Well, I almost never hear this, but I take it as a given;
As a normal business practice, it's important to have the source code. If a vendor goes out of business, your business could be in jeopardy. Even an unresponsive company can cause expensive problems.
The modern reasons of sharing the work load with others and the higher quality customized code that is possible are fairly new ideas -- and largely beside the point.
The goal of keeping the company going with servers that must continue to serve, with clients able able to get/share stuff, and that the data must be usable by the auditors and the board of directors quickly, haven't changed in decades. Without the source, your ability to make those critical changes that allow the tickets, transactions, bank reports, and accounting systems working is reduced or even prevented.
This is an entirely selfish business practice, long understood and part of many contracts in the past.
For example, one shrink-wrap/retail software company I worked for had to agree that if fixes to thier flagship product didn't appear within a certian period of time, that the source would be given to the customer so they could "fix it". This was a legal contract, and had formal, specific, was to execute that requirement.
Since I rarely hear this reason, I must be an old geezer -- even though I have plenty of hair, and none of it grey, oddly enough!
* * *
(Side note: With the buy-MS attitude -- they won't go out of business -- there's the idea that this is no longer necessary. Any techie knows this is bogus, and that getting remedy from MS or any other big player isn't a given. The majority of work is customization, and a tool without source isn't as flexible. High reliance on third party tools to patch MS's problems should be an issue but it seems to be taken as a necessary part of business.)
SquidGuard, eh? I'll definately take a look. (looking...looking...).
Compared to Junkbuster, it seems to be a very different beast. SquidGuard has a few features that look handy, such as being able to mangle the data, good logging, and restricted access based on time, user,.... This seems ideal for personal, network and even for a home lan -w- kids.
Does SquidGuard work with proxy-sensitive sites, like Hotmail? That was my main issue making a filtering proxy the default for users on my network.
Let me be clear, I don't know much about capabilities, but I know that they are talked a LOT about on lkml. Simply calling me a liar and saying that it's "privileges" not "caps" doesn't really help educate anyone.
I think you're basically informed -- I'd guess a fair bit more then the AC who you replied to, though if he knows something he can speak up.
Capabilities do exist in Linux, but aren't fully used yet, and tools to modify them are generally patches to the kernel. The kernel doesn't have a well-defined interface for user-mode programs to diddle with them. There's a great deal of debate about how to implement a general capabilities interface without patching the kernel itself each time. So far, the concensus is that no method is consistant and complete enough to be rolled into the kernel proper. (You might know that -- sorry for the preaching if so.)
Your references to lkml and Pavel's page do give some important details. Take a look at the LIDS documents (www.lids.org) for how they can be implemented.
Re:slashdotted already! no fear..a mirror is here
on
Dreadling Released
·
· Score: 1
Informative? ARGH! Please, moderate that one to TROLL. Thanks.
Users/groups is far from a joke, although it does have problems and limitations. Capabilities are coming. Some people are pushing for them to be in 2.4 (at least as experimental), but definitely in 2.6. Till then, there's LIDS and other tools used to control capabilities;
"I'm against using text files because textfiles can be fucked up with typos and duplicate data. A good db like system protects you from making those errors. Using XML would be an improvement over the current situation but also a big misstake in my eyes since XML is just as unsuitable for permanent storage of data as a normal text file."
In that case, are you considering a binary file, or some kind of registry system? If so, check out the rant Linus went into over proc & devfs issues;
"Guys, remember what made UNIX successful, and Plan-9 seductive? The "everything is a file" notion is a powerful notion, and should NOT be dismissed because of some petty issues with people being too lazy to parse a full name.
The same is true of ASCII contents. Binary files for configuration data are BAD. This is true for kernel interfaces the same way it is true of interfaces outside the kernel. I tell you, you don't want the mess of having things like the Windows registry - we want to have dot-files that are ASCII, and readable with a regular editor, that you can do grep's on, and that can be manipulated easily with perl. Think of/etc/password. And think of the STUPIDITIES that a lot of UNIX vendors made with their user managment databases - it happened not once, but multiple times. All in the name of unified tools (never mind the fact that none of the standard tools worked any more), and in the name of efficiency (the "parsing ASCII wastes CPU cycles"). Do people think that.bashrc would be better in a binary format that uses special tools to edit it? I don't think so. Don't make the kernel interface files fall into that classic _stupid_ black hole. Plain-text ASCII is a goodness. Readable naming is a goodness. Yes, it takes more care, but the end result is simply _better_. The rant continues in Kernel Traffic, #64; http://kt.linuxcare.com/ke rnel-traffic/kt20000424_64.epl#1
On a serious note, just because Linus said it doesn't make it universially correct...though he does have a point.
I remember working on an old DOS program where line endings and file endings caused us all sorts of headaches in ASCII files. Till we handled them consistantly, we often ended up with odd problems parsing text configuration files. Once that was done, the headaches went away -- not the creation of some obscure binary file format only our program could touch.
Didn't Microsoft sue someone over the use of "The Jewish Bookshelf" as a title of a religous CD? Wait, here are some URLs from a Google search; http://www.eeicommunications.com/eye/bookshlf.html , http://www.eeicom.com/eye/bookshlf.html.
StarOffice 5.1 and 5.1a supports _importing_ from a Pilot into the address book, but does not support Categories. This means restoring _from_ StarOffice _to_ a Pilot will cause you to have duplicate entries. This is a REAL pain to fix.
The good news is that StarOffice 5.2 beta -- while it has other problems -- does not have this one.
This is from "A Brief History of Time", by Stephen Hawking. I've heard other sources for this annecdote;
"A well-known scientist (some say it was Bernard Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"Your very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady, "But it's turtles all the way down!"
The archive does treat the creationists with repect, though reading the details shows that they really do have a grasp of reality that lacks opposible thumbs!
I agree, in general. As an addition to this, and for more general use, I have a proposal that seems to be working well in my trial use of it...
While this idea won't catch everything, use a mail server as a gateway to filter attachemts -- before internal mail servers get it. When a specific file type is attached, slap a wrapper on the attachment that warns the user that they are resposible for knowing the source of the email and if it's something that they would normally expect from that source. This is most valuable when all the client systems run the same OS.
This happens before any internal mail server gets it -- commercial (Exchange/Notes...) or custom, so the chance of a trojan grabbing addresses is reduced.
When the user does open the trojan -- and they will even after they have been warned -- tracking the trojan in the internal network could still be done. One way is to pre-populate all user's address books with a contact for the help desk. Melissa-style virus comes along, and you know it immediately, and can start mopping up the mess as soon as possible. This would be a minor, and easily verifiable, change to network procedures and policies.
To me, these steps seem to be an obvious addition to any system that handles external mail.
(obNote: If you need to comunicate with other Exchange/Notes/... servers, then I'd consider that an internal trusted resource. Get the folks on the other end to do the same wrapping and pre-populating address books for incomming mail.)
Stop jerking around Coward. If you have anything to say, get a user ID, otherwise I'm not interested.
To answer just a few of your personal, unlearned, and unfounded attacks on my credability and that of others that you don't seem to care to investigate;
I learned what I know personally while working at a top-10 software company at the time, we had OEM deals with MS where we sold _them_ over 200,000 OEM copies of our software for inclusion with MS Visual C++, we had personal contacts with thier development group,...
... need I go on, or do you have some agenda, Coward?
Obviously, yes you'd like that since you're trolling. Go away, or get a nic but first do some reading.
DAMN! I thought I was logged in! Well, I did think of a few additions...
Basically making it known that if things are done the 'wrong' way as suggested, I take no responsibility for the design descision.
[shivers] I just had a flashback to about 4 different projects for three different customers. Scarry!
It's a good thing I'm big on analogies.
When this situation comes up, I deal with it by thinking of something every patch of woods seems to have -- squirels.
Squirels are winners, sucessfully darting around for millions of years, evading preditors and other dangers long enough to raise a family. They wiggle this way, they wiggle that way, winning so often that the tactic is a part of every squirel.
Squirels don't think, they do what works -- they ACT! They will try this tactic without fail on everything -- foxes, other squirels, rain drops, a crazy kid with a stick, even automobiles.
[Start New Stuff]
In people, that wiggle is called confidence; oblivious confidence. The kind of confidence that speaks power, and impresses both potential mates and those who you need to do your bidding.
Let's face it, without this level of confidence, we are like a squirel without a tail. We might be smart, but we look dumb and can command nobody.
[End New Stuff]
Customers, project managers, and sales/customer reps are no different. As techs, the only thing we can do when irrationality wins is counter with our own reflex; CYA. People who don't pay attention to the CYA reflex in other people deserve what they get.
These days, I'm almost passive when a squirel or person insists on getting flattened. At most, I make a small comment and start planning my next move as if the big squish has already occured.
In some situations, I've had the satisfaction of seeing the fuzzy rodent get away, in others I'll see a small amount of respect after a near miss. Usually, it's too late; the squirel is dead, or the project's budget gets slashed after the disaster. Either way, it's a good habit to know when to just shake your head and move on.
[Snipped explanation of how the "secret APIs" aren't really secret and MS is innocent. Honest.]
...yet, it only took five years for MS to decide they'd document that API? Clue: In dealing with MS on a technical level, getting anthing out of MS is like screaming at the wind; It is entirely ineffective unless the wind happens to be blowing that direction.
As for your motivations, I can only think that you must be trolling, since nobody can be so misinformed if they've looked at this even for a little while...reading the Findings of Fact even in part will give you plenty to chew on, let alone having picked up any article printed over the past 15 years on the subject.
Even if we were to ignore the Department of Justice's own Findings of Fact, the books and magazine articles on undocumented APIs from DOS through the latest version of Windows, as well as my and other's knowledge of undocumented Microsoft APIs and the impossibility of wrenching usable details on how to use them from MS, your claims still don't pass the sniff test.
If I'm wrong -- as others have mentioned before in this thread -- you meerly have to point out how we are mistaken, with some reasonable proof behind it. If you're just guessing or trolling, get a grip. You don't have a very big audience at this point.
The bible contains so many vaguities and contradictions that it can really be shown to be saying anything. In practice however, the "better" side is gernally taken. Scientology on the other hand clearly demonstrates a really distrubing agenda. You can be arrogant and claim that Christians are brainwashed, but a brainwashed Christian will not try and destroy your life in every way possible for proclaiming that in the same manner Scientology promotes. (at least Today that is).
Arrogance isn't necessary and wasn't implied. When I'm arrogant, I'll be glad to claim it!;-)'
I agree the run-of-the-mill religous person is basically good, and that Christians are no exception. The contradictions in the Bible have been used to both abolish and support slavery, for example. The path that is typically taken is one where the locals find in the Bible what they want to find, and if necessary cherry-pick examples from it. In most cases, they don't even take a look, and work on social norms of what others think might be in the book.
My original objection: Bringing up the evils of Scientology and then saying basically 'They aren't like us Good Christians' is hypocrical. Doubly so when the original person pointed out -- correctly -- the lies of Scientology and said -- incorrectly -- that Christians aren't like that. HA!
My original evidence: Read the religous recovery newsgroups. The vast majority of people posting messages suffer from the abuses of _Chrsitians_, not Scientologists. This includes lies given to support conversion to specific, well established, sects. Other religious groups including former Scientologists are represented, but not nearly in the volume of Christian groups. I was stunned to learn what these poor people have gone through.
Does this mean that all Christians are bad? Nope, only a few...but they are some nasty SOBs. Where do you think Hubbard & company learned these tricks from?
If you read what has happened to others, and still think I'm arrogant, I'll take that as a complement.
Scientology is fundamentally different from Christianity because it believes it is OK to lie to people when you're trying to convert them.
[ObRant]
Hey, I can quote a few religous books with the best of them. Do you want me to start quoting from the "bad" parts of the Bible?
Visit one of the religion recovery groups on usenet and try and make that statement again without knowing you'd be lying. Yeah, yeah...the Christian whackos aren't "real Christians", or I didn't understand what's printed in the dozen or so Bibles I've seen...how convincing.
Does this mean that the Scientologists get off scott-free? Nope, they're a cult, and trying to stay around long enough to be taken seriously and have the lawyers to make it stick...from Cult to religion; it happens all the time.
...good publicity. Or so one marketeer used to asure me.
Why does the "Cult of Scientology"(tm;not) want to sue over something that even they obviously don't have a problem doing themselves? Could it be the extra $$$ from each sale? The names and addresses collected from credit card statements?
Increasing fear and another note in the news are all I can think of. Except for/., who's picked up this story? How many times a month do we read about this Hollywood cult with lawyers?
The more I hear of Scientology, the more I think the Germans have it right when they banned this group -- and that just might be what Scientology Inc. is trying to do.
Question: Where is source code? (Last update: 21/Apr/2000)
Answer: The source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you installed Gentus with "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/".
Slashdot Mirror
As a normal business practice, it's important to have the source code. If a vendor goes out of business, your business could be in jeopardy. Even an unresponsive company can cause expensive problems.
The modern reasons of sharing the work load with others and the higher quality customized code that is possible are fairly new ideas -- and largely beside the point.
The goal of keeping the company going with servers that must continue to serve, with clients able able to get/share stuff, and that the data must be usable by the auditors and the board of directors quickly, haven't changed in decades. Without the source, your ability to make those critical changes that allow the tickets, transactions, bank reports, and accounting systems working is reduced or even prevented.
This is an entirely selfish business practice, long understood and part of many contracts in the past.
For example, one shrink-wrap/retail software company I worked for had to agree that if fixes to thier flagship product didn't appear within a certian period of time, that the source would be given to the customer so they could "fix it". This was a legal contract, and had formal, specific, was to execute that requirement.
Since I rarely hear this reason, I must be an old geezer -- even though I have plenty of hair, and none of it grey, oddly enough!
* * *
(Side note: With the buy-MS attitude -- they won't go out of business -- there's the idea that this is no longer necessary. Any techie knows this is bogus, and that getting remedy from MS or any other big player isn't a given. The majority of work is customization, and a tool without source isn't as flexible. High reliance on third party tools to patch MS's problems should be an issue but it seems to be taken as a necessary part of business.)
Add to your list; www.squidguard.org. Someone else mentioned it, and it looks good.
www.squidguard.org
The differences seem to be that SquidGuard is aimed at servers and departments, while Proxomitron is aimed at users.Compared to Junkbuster, it seems to be a very different beast. SquidGuard has a few features that look handy, such as being able to mangle the data, good logging, and restricted access based on time, user, .... This seems ideal for personal, network and even for a home lan -w- kids.
Does SquidGuard work with proxy-sensitive sites, like Hotmail? That was my main issue making a filtering proxy the default for users on my network.
Let me be clear, I don't know much about capabilities, but I know that they are talked a LOT about on lkml. Simply calling me a liar and saying that it's "privileges" not "caps" doesn't really help educate anyone.
I think you're basically informed -- I'd guess a fair bit more then the AC who you replied to, though if he knows something he can speak up.Capabilities do exist in Linux, but aren't fully used yet, and tools to modify them are generally patches to the kernel. The kernel doesn't have a well-defined interface for user-mode programs to diddle with them. There's a great deal of debate about how to implement a general capabilities interface without patching the kernel itself each time. So far, the concensus is that no method is consistant and complete enough to be rolled into the kernel proper. (You might know that -- sorry for the preaching if so.)
Your references to lkml and Pavel's page do give some important details. Take a look at the LIDS documents (www.lids.org) for how they can be implemented.
Informative? ARGH! Please, moderate that one to TROLL. Thanks.
www.lids.org
"I'm against using text files because textfiles can be fucked up with typos and duplicate data. A good db like system protects you from making those errors. Using XML would be an improvement over the current situation but also a big misstake in my eyes since XML is just as unsuitable for permanent storage of data as a normal text file."
In that case, are you considering a binary file, or some kind of registry system? If so, check out the rant Linus went into over proc & devfs issues;
"Guys, remember what made UNIX successful, and Plan-9 seductive? The "everything is a file" notion is a powerful notion, and should NOT be dismissed because of some petty issues with people being too lazy to parse a full name.
The same is true of ASCII contents. Binary files for configuration data are BAD. This is true for kernel interfaces the same way it is true of interfaces outside the kernel. I tell you, you don't want the mess of having things like the Windows registry - we want to have dot-files that are ASCII, and readable with a regular editor, that you can do grep's on, and that can be manipulated easily with perl. Think ofOn a serious note, just because Linus said it doesn't make it universially correct...though he does have a point.
I remember working on an old DOS program where line endings and file endings caused us all sorts of headaches in ASCII files. Till we handled them consistantly, we often ended up with odd problems parsing text configuration files. Once that was done, the headaches went away -- not the creation of some obscure binary file format only our program could touch.
Didn't Microsoft sue someone over the use of "The Jewish Bookshelf" as a title of a religous CD? Wait, here are some URLs from a Google search; http://www.eeicommunications.com/eye/bookshlf.html , http://www.eeicom.com/eye/bookshlf.html.
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Yeilds this output on my Athlon 650 (.25 micron);
processor : 0
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 6
model : 1
model name : AMD-K7(tm) Processor
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 650.035710
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
sep_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr 6 mce cx8 sep mtrr pge 14 cmov fcmov 22 mmx 30 3dnow
bogomips : 629.15
The good news is that StarOffice 5.2 beta -- while it has other problems -- does not have this one.
This is from "A Brief History of Time", by Stephen Hawking. I've heard other sources for this annecdote;
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"Your very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady, "But it's turtles all the way down!"
I once read a creationist article ...
They are full of it, aren't they? If you want other hoots of laughter, check out the alt.origins archive;
The archive does treat the creationists with repect, though reading the details shows that they really do have a grasp of reality that lacks opposible thumbs!
Zeus doesn't judge, he electifies!
I agree, in general. As an addition to this, and for more general use, I have a proposal that seems to be working well in my trial use of it...
While this idea won't catch everything, use a mail server as a gateway to filter attachemts -- before internal mail servers get it. When a specific file type is attached, slap a wrapper on the attachment that warns the user that they are resposible for knowing the source of the email and if it's something that they would normally expect from that source. This is most valuable when all the client systems run the same OS.
This happens before any internal mail server gets it -- commercial (Exchange/Notes...) or custom, so the chance of a trojan grabbing addresses is reduced.
When the user does open the trojan -- and they will even after they have been warned -- tracking the trojan in the internal network could still be done. One way is to pre-populate all user's address books with a contact for the help desk. Melissa-style virus comes along, and you know it immediately, and can start mopping up the mess as soon as possible. This would be a minor, and easily verifiable, change to network procedures and policies.
To me, these steps seem to be an obvious addition to any system that handles external mail.
(obNote: If you need to comunicate with other Exchange/Notes/... servers, then I'd consider that an internal trusted resource. Get the folks on the other end to do the same wrapping and pre-populating address books for incomming mail.)
Same.
To answer just a few of your personal, unlearned, and unfounded attacks on my credability and that of others that you don't seem to care to investigate;
... need I go on, or do you have some agenda, Coward?
Obviously, yes you'd like that since you're trolling. Go away, or get a nic but first do some reading.
Basically making it known that if things are done the 'wrong' way as suggested, I take no responsibility for the design descision.
[shivers] I just had a flashback to about 4 different projects for three different customers. Scarry!
It's a good thing I'm big on analogies.
When this situation comes up, I deal with it by thinking of something every patch of woods seems to have -- squirels.
Squirels are winners, sucessfully darting around for millions of years, evading preditors and other dangers long enough to raise a family. They wiggle this way, they wiggle that way, winning so often that the tactic is a part of every squirel.
Squirels don't think, they do what works -- they ACT! They will try this tactic without fail on everything -- foxes, other squirels, rain drops, a crazy kid with a stick, even automobiles.
[Start New Stuff]
In people, that wiggle is called confidence; oblivious confidence. The kind of confidence that speaks power, and impresses both potential mates and those who you need to do your bidding.
Let's face it, without this level of confidence, we are like a squirel without a tail. We might be smart, but we look dumb and can command nobody.
[End New Stuff]
Customers, project managers, and sales/customer reps are no different. As techs, the only thing we can do when irrationality wins is counter with our own reflex; CYA. People who don't pay attention to the CYA reflex in other people deserve what they get.
These days, I'm almost passive when a squirel or person insists on getting flattened. At most, I make a small comment and start planning my next move as if the big squish has already occured.
In some situations, I've had the satisfaction of seeing the fuzzy rodent get away, in others I'll see a small amount of respect after a near miss. Usually, it's too late; the squirel is dead, or the project's budget gets slashed after the disaster. Either way, it's a good habit to know when to just shake your head and move on.
[Snipped explanation of how the "secret APIs" aren't really secret and MS is innocent. Honest.]
...yet, it only took five years for MS to decide they'd document that API? Clue: In dealing with MS on a technical level, getting anthing out of MS is like screaming at the wind; It is entirely ineffective unless the wind happens to be blowing that direction.
As for your motivations, I can only think that you must be trolling, since nobody can be so misinformed if they've looked at this even for a little while...reading the Findings of Fact even in part will give you plenty to chew on, let alone having picked up any article printed over the past 15 years on the subject.
Even if we were to ignore the Department of Justice's own Findings of Fact, the books and magazine articles on undocumented APIs from DOS through the latest version of Windows, as well as my and other's knowledge of undocumented Microsoft APIs and the impossibility of wrenching usable details on how to use them from MS, your claims still don't pass the sniff test.
If I'm wrong -- as others have mentioned before in this thread -- you meerly have to point out how we are mistaken, with some reasonable proof behind it. If you're just guessing or trolling, get a grip. You don't have a very big audience at this point.
The bible contains so many vaguities and contradictions that it can really be shown to be saying anything. In practice however, the "better" side is gernally taken. Scientology on the other hand clearly demonstrates a really distrubing agenda. You can be arrogant and claim that Christians are brainwashed, but a brainwashed Christian will not try and destroy your life in every way possible for proclaiming that in the same manner Scientology promotes. (at least Today that is).
Arrogance isn't necessary and wasn't implied. When I'm arrogant, I'll be glad to claim it! ;-)'
I agree the run-of-the-mill religous person is basically good, and that Christians are no exception. The contradictions in the Bible have been used to both abolish and support slavery, for example. The path that is typically taken is one where the locals find in the Bible what they want to find, and if necessary cherry-pick examples from it. In most cases, they don't even take a look, and work on social norms of what others think might be in the book.
My original evidence: Read the religous recovery newsgroups. The vast majority of people posting messages suffer from the abuses of _Chrsitians_, not Scientologists. This includes lies given to support conversion to specific, well established, sects. Other religious groups including former Scientologists are represented, but not nearly in the volume of Christian groups. I was stunned to learn what these poor people have gone through.
Does this mean that all Christians are bad? Nope, only a few...but they are some nasty SOBs. Where do you think Hubbard & company learned these tricks from?
If you read what has happened to others, and still think I'm arrogant, I'll take that as a complement.
Scientology is fundamentally different from Christianity because it believes it is OK to lie to people when you're trying to convert them.
[ObRant]
Hey, I can quote a few religous books with the best of them. Do you want me to start quoting from the "bad" parts of the Bible?
Visit one of the religion recovery groups on usenet and try and make that statement again without knowing you'd be lying. Yeah, yeah...the Christian whackos aren't "real Christians", or I didn't understand what's printed in the dozen or so Bibles I've seen...how convincing.Does this mean that the Scientologists get off scott-free? Nope, they're a cult, and trying to stay around long enough to be taken seriously and have the lawyers to make it stick...from Cult to religion; it happens all the time.
Why does the "Cult of Scientology"(tm;not) want to sue over something that even they obviously don't have a problem doing themselves? Could it be the extra $$$ from each sale? The names and addresses collected from credit card statements?
Increasing fear and another note in the news are all I can think of. Except for /., who's picked up this story? How many times a month do we read about this Hollywood cult with lawyers?
The more I hear of Scientology, the more I think the Germans have it right when they banned this group -- and that just might be what Scientology Inc. is trying to do.
Why not just give the option of disabling it in the BIOS? :-)
Some BIOS' do support disabling it, and everyone else can use a utility each time they boot. There are two problems with this;
Even if you disable it, some program you load may enable it later.
Some web sites might start requiring that it is enabled so that they can use it as a form of verification.
It's hard (?) to spoof, so the number can't be changed to whatever you want.
If AMD wasn't doing so well, would Intel have kept CPU-ID?
Yep, it looks like a non-issue. Can someone with an ISO of the Gentus distribution verify that the source is available as the FAQ says?
Here's the text from the Gentus Linux FAQ;
Question: Where is source code? (Last update: 21/Apr/2000)Answer: The source code of Gentus Linux is included in the directory "/REDHAT/RPMS/" of the CD tile. If you installed Gentus with "everything" option or select "kernel source" with custom option, the source code is also availble in "/usr/scr/linux/kernel/".