> I find it amusing that RMS is looking to ensure that a project will be > compatable with 'Free' version of a language that was created, > developed, fostered and made acceptable by a closed source company.
This was modded up? What idiots.
RMS doesn't give a fetid dingo's kidney what language something is written in, unless it is a FSF sponsored project at which point he has every right to since the FSF wound be maintaining it and has limited resources.
What RMS, and a lot of other people, care about is being able to use a program on a Free Software system. As in, Open Office is Free, uses GNOME or KDE which are both also free, these depend on X, which is Free and it all sits atop GLIBC and Linux (or BSD/HURD/etc)giving a clean Free software stack all the way down to the metal. Now consider OOo2 which adds a dependency on Java, which is decidedly Unfree. If one wants a Free PC OOo2 either goes or gets fixed, that simple. RMS likes OOo2 and didn't want it to disapear from the toolboxes of users of Free Computers and was willing to step up to the plate with FSF resources to correct the mistake of the OOo2 developers. It now looks like a better solution is at hand with GCJ, which is all to the good for everyone involved.
> There are many posters on fark.com who tell of farkers getting > intimidation visits from teh Secret Police
Yo, cornholio. This IS Fark, right? And you believe anything written there? Yea, right. All the zaniness of the Moveon.org crowd without the maturity. And that is saying something. Hint: don't lieten to what the tinfoil hat crowd says, they ain't sane. Not saying that the Secret Service doesn't at least keep an eye on even low threat sites like Fark, but I seriously doubt they would waste their limited manpower harassing a random leftist posting "death to Bush" threats there unless they had their profile linked with accounts on more seriously dangerous sites.
And besides, death threats against a President should be taken seriously, and shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment. It isn't like the odds of surviving being elected President of the US isn't already worse than being shot into space, lets not make em worse by inventing a constituitional right to make death threats against the poor bastards.
Bush II: The Deaniacs are this >< close to launching suicide bombers against him. I'd be shocked if he makes it to the end of his term without somebody taking a shot. And depending on where that last airliner was bound and whether they knew he wasn't home at the time you could say Osama already give it a go.
Clinton: Somebody crashed a fscking airplane INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. Of course he left a trail of blood in his own minions. (Ron Brown, et al.)
Bush I: Ok, so nobody tried to kill him until he left office.
Reagan: Blamo. But they just don't make crazed gunmen like they used and he didn't succeed. For which the world should give thanks, otherise half the world would still be under the darkness of Soviet Communism.
Carter: I seem to recall a nutjob taking a run at him. Or was it Ford.
Ford: See above.
Nixon: Nobody tried to shoot him. Nobody even really wanted to, except some of John Kerry's more extreme friends. Which says volumes about how far public civility has sunk in the interveening time.
Johnson: Well he probably assumed by office by assination, but that doesn't count, does it?
> I'm supprised nobody suggested knoppix at an intenet cafe.
The sound of ignorance..... Anyone setting up a public access PC that allows booting from the CD/USBkey/floppy/blah, blah should be very publicly beaten. Good lord people, I know this is slashdot, but half a clue would be nice to see once in awhile.
> This may be good security research, but unless I were protecting state > secrets, I'd wait and evaluate the risk relative to other security > risks that we find acceptable. I would also guess that the exposure is > minimal compared to other high-tech and low-tech potential information > leaks.
Dude. Do you realize just how many SSL certs are running on servers at hosting companies that are virtualized and shared between unrelated customers? Want to make a guess how many are Intel CPUs vulnerable to an attack like this? So yea, you might not need to worry, I only need to worry a tiny bit, but for some people this is going to be a major annoyance.
> Ask them about any licensing concerns. Note that since you're speaking > with an authorized representative, anything they say is legally binding.
Not in any reading of the laws I am aware of. Even IF Sun forgot to include the standard license weasel wording voiding verbal alterations to the EULA, good luck getting a court to keep a straight face. Get em to put it in writing and I'd be happy to add it. So would Jpackage and they did ask. From the Jpackage FAQ:
What is with the non-free section?
The non-free section contains some vital/interesting applications that can not be redistributed as binaries due to licensing restrictions. The JPackage Project has made every reasonable effort to contact the various vendors and see if an agreement could be made to distribute binaries, but at least for now, the no source RPMs (.nosrc.rpm) has been determined to be the only legal method available.
There's something YOU can do about this: go vote for bug id 4680244 at Sun's bug parade.
> Bullshit. The Linux distros have been free to include the JRE and JDK > for a very long time. They usually give some BS about it "not being Free >as in Libre" or somesuch. Are you one of those distro maintainers who's > spouting this bullshit?
No, I am a distro maintainer who actually read the license before attempting to include it. You should try it sometime, reading that is.
By my reading, as a non-laywer but someone who does manage to follow the unfolding SCO story on Groklaw for example, I am forbidden to redistribute both the JRE and the JDK. The JDK is right out, tis verbotten, and the wording on the conditions for the JRE is pretty damned shaky since White Box Enterprise Linux does not include any apps that REQUIRE Java support. Whether including it to provide the Java plugin for Mozilla/Firefox qualifies is a question that would probably require a court decision to clarify absent clear direction from Sun.
Jpackage doesn't even try packaging the JRE/JDK and it is much more obvious they are including dependent Java applications in their distribution efforts. So tell ya what, since you are so darned sure about this, how about YOU host Java rpms for both WBEL and Jpackage? A lack of easy to obtain (read via Up2Date/Yum/Apt) is really holding back Java adoption in the Linux world so you would be doing everyone a big favor, especially if you packaged it as both rpm and.deb since they also suffer from easy access to Java. I'd be willing to risk linking to your repo, I just won't host it on a server under my control. Otherwise, shut your Java zealot piehole and leave discussion of these serious issues to the adults who have taken the time to actually understand them.
> Also allow me to introduce you to Sun's position on redistributing > the JRE and the rules for JDK redistribution..
That isn't a license agreement, that is misleading propaganda. Try reading the license you click through to download the JRE and is probably included in the download somewhere. Every distribution plus Jpackage isn't wrong. Lets examine the Sun license a bit, shall we?
C.License to Distribute Redistributables....
(i) you distribute the Redistributables complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file), and only bundled as part of Programs,
This is the first clause that is troublesome, is Moz a bundle? If it is, why doesn't Mozilla.org do the bundling as Netscape used to?
(ii) you do not distribute additional software intended to supersede any component(s) of the Redistributables (unless otherwise specified in the applicable README file),
Danger Will Robinson! GCJ + GNU Classpath is intended to replace ALL of Java and is included in White Box Enterprise Linux.
(iii) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in or on the Redistributables,
No issue with this one.
(iv) you only distribute the Redistributables pursuant to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in the Agreement,
Or this one.
(v) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
So me, an IT grunt working at a Public Library deep in flyover country, must agree to pay any legal expenses arising from bundling Java? BULLSHIT!
> Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded..
Yes it can. By each and every person who wants to use it. But what none of them can do is redistribute it. They can't examine it, they can't learn from it, they can't change it. The only Linux distros who include it are commercial ones because a free distro is forbidden from it even if they aren't opposed to including un-free binaries.
Once OOo depends on Java it can no longer be freely distributed. This is seen as a problem by anyone with a clue. There are three, and exactly three solutions. 1) Replace OOo with another of the up and coming Free office productivity suites, 2) Replace Sun's Java with a Free software rewrite or 3) fork OOo and remove the Java dependent portions.
> Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT.
No, StarOffice was bought by Sun and released as Open Source as Open Office. This means they expect Free/Open developers to assist them. However expecting F/OSS folk to help on a project that is no longer useful TO THEM is pretty silly.
> You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.
Yes. Some of us are smart enough to beware greeks bearing gifts. Especially when said greeks are a bunch of buttsiphons like Sun is infested with. OOo is clearly intended to be a Trojan Horse designed to force JAVA dependence. Given a choice of dependence on Microsoft or Sun, I'll take option 3, VI & latex.
> So, we could add a year or more to the release and get the exact same > features with the same performance, the same license (OOo license), and > more bugs.
No, we could get a version that was under the OOo license. JAVA isn't so any product that depends on it is under the worst clauses of either license, in this case the not even resembling Free JAVA license. Repeat after me, JAVA is not Free Software. JAVA is not Open Source. JAVA is not OOo licensed software. if OOo depends on JAVA it is useless except possibly as a way to haggle lower prices on Office site licenses. Which is pretty much all Sun wants it to be, a way to stick it to Bill without really inflicting enough damage to get a violent reaction in return.
IF RedHat can get GCJ up to snuff, this problem goes away. Assuming Sun doesn't start throwing lawsuits to protect it's precious JVM. Sun has to consider Java a future cash cow, otherwise they would have stopped all/most of these arguments years ago by outright Open Sourcing it or at least allowing free distribution of the runtime.
> There is a need for a good, compile-once-run-anywhere format,
Why? Perhaps in the closed source world, but we do something called compile & run everywhere here in the Free one. GNU autoconf/automake is a bitch to make heads or tails out of but it works on a lot more platforms than JAVA does. Oh, and native apps will always outperform a VM. Java apps could run, but don't on most of the machines I use because it is too much bother to download and install it everywhere. When there is an implementation of JAVA that can come pre-installed, then you might have a point.
> Paying teachers would do a GREAT deal to make the teaching establishment better.
How? Explain exactly HOW paying the same tenured incompetents more would motivate them to do a job they are incapable of doing and at any rate forbidden from doing by the politically correct administrators even if they did know.
> The "semi-literate" people would be forced out in favor of more > competent people.
How? Tenure means you can't be fired without an act of God. So what force is going to act to get the idiots out of the system?
Unless you can break tenure, remove the unfit, gut the boards of education of their deadwood and board up every current "College of Education" there is no point in increasing salary. Once tenure is broken and pay can be linked to performance I have no objection to paying the best teachers on par with the best in other professions with similar training and work requirements.
Hint: Once you DO compare Apples to Apples you will find that teachers aren't that underpaid currently so we wouldn't have to find huge sums of cash to make up the difference. They are semi-skilled (being generous) labor working in generally good working conditions (inner city hellholes excepted) at between part-time and full-time hours.
Which just brings up another related rant. What the hell are we awarding tenure to elementary and secondary teachers for anyway? I understand the concept as applied to the university setting where professors are expected to be producing origonal work and you don't want them to fear for their position when they publish something that upsets the status quo. But I can't recall the last scientific paper published by a second grade teacher.
> Most of the PhDs I know who teach math feel it a chore to "stoop" to > the level of the people they are working for.
Yes, we have all heard the stories of the Phd who never actually enters a classroom, interacting only with the grad students who actually teach his/her classes. No they wouldn't be a good candidate for high school teacher, but they wouldn't be likely to apply either, especially if tenure were eliminated.
> MS considers a VMWare install to be a different machine.
I know that is in their typical license crapola and if we also had it installed in a partition I might even listen to their arguments. But the donation license specified it had to be used only on the GLF hardware and only by our library's patrons. Both conditions were being met so any complaints would go to/dev/null unless they got really nasty and lawyered up at which point I'd bluntly ask them if they would like to turn the situation into a PR disaster.
Let em explain to a typical reporter that when we run Office on the donated PCs it wasn't actually running ON that PC, when they would plainly see Office running on said PC. But that we were now going to be forced to remove it because Microsoft was ungiving it to us because we used security software they didn't like. The one thing they (and every other closed source vendor) never want is a news story that might cause typical end users to start reading those EULAs to see if any of those hidden clauses might apply to them.
> I hope libraries take note of this as well as schools... If libraries > aren't the standard-bearer for interoperable Web sites, document > formats, and any other kind of information exchange, who will be?
Well our library was more than happy to accept Bill & Melinda's generous contributions. For the time the hardware was pretty solid midrange and ran our Linux based patron model quite nicely. And even though the software licenses were a joke (locked to both the hardware AND the library but counted as a donation of a full copy) we still ran it on select workstations via VMWare for those who needed more Office compatibility than the Linux solutions offered.
And the server they provided is still in service to this day. For several years it ran all of our world accessable Internet services including DNS, email web, ntp, etc. Now it still serves as a web proxy. Very nice little Gateway/ALR box.
So hurray for the Gates Library Foundation. We aren't rich and a big stack o' stuff won't be turned down at our back door. Yes I know they intended to lock people in, and did at a lot of sites across the state, but that is the fault of those who don't think things through. Besides those people would still be just as locked to Microsoft, they just wouldn't have as many workstations deployed.
Same ol problem of for most people they don't PICK Windows, they default to it without even pondering the question of whether or not there is even a choice to make.
And no, Apple doesn't count for large installs so STFU all Mac zealots. Anybody who hadn't installed patron PCs before Bill started tossing them off a truck certainly would never write the check for Macs. Besides, around here Macs are more rare than Linux boxes since the closest place to see one is a Sears about 50 miles away that puts one out from time to time but all of their salesmen tell you "not to buy that wierd thing corporate keeps sending out".
> giving them what MS wants the PC to be... a glorified VCR.
No, what MS wants is a glorified X-Box. Locked to where only Microsoft & it's select set of publishers (who pay dearly up front and per copy for the privilege of being 'selected') are permitted to release software. Where possessing an unlicensed 'develop workstation' would be a felony. Let em mandate putting the fritz chip in all CPUs and watch how fast they get exactly that world.
> Seriously, where is the average school in po-dunk Mississippi going to > find a quality non-msft admin cheaply when a drop-out could do msft > administration?
No they can't. It is this belief that causes most Windows installations to be utter crap and costs the world economy billions annually if not trillions in lost productivity. To get a Windows installation to even approximate what we UNIX heads call stability requires skilled admins, not paper MCSE drones. They cost just as much or more as UNIX heads of similar skill level.
Of course a Windows admin still can't admin as many boxes as a UNIX guy and they are like AD&D elves, they have that annoying level limit when they hit the wall of what MS reveals unto them and they can't call on the source or just email the developer with a question.
Plus, the supply of Linux talent is rising. I live deep in flyover country, working at a rural public library. We keep several copies of Linux in our collection and they circulate on a prety regular basis.
> Give the money to the teachers to higher a better staff, THEN you will > have more well informed children. God if they paid $60K+ starting to > teach, think of the people they could have instructing.
If the same 'teaching establishment' were in charge nothing would change except pissing away a lot of money to the same semi-literate hacks we have now.
Education won't improve until the unions are broken so the incompetents with tenure can be sacked and people with a Phd in Math can teach without spending four more years learning how to 'teach.' (read jumping the artificial hurdle the unions use to keep their incompetents from competing with those with skill and motivation.)
Education still won't change until the massive overhead is slashed. Preferably by privitizing the schools because so long as they are government run they must be political instituitions. Not that private universities aren't also infested with PC bullcrap but there ARE private instituitions of higher learning out there that actually teach if one is motivated to search them out. WIth a virtual government run monopoly on primary and secondary education that isn't nearly as easy. Unless you are a rich Democrat congressman. (cheap shot)
> I've seen a lot of spin on this thing, that tries to make Microsoft out > to be the bad guy in this situation.
This isn't even a new idea. The sat TV industry has been doing much the same for years. They switch their crypto, the bootleg cards stop and they run an amnesty program where you narc out the dealer who sold you the pirate card and they forgive your theft, set you up a legal account for no charge and often even comp you free service for a bit.
The cops do it all the time in the War on Some Drugs. Rat out the dealer and walk away free and clear.
> This sounds like it's good for consumers, and Microsofts wishes to > track down the retailers that are defrauding customers don't seem out > of line.
Yup, and as Free Software fans we should be 100% behind this sort of enforcement. It is hard for Free to compete with Microsoft when to 95% of their users Microsoft is just as "free" in the sense it either was hidden in the cost of their PC was is warez.
Making closed software actually cost full price is the first step to getting people to consider alternatives. This works both on the end user and the margin squeezed OEMs who sell the industrial warez bootleg copies of XP instead of Lindows. (Or whatever they call themselves today.. can't remember right now.)
> not "Apple bumps the processor speed and makes a > few optional features standard equipment". I > don't get it.
Yea, I just don't get it either. It is just a freaking refresh, and they already carried an Apple refreshes line story about a week ago. Are these paid placement pieces or has Taco & co become so enamoured with their powerbooks they have crossed the line to Apple zealot?
It gets even worse. They didn't even file this story in the Apple catagory where the 90% of us who don't own a Mac or give a rat's rear about what would be a minor story on a MAC SPECIFIC SITE wouldn't have to see it. I smell spamvertizements.
What next, similar stories when Dell refreshes their crappy consumer models? Or perhaps only when they bump the speed on the slightly higher quality Optiplexes? If it is clearly marked as an advertisement I might could tolerate it, but this article blows whether it is a paid for ad or just Apple fanboys gone wild because we don't know which it is.
> Up to that point most of us would have been thinking John McCain would > be running against Al Gore.
Ah, you must be one those politically illiterate types. There wasn't a single person with a clue about politics who EVER thought John McCain would actually be the Republican nominee. Simple matter of mathematics. There just were not enough states with open primaries to allow it. Very few Republicans would ever vote for a RINO like McCain, the bulk of his votes were Democrats who were jumping over to the other side since by that point Gore's nomination was secure. They believed that a Gore vs. McCain race was a win-win scenario since Democrats would essentially 'win' regardless who won.
My God, the bulk of the US PRESS CORPS was openly campaigning for Sen McCain, that alone was enough to eliminate him from consideration by enough Republicans to deny him the nomination. But many fell for the continual yammering about the possibility McCain could be selected that it did change the race. What his candidacy did accomplish was push the center of mass of the republican electorate slightly left in the '00 election, leaving Mr. "Compasionate Conservatism" Bush wide open to claim the crown from the more conservative candidates who couldn't make a believable case for being a 'moderate'.
> So, to clear this up, you are honestly suggesting, that technical > experts have to give up their constitutional rights in order to be > able to do their work?
Reread what I wrote. To restate it, you can't declare yourself to be non-political and at the same time be knee-deep in politics. Money IS speech, giving money to a candidate is a public endorsement and active effort to elect said candidate. This is the very essence of political activity and while every American is, and should be, free to do so, one thing they can no longer do is truthfully say they are not involved in politics.
Or even more bluntly, contributing to a political campaign makes you a part of it. And should your candicate win you can expect political rewards but should they lose the reverse is often true. This is reality, welcome to the world as it IS, not how you believe it SHOULD be.
I did, but ignored it as the usual mainstream media biases showing. ALL political appointments have been political to varying degrees since the founding of the republic. It is just that when democrats are in power, since most pointy headed academics typically appointed to such international scientific posts are also of the same political breed there are fewer arguments.
> This isn't "Politics as usual". There's a term for this. > Political machine.
Exactly. As practiced for far longer than you prpbably care to admit by your party, still practiced to this very day in fact in most major urban (i.e. Blue State) areas. Well times have changed, and as Republicans rise to power we find it slightly less unsavory while your side begins to howl about the injustice of it.
But it is just the wheel turning, nothing has changed except the letters after the names.
> And it's generally considered harmful to democracy.
Well that's OK as well since Democracy is a crappy idea anyway. Which is why our Founding Fathers rightly denounced Democracy as a perversion and instead gave us a Constituitional Republic.
Of course cheap shot aside, your general complaint has merit, that such cronyism has a corosive effect on public affairs and I don't have an easy answer for ya. Wish I did.
Thye filed this story from the "politics as usual dept" for a good reason. Because it IS the usual. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is. Postings made by the political class are handed out for political reasons. Doesn't always make sense but expecting political animals to hand out plums to declared enemies makes even less sense.
There was a time when it was understood that politics stopped at the border, but that time has long since passed. Both parties can share the blame for it, although personally I'd give it at leat 60/40 to the Democrats because a) they have been the party out of executive power for more of the last couple of decades and b) it really ramped up post 9/11.
If you want to just be an apolitical technologist then keep your damned checkbook closed. (Or at least stay under the reporting threshold) Money IS speech even if the 'campaign finance reformers' keep saying it isn't. You can't give a candidate thousands of dollars and then say you aren't involved in politics when they lose.
> Writing legistlature saying tax dollars can't be spent in that way > is nearly the same as legislating interoperability
Not at all. Not any more than the old requirement for POSIX was legistlating interoperability. It just means the government would be saying interoperability IS important enough to put in a bid spec, same as requiring bibbers be bonded, supply a warrenty, or any other purchasing requirement. Does a bid request requiring the ability to read/write DVD+R mean a government mandated format for DVD recorders? No, it just means that government agency had standardized on it.
> We could mess with the free-market system however and legislate > interoperability.
Nope, there is a much simpler solution. All we need do is pressure our congresscritters to pass a law saying TAX dollars can't be expended on software that writes a closed format. But it wouldn't even have to be the government, any dozen of the Fortune 500 could mandate it in their purchasing manuals and the practice would end overnight.
Bottom line: users don't care because they have yet to understand the problem and/or be convinced they can actually change things.
I'm not a pro, just an enthusiastic amateur for now. But I'd never buy a Camera from a manufacturer who is this clueless about some fundamental realities.
1, A camera is a TOOL, not a religion. A good tool interoperates well with other well designed tools from a variety of sources. There is a reason all major camera manufacturers settled on 35mm film for instance. Because customers demanded the ability to buy cameras, film, darkroom equipment, negative storage solutions, etc from different vendors and have them all interoperate.
2. The pictures that come out of my camera are MY property, not the camera manufacturer's. How dare they encrypt MY pictures.
3. Photographs are stored for LONGTERM use. Images stored in poorly documented, proprietary formats kept secret by the DMCA are not likely to be readable beyond the lifetime of Windows XP systems able to install the supplied driver.
> ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are > Proprietary and encrypted.
Would you like GPL source to read Olympus's RAW format? Available from a publicly available site on US soil? Care to revise and extend your remarks?
Slashdot Mirror
> I find it amusing that RMS is looking to ensure that a project will be
> compatable with 'Free' version of a language that was created,
> developed, fostered and made acceptable by a closed source company.
This was modded up? What idiots.
RMS doesn't give a fetid dingo's kidney what language something is written in, unless it is a FSF sponsored project at which point he has every right to since the FSF wound be maintaining it and has limited resources.
What RMS, and a lot of other people, care about is being able to use a program on a Free Software system. As in, Open Office is Free, uses GNOME or KDE which are both also free, these depend on X, which is Free and it all sits atop GLIBC and Linux (or BSD/HURD/etc)giving a clean Free software stack all the way down to the metal. Now consider OOo2 which adds a dependency on Java, which is decidedly Unfree. If one wants a Free PC OOo2 either goes or gets fixed, that simple. RMS likes OOo2 and didn't want it to disapear from the toolboxes of users of Free Computers and was willing to step up to the plate with FSF resources to correct the mistake of the OOo2 developers. It now looks like a better solution is at hand with GCJ, which is all to the good for everyone involved.
> There are many posters on fark.com who tell of farkers getting
> intimidation visits from teh Secret Police
Yo, cornholio. This IS Fark, right? And you believe anything written there? Yea, right. All the zaniness of the Moveon.org crowd without the maturity. And that is saying something. Hint: don't lieten to what the tinfoil hat crowd says, they ain't sane. Not saying that the Secret Service doesn't at least keep an eye on even low threat sites like Fark, but I seriously doubt they would waste their limited manpower harassing a random leftist posting "death to Bush" threats there unless they had their profile linked with accounts on more seriously dangerous sites.
And besides, death threats against a President should be taken seriously, and shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment. It isn't like the odds of surviving being elected President of the US isn't already worse than being shot into space, lets not make em worse by inventing a constituitional right to make death threats against the poor bastards.
Lets review recent history, shall we? (Warning, flamebait)
Bush II: The Deaniacs are this >< close to launching suicide bombers against him. I'd be shocked if he makes it to the end of his term without somebody taking a shot. And depending on where that last airliner was bound and whether they knew he wasn't home at the time you could say Osama already give it a go.
Clinton: Somebody crashed a fscking airplane INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. Of course he left a trail of blood in his own minions. (Ron Brown, et al.)
Bush I: Ok, so nobody tried to kill him until he left office.
Reagan: Blamo. But they just don't make crazed gunmen like they used and he didn't succeed. For which the world should give thanks, otherise half the world would still be under the darkness of Soviet Communism.
Carter: I seem to recall a nutjob taking a run at him. Or was it Ford.
Ford: See above.
Nixon: Nobody tried to shoot him. Nobody even really wanted to, except some of John Kerry's more extreme friends. Which says volumes about how far public civility has sunk in the interveening time.
Johnson: Well he probably assumed by office by assination, but that doesn't count, does it?
Kennedy: Blamo. See above.
> I'm supprised nobody suggested knoppix at an intenet cafe.
The sound of ignorance..... Anyone setting up a public access PC that allows booting from the CD/USBkey/floppy/blah, blah should be very publicly beaten. Good lord people, I know this is slashdot, but half a clue would be nice to see once in awhile.
> This may be good security research, but unless I were protecting state
> secrets, I'd wait and evaluate the risk relative to other security
> risks that we find acceptable. I would also guess that the exposure is
> minimal compared to other high-tech and low-tech potential information
> leaks.
Dude. Do you realize just how many SSL certs are running on servers at hosting companies that are virtualized and shared between unrelated customers? Want to make a guess how many are Intel CPUs vulnerable to an attack like this? So yea, you might not need to worry, I only need to worry a tiny bit, but for some people this is going to be a major annoyance.
> Ask them about any licensing concerns. Note that since you're speaking
> with an authorized representative, anything they say is legally binding.
Not in any reading of the laws I am aware of. Even IF Sun forgot to include the standard license weasel wording voiding verbal alterations to the EULA, good luck getting a court to keep a straight face. Get em to put it in writing and I'd be happy to add it. So would Jpackage and they did ask. From the Jpackage FAQ:
What is with the non-free section?
The non-free section contains some vital/interesting applications that can not be redistributed as binaries due to licensing restrictions. The JPackage Project has made every reasonable effort to contact the various vendors and see if an agreement could be made to distribute binaries, but at least for now, the no source RPMs (.nosrc.rpm) has been determined to be the only legal method available.
There's something YOU can do about this: go vote for bug id 4680244 at Sun's bug parade.
I'd call that case closed, but I know you won't.
> Bullshit. The Linux distros have been free to include the JRE and JDK
.deb since they also suffer from easy access to Java. I'd be willing to risk linking to your repo, I just won't host it on a server under my control. Otherwise, shut your Java zealot piehole and leave discussion of these serious issues to the adults who have taken the time to actually understand them.
...
> for a very long time. They usually give some BS about it "not being Free
>as in Libre" or somesuch. Are you one of those distro maintainers who's
> spouting this bullshit?
No, I am a distro maintainer who actually read the license before attempting to include it. You should try it sometime, reading that is.
By my reading, as a non-laywer but someone who does manage to follow the unfolding SCO story on Groklaw for example, I am forbidden to redistribute both the JRE and the JDK. The JDK is right out, tis verbotten, and the wording on the conditions for the JRE is pretty damned shaky since White Box Enterprise Linux does not include any apps that REQUIRE Java support. Whether including it to provide the Java plugin for Mozilla/Firefox qualifies is a question that would probably require a court decision to clarify absent clear direction from Sun.
Jpackage doesn't even try packaging the JRE/JDK and it is much more obvious they are including dependent Java applications in their distribution efforts. So tell ya what, since you are so darned sure about this, how about YOU host Java rpms for both WBEL and Jpackage? A lack of easy to obtain (read via Up2Date/Yum/Apt) is really holding back Java adoption in the Linux world so you would be doing everyone a big favor, especially if you packaged it as both rpm and
> Also allow me to introduce you to Sun's position on redistributing
> the JRE and the rules for JDK redistribution..
That isn't a license agreement, that is misleading propaganda. Try reading the license you click through to download the JRE and is probably included in the download somewhere. Every distribution plus Jpackage isn't wrong. Lets examine the Sun license a bit, shall we?
C.License to Distribute Redistributables.
(i) you distribute the Redistributables
complete and unmodified (unless otherwise specified in
the applicable README file), and only bundled as part
of Programs,
This is the first clause that is troublesome, is Moz a bundle? If it is, why doesn't Mozilla.org do the bundling as Netscape used to?
(ii) you do not distribute additional
software intended to supersede any component(s) of the
Redistributables (unless otherwise specified in the
applicable README file),
Danger Will Robinson! GCJ + GNU Classpath is intended to replace ALL of Java and is included in White Box Enterprise Linux.
(iii) you do not remove or
alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in
or on the Redistributables,
No issue with this one.
(iv) you only distribute
the Redistributables pursuant to a license agreement
that protects Sun's interests consistent with the
terms contained in the Agreement,
Or this one.
(v) you agree to
defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and
against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement
amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or
action by any third party that arises or results from
the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or
Software.
So me, an IT grunt working at a Public Library deep in flyover country, must agree to pay any legal expenses arising from bundling Java? BULLSHIT!
> Hey ASSHOLES, the current Java source code can be downloaded..
Yes it can. By each and every person who wants to use it. But what none of them can do is redistribute it. They can't examine it, they can't learn from it, they can't change it. The only Linux distros who include it are commercial ones because a free distro is forbidden from it even if they aren't opposed to including un-free binaries.
Once OOo depends on Java it can no longer be freely distributed. This is seen as a problem by anyone with a clue. There are three, and exactly three solutions. 1) Replace OOo with another of the up and coming Free office productivity suites, 2) Replace Sun's Java with a Free software rewrite or 3) fork OOo and remove the Java dependent portions.
> Not to mention that OpenOffice is Sun's baby. They PAID MONEY FOR IT.
No, StarOffice was bought by Sun and released as Open Source as Open Office. This means they expect Free/Open developers to assist them. However expecting F/OSS folk to help on a project that is no longer useful TO THEM is pretty silly.
> You've been given a gift and all you can do is look it in the mouth.
Yes. Some of us are smart enough to beware greeks bearing gifts. Especially when said greeks are a bunch of buttsiphons like Sun is infested with. OOo is clearly intended to be a Trojan Horse designed to force JAVA dependence. Given a choice of dependence on Microsoft or Sun, I'll take option 3, VI & latex.
> So, we could add a year or more to the release and get the exact same
> features with the same performance, the same license (OOo license), and
> more bugs.
No, we could get a version that was under the OOo license. JAVA isn't so any product that depends on it is under the worst clauses of either license, in this case the not even resembling Free JAVA license. Repeat after me, JAVA is not Free Software. JAVA is not Open Source. JAVA is not OOo licensed software. if OOo depends on JAVA it is useless except possibly as a way to haggle lower prices on Office site licenses. Which is pretty much all Sun wants it to be, a way to stick it to Bill without really inflicting enough damage to get a violent reaction in return.
IF RedHat can get GCJ up to snuff, this problem goes away. Assuming Sun doesn't start throwing lawsuits to protect it's precious JVM. Sun has to consider Java a future cash cow, otherwise they would have stopped all/most of these arguments years ago by outright Open Sourcing it or at least allowing free distribution of the runtime.
> There is a need for a good, compile-once-run-anywhere format,
Why? Perhaps in the closed source world, but we do something called compile & run everywhere here in the Free one. GNU autoconf/automake is a bitch to make heads or tails out of but it works on a lot more platforms than JAVA does. Oh, and native apps will always outperform a VM. Java apps could run, but don't on most of the machines I use because it is too much bother to download and install it everywhere. When there is an implementation of JAVA that can come pre-installed, then you might have a point.
> Paying teachers would do a GREAT deal to make the teaching establishment better.
How? Explain exactly HOW paying the same tenured incompetents more would motivate them to do a job they are incapable of doing and at any rate forbidden from doing by the politically correct administrators even if they did know.
> The "semi-literate" people would be forced out in favor of more
> competent people.
How? Tenure means you can't be fired without an act of God. So what force is going to act to get the idiots out of the system?
Unless you can break tenure, remove the unfit, gut the boards of education of their deadwood and board up every current "College of Education" there is no point in increasing salary. Once tenure is broken and pay can be linked to performance I have no objection to paying the best teachers on par with the best in other professions with similar training and work requirements.
Hint: Once you DO compare Apples to Apples you will find that teachers aren't that underpaid currently so we wouldn't have to find huge sums of cash to make up the difference. They are semi-skilled (being generous) labor working in generally good working conditions (inner city hellholes excepted) at between part-time and full-time hours.
Which just brings up another related rant. What the hell are we awarding tenure to elementary and secondary teachers for anyway? I understand the concept as applied to the university setting where professors are expected to be producing origonal work and you don't want them to fear for their position when they publish something that upsets the status quo. But I can't recall the last scientific paper published by a second grade teacher.
> Most of the PhDs I know who teach math feel it a chore to "stoop" to
> the level of the people they are working for.
Yes, we have all heard the stories of the Phd who never actually enters a classroom, interacting only with the grad students who actually teach his/her classes. No they wouldn't be a good candidate for high school teacher, but they wouldn't be likely to apply either, especially if tenure were eliminated.
> MS considers a VMWare install to be a different machine.
/dev/null unless they got really nasty and lawyered up at which point I'd bluntly ask them if they would like to turn the situation into a PR disaster.
I know that is in their typical license crapola and if we also had it installed in a partition I might even listen to their arguments. But the donation license specified it had to be used only on the GLF hardware and only by our library's patrons. Both conditions were being met so any complaints would go to
Let em explain to a typical reporter that when we run Office on the donated PCs it wasn't actually running ON that PC, when they would plainly see Office running on said PC. But that we were now going to be forced to remove it because Microsoft was ungiving it to us because we used security software they didn't like. The one thing they (and every other closed source vendor) never want is a news story that might cause typical end users to start reading those EULAs to see if any of those hidden clauses might apply to them.
> I hope libraries take note of this as well as schools... If libraries
> aren't the standard-bearer for interoperable Web sites, document
> formats, and any other kind of information exchange, who will be?
Well our library was more than happy to accept Bill & Melinda's generous contributions. For the time the hardware was pretty solid midrange and ran our Linux based patron model quite nicely. And even though the software licenses were a joke (locked to both the hardware AND the library but counted as a donation of a full copy) we still ran it on select workstations via VMWare for those who needed more Office compatibility than the Linux solutions offered.
And the server they provided is still in service to this day. For several years it ran all of our world accessable Internet services including DNS, email web, ntp, etc. Now it still serves as a web proxy. Very nice little Gateway/ALR box.
So hurray for the Gates Library Foundation. We aren't rich and a big stack o' stuff won't be turned down at our back door. Yes I know they intended to lock people in, and did at a lot of sites across the state, but that is the fault of those who don't think things through. Besides those people would still be just as locked to Microsoft, they just wouldn't have as many workstations deployed.
Same ol problem of for most people they don't PICK Windows, they default to it without even pondering the question of whether or not there is even a choice to make.
And no, Apple doesn't count for large installs so STFU all Mac zealots. Anybody who hadn't installed patron PCs before Bill started tossing them off a truck certainly would never write the check for Macs. Besides, around here Macs are more rare than Linux boxes since the closest place to see one is a Sears about 50 miles away that puts one out from time to time but all of their salesmen tell you "not to buy that wierd thing corporate keeps sending out".
> giving them what MS wants the PC to be ... a glorified VCR.
No, what MS wants is a glorified X-Box. Locked to where only Microsoft & it's select set of publishers (who pay dearly up front and per copy for the privilege of being 'selected') are permitted to release software. Where possessing an unlicensed 'develop workstation' would be a felony. Let em mandate putting the fritz chip in all CPUs and watch how fast they get exactly that world.
> Seriously, where is the average school in po-dunk Mississippi going to
> find a quality non-msft admin cheaply when a drop-out could do msft
> administration?
No they can't. It is this belief that causes most Windows installations to be utter crap and costs the world economy billions annually if not trillions in lost productivity. To get a Windows installation to even approximate what we UNIX heads call stability requires skilled admins, not paper MCSE drones. They cost just as much or more as UNIX heads of similar skill level.
Of course a Windows admin still can't admin as many boxes as a UNIX guy and they are like AD&D elves, they have that annoying level limit when they hit the wall of what MS reveals unto them and they can't call on the source or just email the developer with a question.
Plus, the supply of Linux talent is rising. I live deep in flyover country, working at a rural public library. We keep several copies of Linux in our collection and they circulate on a prety regular basis.
> Give the money to the teachers to higher a better staff, THEN you will
> have more well informed children. God if they paid $60K+ starting to
> teach, think of the people they could have instructing.
If the same 'teaching establishment' were in charge nothing would change except pissing away a lot of money to the same semi-literate hacks we have now.
Education won't improve until the unions are broken so the incompetents with tenure can be sacked and people with a Phd in Math can teach without spending four more years learning how to 'teach.' (read jumping the artificial hurdle the unions use to keep their incompetents from competing with those with skill and motivation.)
Education still won't change until the massive overhead is slashed. Preferably by privitizing the schools because so long as they are government run they must be political instituitions. Not that private universities aren't also infested with PC bullcrap but there ARE private instituitions of higher learning out there that actually teach if one is motivated to search them out. WIth a virtual government run monopoly on primary and secondary education that isn't nearly as easy. Unless you are a rich Democrat congressman. (cheap shot)
> I've seen a lot of spin on this thing, that tries to make Microsoft out
> to be the bad guy in this situation.
This isn't even a new idea. The sat TV industry has been doing much the same for years. They switch their crypto, the bootleg cards stop and they run an amnesty program where you narc out the dealer who sold you the pirate card and they forgive your theft, set you up a legal account for no charge and often even comp you free service for a bit.
The cops do it all the time in the War on Some Drugs. Rat out the dealer and walk away free and clear.
> This sounds like it's good for consumers, and Microsofts wishes to
> track down the retailers that are defrauding customers don't seem out
> of line.
Yup, and as Free Software fans we should be 100% behind this sort of enforcement. It is hard for Free to compete with Microsoft when to 95% of their users Microsoft is just as "free" in the sense it either was hidden in the cost of their PC was is warez.
Making closed software actually cost full price is the first step to getting people to consider alternatives. This works both on the end user and the margin squeezed OEMs who sell the industrial warez bootleg copies of XP instead of Lindows. (Or whatever they call themselves today.. can't remember right now.)
> not "Apple bumps the processor speed and makes a
> few optional features standard equipment". I
> don't get it.
Yea, I just don't get it either. It is just a freaking refresh, and they already carried an Apple refreshes line story about a week ago. Are these paid placement pieces or has Taco & co become so enamoured with their powerbooks they have crossed the line to Apple zealot?
It gets even worse. They didn't even file this story in the Apple catagory where the 90% of us who don't own a Mac or give a rat's rear about what would be a minor story on a MAC SPECIFIC SITE wouldn't have to see it. I smell spamvertizements.
What next, similar stories when Dell refreshes their crappy consumer models? Or perhaps only when they bump the speed on the slightly higher quality Optiplexes? If it is clearly marked as an advertisement I might could tolerate it, but this article blows whether it is a paid for ad or just Apple fanboys gone wild because we don't know which it is.
> Up to that point most of us would have been thinking John McCain would
> be running against Al Gore.
Ah, you must be one those politically illiterate types. There wasn't a single person with a clue about politics who EVER thought John McCain would actually be the Republican nominee. Simple matter of mathematics. There just were not enough states with open primaries to allow it. Very few Republicans would ever vote for a RINO like McCain, the bulk of his votes were Democrats who were jumping over to the other side since by that point Gore's nomination was secure. They believed that a Gore vs. McCain race was a win-win scenario since Democrats would essentially 'win' regardless who won.
My God, the bulk of the US PRESS CORPS was openly campaigning for Sen McCain, that alone was enough to eliminate him from consideration by enough Republicans to deny him the nomination. But many fell for the continual yammering about the possibility McCain could be selected that it did change the race. What his candidacy did accomplish was push the center of mass of the republican electorate slightly left in the '00 election, leaving Mr. "Compasionate Conservatism" Bush wide open to claim the crown from the more conservative candidates who couldn't make a believable case for being a 'moderate'.
> So, to clear this up, you are honestly suggesting, that technical
> experts have to give up their constitutional rights in order to be
> able to do their work?
Reread what I wrote. To restate it, you can't declare yourself to be non-political and at the same time be knee-deep in politics. Money IS speech, giving money to a candidate is a public endorsement and active effort to elect said candidate. This is the very essence of political activity and while every American is, and should be, free to do so, one thing they can no longer do is truthfully say they are not involved in politics.
Or even more bluntly, contributing to a political campaign makes you a part of it. And should your candicate win you can expect political rewards but should they lose the reverse is often true. This is reality, welcome to the world as it IS, not how you believe it SHOULD be.
> Note the last sentence.
I did, but ignored it as the usual mainstream media biases showing. ALL political appointments have been political to varying degrees since the founding of the republic. It is just that when democrats are in power, since most pointy headed academics typically appointed to such international scientific posts are also of the same political breed there are fewer arguments.
> This isn't "Politics as usual". There's a term for this.
> Political machine.
Exactly. As practiced for far longer than you prpbably care to admit by your party, still practiced to this very day in fact in most major urban (i.e. Blue State) areas. Well times have changed, and as Republicans rise to power we find it slightly less unsavory while your side begins to howl about the injustice of it.
But it is just the wheel turning, nothing has changed except the letters after the names.
> And it's generally considered harmful to democracy.
Well that's OK as well since Democracy is a crappy idea anyway. Which is why our Founding Fathers rightly denounced Democracy as a perversion and instead gave us a Constituitional Republic.
Of course cheap shot aside, your general complaint has merit, that such cronyism has a corosive effect on public affairs and I don't have an easy answer for ya. Wish I did.
Thye filed this story from the "politics as usual dept" for a good reason. Because it IS the usual. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is. Postings made by the political class are handed out for political reasons. Doesn't always make sense but expecting political animals to hand out plums to declared enemies makes even less sense.
There was a time when it was understood that politics stopped at the border, but that time has long since passed. Both parties can share the blame for it, although personally I'd give it at leat 60/40 to the Democrats because a) they have been the party out of executive power for more of the last couple of decades and b) it really ramped up post 9/11.
If you want to just be an apolitical technologist then keep your damned checkbook closed. (Or at least stay under the reporting threshold) Money IS speech even if the 'campaign finance reformers' keep saying it isn't. You can't give a candidate thousands of dollars and then say you aren't involved in politics when they lose.
> Writing legistlature saying tax dollars can't be spent in that way
> is nearly the same as legislating interoperability
Not at all. Not any more than the old requirement for POSIX was legistlating interoperability. It just means the government would be saying interoperability IS important enough to put in a bid spec, same as requiring bibbers be bonded, supply a warrenty, or any other purchasing requirement. Does a bid request requiring the ability to read/write DVD+R mean a government mandated format for DVD recorders? No, it just means that government agency had standardized on it.
> We could mess with the free-market system however and legislate
> interoperability.
Nope, there is a much simpler solution. All we need do is pressure our congresscritters to pass a law saying TAX dollars can't be expended on software that writes a closed format. But it wouldn't even have to be the government, any dozen of the Fortune 500 could mandate it in their purchasing manuals and the practice would end overnight.
Bottom line: users don't care because they have yet to understand the problem and/or be convinced they can actually change things.
> I'm a professional Photographer
I'm not a pro, just an enthusiastic amateur for now. But I'd never buy a Camera from a manufacturer who is this clueless about some fundamental realities.
1, A camera is a TOOL, not a religion. A good tool interoperates well with other well designed tools from a variety of sources. There is a reason all major camera manufacturers settled on 35mm film for instance. Because customers demanded the ability to buy cameras, film, darkroom equipment, negative storage solutions, etc from different vendors and have them all interoperate.
2. The pictures that come out of my camera are MY property, not the camera manufacturer's. How dare they encrypt MY pictures.
3. Photographs are stored for LONGTERM use. Images stored in poorly documented, proprietary formats kept secret by the DMCA are not likely to be readable beyond the lifetime of Windows XP systems able to install the supplied driver.
> ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are
> Proprietary and encrypted.
Would you like GPL source to read Olympus's RAW format? Available from a publicly available site on US soil? Care to revise and extend your remarks?