the process smoother however, would be to lay out a simple series of steps they need to follow, and write it up into a little instruction sheet for them to refer to until they get the hang of it. It sounds like you'll be writing something like that, but remember simple and clear whenever possible. Golden rules in documentation writing.
Another point which will help (at least it would help ME in such a position) would be to explain to them in detail why these procedures are a good thing and what bad stuff might happen (besides being shut down) if they aren't followed. People may be less resistant to the changes if they know that said changes aren't just time wasting BS.
I guess that doesn't really help you if the people really don't want to learn, period. Then it's back to the "or else" stuff. But you can try to make them at least willing to do it by making them part of the "in the know" crowd who understand why these changes are made. You might find some of them will even support the improvements! So I guess I'd say try to change them from unwilling to willing, which lord knows is easier said than done.
read that initially as Go X-10 and think popup adds?
And I thought I was immune to things on Slashdot startling me...
A very good article, but there are a couple of points I would like to make:
Free software development has a different set of standards to work by than commercial software. What this article says is probably true for commercial software, but there the motivation is to make it work and sell it. Free software is different in that selling isn't a factor. Usage is nice, but the most skilled open source programmers are artists. And it shows! We may not have produced a full MSOffice clone, but I'm writting this from a Linux box in Galeon, using Mozilla. I don't have Windows on my machine, and don't want it - Linux is an excellent system. Mozilla is a tremendous piece of work - in my estimation, the rewrite has done a lot of good. Yes we had to wait, but in the end it produced results.
Maybe the results are not so good for Netscape the company, but Netscape the browser is a lot better off. In free software, the program means more than the company, which is a very foreign mindframe to corporate types. Understandable.
But that's why people are interested in a total redesign of X - we don't have to care whether or not it takes five years or ten, whether we will have enough market share to pay costs. It's developed as a hobby by people who love doing it. We aren't sweating timelines or market share. Berlin is very slow, and may or may not ever replace X, but so what? They like developing it, it undoubtedly has advantages and flexibility, and may someday change the world of free software. Same with GNU Hurd or EROS. Totally cool ideas, total rewrites of everything, not fully developed but really neat and potentially very useful.
So while it wouldn't make sense IN A COMMERCIAL SETTING to replace X, in the artistic world of free software it does. And since both X and whatever replaces it can be maintained and work together (Both DirectFB and Quartz can handle X running alongside them, for example, and if Berlin can't yet it will surely be able to) we can be backwards compatible and functional while reaching for the stars feature and style wise.
Or DVD on the better ones. My physics professor got a bunch of these for some reason, so I just scrape off or cover the annoying stickers and have a high quality cd case. I really think they must be getting the cases from the same place as the DVD people. They're even better than music cd style jewel cases since they don't crack as easily, and they're a heck of a lot better than those thin ones.
:-)
If they really want to make a splash, why not collect the cases, devise some easy and cheap way to get the stickers off, and resell them by the crate? Making a profit off of junk mail - now THAT would be a story
I see some highly moderated comments that are saying that ssh is no longer to be trusted, and what's left now?
My contention is that there NEVER WAS any software as secure as these people seem to have though ssh was, and there never will be. It's just too complex a game, and there are people who seem to live on nothing but attacking systems. Given that combination, there will be weaknesses found, as long as humans are a part of the development equation.
The situation has been improperly defined by the assumptions we've apparently made. Don't expect UNCRACKABLE software - that's just silly. What we have seen with openssh/openssl is exactly what we should be seeing - inevitable problems being openly discussed and fixed quickly. What if someone were to put a trojaned MS update onto one of Microsoft's servers? Would we even know for months? This kind of crap happens. It's part of the cost and reality of using computers.
Take the rash of reports of vulnerability as a GOOD thing - it's better to know and fix, than wait for a black hat to find it. Of course we try to code and design to avoid weeknesses, but the reality is that life doesn't work like that, and we need to be ready to handle the problems that crop up. Whether or not this is an indication of a design flaw in ssh doesn't really matter either - that can also be fixed. That's what ongoing development is all about.
So don't diss SSH too much. Constructive discussion only, please. Remember, it's free, it helps, and it's only getting better. If you don't think it's good enough, help them! You can, you know - open source at it's best.
I'd say php is screaming for mercy right about now, given the slashdotting fate has pushed it's way.
No, not for lobbyists. That's what we've got now. I mean the following:
Undoubtedly, Disney would stand to lose $$$$$$$ if Mickey Mouse were released from copyright, and it is in their interests to do whatever it takes to preserve it. I can in fact sympathize with that. It is a huge corporate symbol for them, and losing it would hurt bad.
But in order to keep Mickey Mouse, they utterly trash the copyright system, totally destroying the idea of public domain. Some would argue that this is intended, but I'm not quite that cynical. (Yet.)
Why can't we have a sliding scale, where if a corporation wants to hold onto copyright longer than the default, they pay some nontrivial amount of money every few years past the default time in order to renew. That way symbols like Mickey Mouse, which are still viable moneymakers for corporations, can be maintained as long as they are profitable. And anything which isn't lapses into the public domain. Why should that bother them? A few tens of thousands wouldn't even make Disney blink.
Really, I don't think we are out to grab Mickey Mouse away from Disney. What happened to finding a middle ground? I thought that's what American politics was all about.
I agree it's not unfair, but I'll believe it's not hard when I see it happen.
That may be overkill, but let me explain.
You probably know more about the technology out there for this, so if you say the tools are sufficient I'll accept that as a basis for discussion. (Aside question - I wonder about support for multiple languages, though - are there tools to address that?)
Many commercial sites use all sorts of tricks to add visual effects to their pages, and many did/do not consider the audio side of things. This means re-evaluating their page from the point of view of a blind user. Consider that a larger company may have hundreds/thousands of pages needing evaluation. That's a job in and of itself. Then site wide corrections need to be made. Or, alternately, a parallel site specifically designed for audio may be developed, which would also be a large task. If the webpage writers don't know the first thing about audio display, they have to learn about it. More time and money.
If the tools and protocals do in fact exist, that will help a great deal. But the sheer amount of content that needs to be re-evaluated will make it a huge task. Maybe not for well designed and implimented sites using largely standard protocals, but I guess I'm too cynical to believe that most commercial websites are implimented that way.
There may be an underlying assumption I'm making that you're not - companies will undertake this solely and only to reduce their legal vulnerability. I.e., the want to make it very hard for anyone to even bring a lawsuit, since any legal action at all costs money. I suspect they will worry about people saying that because the site doesn't have feature a or b they are treating blind people as second class citizens. I don't know how you or the law define usable, but unless this law is different from most other legal matters it will need to be interpreted in court. More time and money for companies. So if they reason it out and decide that they will likely get sued in any case, and since so many of them settle out of court even when they could win, they may conclude that the effort it would take to do a good audio presentation of their poorly written site isn't worth the extra time and money.
This is just my take on it. I hope I'm wrong and you're right - it would be better for everyone. And indeed a small effort would likely make a big difference. But in my perhaps overly cynical view it's a lot of work for a dubious monetary payoff (helping blind people use the web better is worth a lot, but doesn't show up on quarterly profit reports) since they likely will be sued by someone regardless.
Problems: Stores might rig their doornobs to download your personal information as you go in the store. Privacy issue. Or someone could touch you, and have all your information stored. Think potential stalkers/criminals/etc. Scary. Of course you could always turn it off, I suppose, but if you forget it's a problem. I assume I'm not the only absent minded human around.
However, there are some interesting possibilities:
A credit card reader could read your body's electrical signal, as it is also scanning the card. Added consumer security. Even cooler would be if each person had a unique electrical signal their body generates, but I don't know anything about that. Either way, interesting.
You could make long distance calls from anywhere, and have the phone read your calling card number automatically when you pick up the phone.
Possibility of electronic "keys" for car/house stored in PDA. Not so good if PDA is lost or crashes, but if you can call the company and say "My PDA is gone - please scramble my house key codes until we can resolve the issue" it might work. Locking the house would be great - simply disable the electronic circuit from the inside and there is no lock to pick. As for someone who tries to crack it while you're out, simply have the system stop taking input for five seconds if it gets a bad signal. With billions of possibilities at five seconds a try, it wouldn't work real well trying to crack it. If you're paranoid, have it take thirty seconds. No more fumbling with keys or those little remote control keychains, either - just touch and open.
Many issues to resolve, but some very cool possibilities as well.
"Everything became screwed up when the tag was introduced and people started to use HTML as a substitute for PDF, and later Flash. HTML is a markup, not a layout language."
A very good point. Unfortunately, most business sites seem to prefer to make their own layout decisions, rather than let the browser do it. That's actually a very interesting idea - a pdf based web. PDF has hyperlinking abilities - with expanded animation support it might actually work well.
Audio internet is not a hard problem unless you are an amateur trying to do a professional's job.
That's just it - a lot of smaller companies and non-profits can't afford to hire a professional web designer. Meaning a real pro, not just someone trained in Dreamweaver or Frontpage. Some of the most interesting stuff on the web is offered by smaller companies. Also, what about individual pages? A casual stamp collector, for example, who lists a few stamps for sale but is not really a full time dealer? Where is the line drawn? That's what makes things tough.
Um, I think you missed the point. Namely, that some lawsuits aren't being undertaken for the purposes of compelling the non-compliant business to comply, but to make $$$.
I agree that making the effort is the thing to do, but even if you do it may not avoid a lawsuit attempting to make money, regardless of the merit of the case. Disability issues aren't the issue, making money easily is. This is just a reason to haul someone with money into court, whether or not they are compliant. Many larger businesses settle just to avoid the fight. Which of course encourages more such lawsuits.
So your points are valid, but so are his - this issue can and I suspect sometimes is used as a money making device. The real issue with that problem is not the issue under discussion, but the fact that businesses settle rather than fight such cases. That's another discussion, but I'll say this about it - my opinion is that if businesses fought and kept fighting the invalid lawsuits, and only settle when they know they are at fault, things would eventually improve. But there is an up-front cost associated with that course of action which is higher than the cost of settlements. And businesses always seem to think short term, probably their great weakness.
"It amazing me at the lack of professionalism in the web developer community for not addressesing this issue w/o legal being required to."
The problem is, many websites are not done by professionals. At a public university, for example - you are quite capable of this type of development, but are all the professors, students, etc. who will be putting up pages? Time is rare for professors, who have already many demands on their time, but they will be writing pages related to the university. Where is the line drawn? Where is the legal limit of liability? Who is responsible? I don't know the answers, so these are not rhetorical questions.
I agree that good web coding practices are a big part of the solution, but look at how many pages don't even properly adhere to the standards for visual display. It's a problem with no simple solution.
I don't know how the law is written, but the technology problems to handle in such a case are highly nontrivial.
Consider. We have plenty of trouble now with websites which can only be viewed in one browser. This is visual display, mind you, which the vast majority of browsers are built to do by default. We can't even follow the standards well enough to handle the default access method well.
Now, we add a whole new method of content rendering. We can't even impliment the main standards properly. How do we plan to ensure that an audio interface can successfully read a website, as well? Keep in mind that this is not what the web was originally designed to handle.
Then there is the problem of economnic considerations - without a simple standard in widespread use, implimenting an audio interface becomes costly. It is desirable for handicapped people to be able to participate, but statistically they represent a fraction of the viewership. There won't be money in it, so companies aren't going to be happy about it. This will inevitably show up in the final result.
Finally, and this is perhaps the most difficult point - how do we update the truly staggering amount of content already out there, much if unskillfully written and poorly maintained in the first place?
Total access is a good goal, but the technological tools just aren't robust enough yet to handle it. The law needs to take that into account - this isn't a matter of adding a ramp, lowering telephones, handicapped parking or other straightforward and easily solved problems. Audio internet is a HARD problem, converting content on the internet is even harder, and it's just not going to be happening in the short term.
In the end I think it is a good one to solve, both for the sake of those who need it and the fact that a more robust audio structure on the internet is likely to have many other benefits, as well. But that kind of work takes years and years. I don't know if the legal system will be able to figure that out.
for VNC would be rootless window display. I know it works by basically intercepting the desktop visual signal and sending it elsewhere, but wouldn't it be possible to just do that with applications? I suppose it's quite possible that this wouldn't work (thank you, Microsoft) but if it were workable it would limit bandwidth usage, at least. Anyone know the details of this problem?
:-)
Of course, that wouldn't let us do our favorite trick - freaking people out when they see a computer doing work by itself! More people know about it now, of course, but if you can find someone who doesn't know, and don't warn them ahead of time, the reactions can be quite interesting.
OK, I should have been clearer. For the vast majority of what computers are used for by the general business and home user, the Pentium II will do the job with little to no waiting, at least with Windows 98 and Office 97. This includes:
Word Processing
Spreadsheet
Web Browsing
Email
Instant Messaging
In all my experience, these are the most popular uses for home computers, and also cover much of the spectrum for any non technical and non graphics use. Hence this is where I set my bar, perhaps inaccurately, but I tried to pick the processor at which the above tasks with Windows 98 era software could do with very little visible waiting by the user. Maybe it isn't the Pentium II, but I'd be surprised if much more was needed. There are without question tasks that need mucho power - I listed a few myself. But for the MAJORITY, which is what drives bulk sales and thus the market, there is no such need. Hence the market slowdown, relative to a couple years ago.
And you make a valid point about the Mac. For basic functionality in the tasks above, it is probably sufficiently capable to do the work, if a bit slowly. However, most people use Windows, which eats more resources than it should. I am working from the basis of Windows 98 being the most common installed OS. That may not be as valid with Me and XP out now, I don't know. But as you point out, much could be done on the original Macs. Heck, we did a lot with 386 machines. It's amazing what you can do with limited resources at need. Eye candy is nice, and I'd hate to use a computer without it, but if you strip the interface down to the mid eighties concepts you can get a lot of milage and functionality out of the system without too much trouble. It might be less fun, though.
Actually, I'd argue for most users the Pentium II was the point where things got fast enough to be usable. For paper writing, email and web, a Pentium II will do just fine. I know because I've been able to do all of these on a Pentium 200, which is significantly slower. (granted I was using Linux, but still.)
Where processor speed helps in my experience is a) heavy duty mathematical software and b) compiling software. For graphics, acceleration cards do far more than a processor upgrade, and memory is also a common bottleneck (or was - with the really cheap memory we have now I suspect it's less of a problem.) A fast processor can help if you have lots of excess toys running, but for doing your job the Pentium II was when that task was effectively solved.
There is a reason the computer market is saturating. People don't feel the need to upgrade so much. If they upgrade their software, it may demand more resources, but people don't feel the need to use Office XP or whatever if 97 does the job. And despite what we all think of Microsoft, it does do the job. Hence Microsoft's consideration of subscription licenses - their revenue stream is likely falling off somewhat, or at least not growing as fast.
Don't confuse Want with Need. From a marketing standpoint they may look the same, but they actually aren't. In a recession we notice that fact more.
"...before they took him seriously...."
If they're taking him seriously, they're even more insane than I thought! (I got a headache just trying to read it!) Although, it would explain a lot about Hollywood...
The only movie I've seen this guy work well in was The Matrix, basically because he was perfect for the roll without needing to act. (Ok, I was entertained somehow by Speed, but don't ask me why. I haven't figured it out.)
o ve ry.ap/index.html
In all fairness, it's probably pretty hard to find someone who can play the role. My take on it is that they should find some actor who isn't known to the public. If someone has played other characters, it's kinda hard to get over that association. No one thinks of Superman as someone you'd know from somewhere else.
(Sort of on topic - I was very glad to hear the news that Christopher Reeve has regained some sensation and muscular control.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/09/13/reeves.rec
There's a real story of inspiration and hope. My hat's off to him. This is why you never give up.)
What might be argued, though, is that long patents on software amount to an anti-competitive monopoly - i.e. the definition of temporary in software is different from most other areas where patents are granted.
If you think about it, Microsoft built it's monopoly up so fast and so strong that it puts all other attempts at molopoly power to shame. The software industry moves very fast, and the lifetime of a product is very short. There's no point in using expired patented concepts in many cases - they are dead and useless in the current market. The market basically out races the patent system, and any company that can stay ahead can keep their monopoly.
Don't make the case that patents are anti-competitive - make the case that LONG patent times are anti-competitive. That can be defended successfully.
Now if fewer dumb patents were granted it might not be as bad, but I wouldn't want to build the assumption of a competent patent office too deeply into the legislation.
"Dancing. A little under three years ago a friend at work turned me on to ballroom dance, and it's how I get most of my exercise now. It's proof positive that exercise is not necessarily a hideous, awful affair."
/."
That was number 4 on "things I will never see on
Quick, someone bash Microsoft before it gets normal in here.
It is a good point, though.
I see many people here aren't real fond of Lotus, but what would happen if IBM really decided to shoot the whole works on Linux and release Lotus as open source on Linux/Unix platforms? Here are some points for and against it - I suppose only IBM really knows how they would balance out.
For:
1) Would be a huge boost to their Linux effort, and might convince a lot of companies to get a Linux solution from IBM.
2) As open source, people could finally start to address all the things they don't care for in Lotus. Perhaps a license could be arrived at which retained for IBM exclusive rights to distribute binaries for non-open platforms, and include on those platforms innovations submitted by the open developers. For open platforms such as Linux and BSD, full availability.
3) As a free and open solution, Lotus might begin to do some serious damage to that end of Microsoft's business, and at the same time focus more IT departments interest on IBM.
4) Support contracts could still be offered, and in large scale operations would probably still be bought. Even with an open Lotus, IBM is still the logical supporter for the programs.
Against:
1) IBM wouldn't get any direct license fee income from Lotus on Linux.
2) Legal issues with releasing the code could be considerable.
OK, I can understand that people don't like the idea of forcing people to use open source. I agree that it is not a preferable way to go. But I think there is an important point here beyond the politics.
Governments handle much of our crucial information - defense info, Social Security, tax stuff, etc. I have no doubt that most office workers doing their thing use Office tools in the government, and commercial programs for critical data processing. On the face of it, it would seem silly not to. Commercial software is supported.
But what happens if a major software provider for the government goes bust? No source code, no way to fix problems. That isn't acceptable. Period. So maybe the thing to do is to ensure that, rather than force the government to use open source software, have things work so that any license the government gets for software includeds a copy of the source, and the right to maintain it should the company supporting it go bust or EOL the product. That would be justifiable and a good idea.
Open source has the advantage of already being fully available. But mandating open source is overkill. Mandating consideration of open source, including the cost of adding features to or creating a new project - that I can see and would approve of. Not mandating open source for all uses. Some software is hard to develop in an open environment, such as specialized research software for scientific applications.
Where I can see mandating open code, either BSD or public domain licensing, is in software government employees write, excepting critical security code. If they do some useful database software with taxpayer money, why shouldn't we use it? But that doesn't restrict government usage of commercial software.
Just my opinion of course, but to me it makes sense. Make sure that govenment used software doesn't become unmaintainable (not unmaintained, note, just not unmaintainable) and that government written software is open and available whenever possible.