maybe one day they'll figure out how to make dual read heads with independent actuator arms (i.e at 0 degrees, and at 180 degrees) on the same platter. Then your 7200 rpm drive can blow the pants off of those turbojet 15Krpm monsters.
it's your damn fauly, if the servers were patched, the worm never would have spread! Don't just blame MS, their products, but lazy admins are a major part of the outlook/iis worm recipe.
why not run this simulation on a dedicated system, then ssh in, so you let the x-forwarding handle the display. No X running on the simulating machine, and more RAM for the app, and no unresponsive swapping issues.
Of course, it's a work-around, this dosen't actually *solve* your problem, but you'll have to talk to Linus and the rest of the kernel hackers to get a real solution.
ok, if i give you that....
we won the war 50 years ago. Why have we been developing even more powerful nuclear weapons every waking moment since then. Because of Russia right? So now that Russia is no longer a contender, why are we still developing weapons that are too dangerous to use? Because of the terrorists? Using nukes as "bunker busters" is just a little over the top don't you think?
There's no longer a valid reason for us to be developing weapons that if used, will likely kill as many americans and american allies as american enemies. It doesn't make sense. And provoking our enimies with nuclear threats certainly dosen't help the situation.
"North Korea... is developing weapons of mass destruction."
Isn't it a lovely contradiction that America (the fisrt to develop, and only to use atomic/nuclear weapons) goes around talking about how these "rogue regimes" are developing weapons of mass destruction. We've proven our willingness to use them, so how do we get off saying that countries with similar strategies are terrorists?
If we simply go around threatening any country developing "WOMD", it will just encourage them to work harder so that the 800Lb gorilla will get off their backs.
On the contrary, i think that as the web has made it easier for more people to get the functionality of archie, gopheer, and irc.
Think about download.com and tucows and freshmeat and napster, and gnutella and kazaa, don't they provide the same functionality as the older tools? Aren't ICQ and AIM and MSIM just like IRC and talk, and chat? Dosent' usenet live on with google groups and mailing list archives?
To me all these things are evolutionary steps forward. None of them really represent new ideas, just new ways of doing old things.
BTW, When *you* look for info on the internet, do you use archie or google;-)
Re:You don't understand the spirit then.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
yeah, it definitely comes down to the definition of "preferred" in the GPL. Generally contract law comes down to the applicable definition of a word. I'm sure RMS and Eben Moglen would have alot to say on this subject.;-)
Re:You don't understand the spirit then.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
oh shut up;-)
that's 2 different definitions of "preferred" in one conversation. The first preferred is in the license, referring to the form, but not the style.
the second is my own preferred, referring to the "preferred style" of code, in it's required form.
Re:You don't understand the spirit then.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
from the GPL:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable."
I interpret this to mean something equivalent to ASCII, depending on platform. Or the form of source that is usually sent to the compiler, or the form of source that the (original) developer is accustomed to working on. In other words, C source code, not XORed EBCDIC, nor a JPEG of the ASCII source, nor a stereogram, nor a t-shirt with a poetic interpretation of the algorithm used(ala DeCSS).
IANAL, so it's really up to a judge to decude what exactly this means. But i think that obfuscated source is just as good as well-documented cleanly formatted code for satisfying the GPL. Obviously the clean source is preferred, but not required.
Re:Cut and dried Copyright violation
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree. The way I see it, the two things GPL requires you to do above all else are:
1. maintain the GNU licensing that was there when you got it.
2. if you (re)distribute changes, you must at least distribute those changes as source code.
I understand that their actions make the source "unfriendly" but if it compiles, then I can fire up (g)cc and recreate the same binary that you have. Maybe even compile on a different platform. I don't see how this violates the spirit of the GPL, since there are no provisions in it for the quality or readibility of code. It's primarily designed to protect the openness of the code, not to protect the usability of it.
Making this same point, am i the only one tired of slashdot being a mirror for pr.microsoft.com? So f-ing what if ms has something bad to say about the GPL.
The "open source" movement can never really succeed if its main message is anti-microsoft. Just as MS will not succeed if it's primary tactic is to badmouth "open source", and it's not. They mainly license and legislate against the competition. And that's "anti" in the sense of opposition, not simply a conflicting viewpoint. Lets say MS goes out of business, then what? It takes alot more that "MS sucks" to make a difference.
I guess to me Free software is more about pro-open, and open source is more about anti-proprietary. Hopefully this part of the "open source" world will evolve into something more meaningful.
i'm no fan of lawyers, but it makes sense that professional legal experts be the ones who create laws. When you replace lawyers/laws with doctors/medical treatment, or programmers/code, or pilots/planes, it illustrates my point a little better. Any professional who has a vested interest in a field will not only have insightful ideas about how to improve that field, they will also represent their own self interests at the same time.
but if they're using a "transparet" proxy, wouldn't that speed up your connection? duh?
seriously, i doubt comcast's stopgap measures are up to par with @home's network. Hopefully they'll get it together soon enough... But i the meantime, my roadrunner connection is just a little faster that usual;-)
I know what you mean, and in general I agree, but no, that's not what i'm talking about. Maybe someone with expertise in anticompetitive issues can chime in here... for your reference there was a case that NEC and Fujutsu lost to Cray. Fujitsu and NEC were competing with cray in the US supercomputer market, but these two large companies had much deeper pockets then cray, and sold it's supercomputer products in the US at a loss to try to cash starve cray into being a non-competitive player in that market.
MS did the same thing with netscape, in the freebie browser biz, as well as in the for profit web server biz. MS gave discounts to OEMs for including IE preinstalled as the exclusive browser. MS also gave away IE for free to anybody, while Netscape only gave their browser away to non-profits and individuals. IIS is free when you buy NT Server, and since MS declared that running anonymous (read "unlimited users") internet servers on NT Workstation violated their license, running Netscape web servers on NT (as compared to IIS) was not an attractive option. If MS did not have such tight control of the PC market, it could not afford to make these generous offers of free software when they obviously spent a great deal of money producing it. Even now they pay royalties to Spyglass for the use of Mosaic code. Check "About Internet Explorer" if you have doubts.
but the bottom line is that regardless of whether you agree with the concept of dumping, it is illegal.
if we assume that you have the critical qualifactions:
competent, fair & trustworthy
One major question remains in my mind....
Say you have a company like microsoft, who rightly or wrongly acts as if it has the political clout to do whatever it wants. You see them do things like break compatibility with competing products (lotus/borland), dump software info a thriving market to starve it's competitors (netscape/qualcomm), deny deserving employees fair and equitable benefits (MS "Temps"), and block competitive access to markets ( Be/Apple ).
Assuming you can come up with a sound remedy for these types of problems, how can you get them to actually stop abusing it's monopoly power when it's monopoly power is the battleaxe it uses to hack at apart it's competitors in various markets, yet you cannot take it from them?
I can't speak on evolution vs kmail, but I use netscape communicator, and the IMAP performance i get has improved dramatically by migrating from uw-imap with mbox folders to courier imap with maildir folders.
This was primarily a change to accomodate move to qmail from sendmail, but the performance increase is tremendous. I routinely open mailboxes with hundreds of messages (over a variety of lines, from 128K to 100Mbit) and i've had no problems with speed. You might consider changing your mail server file format (if you run the mail server) to increase your performance. Otherwise, my general experience is that IMAP (header listing) performance should be equivalent or better to that on a NNTP server.
The keychain folks have apparently taken the "rsh isn't so bad" approach. rsh and its counterparts are insecure for many reasons, only one of those is cleartext password authentication. Other reasons include unrestricted pre-authenticated per-user sessions (.rhosts files), and the ease with which someone can set up these sessions ( echo $myhostip >>/root/.rhosts ). It's extremely convenient though.
The other side is where you're coming from, that each and every session needs authentication. That's a fair stance, just inconvenient when you're making multiple connections.
I prefer an in-between approach. Start ssh-agent on login, and do the ssh-add manually. Then you can feel comfortable that someone must learn your RSA/DSA private key passphrase to use your credentials, and also that you have the convenience of not having to retype passwords, again and again, once you've authenticated once in that login session.
That's how the ssh folks designed the system to work, and I like that solution. You could also decrease your risk by requiring both RSA/DSA and passwords for authentication.
there's a bunch of proprietary video codecs that have no linux player.
Plus you can't watch any of those cool spank_my_ass_and_call_me_susan.mpg.exe videos;-)
well the trick is that in order to license something in a legally binding way, you need to prove that the licensee accepted the terms of the license before accepting the licensed material. So you've got a big fight ahead of you trying to prove that somebody who has your personal information obtained it either from a infringing source, or obtained it from you and also accepted your licensing terms. good luck.
well it's simple really...
if they're there for the money, and you can help them stay there and get more money... they'll cater to you so long as you can actually do something for them. It's the same deal for corporations and lobbyists, if they didn't have $$$ then why would the govt listen to them, what can they for for the govt but give them $$$?
but rally, that's not democracy, that's corruption, and corruption is everywhere. Even in anarchy, you will have groups of individuals conspiring against other indivuals for their own benefit. No big difference. Remember there is no magic pill that will make things better. If anarchy (as a form of "non"government) was so great, why is it so under represented in the world?
-earl
Slashdot Mirror
that was a close call! Between the flyby asteroids and the 82 degree weather we're having in DC, I sure could go for some beer right about now. ;-)
hey man,
how can you be #541585 and talk about other folks being new??
-earl
maybe one day they'll figure out how to make dual read heads with independent actuator arms (i.e at 0 degrees, and at 180 degrees) on the same platter. Then your 7200 rpm drive can blow the pants off of those turbojet 15Krpm monsters.
it's your damn fauly, if the servers were patched, the worm never would have spread! Don't just blame MS, their products, but lazy admins are a major part of the outlook/iis worm recipe.
-earl
why not run this simulation on a dedicated system, then ssh in, so you let the x-forwarding handle the display. No X running on the simulating machine, and more RAM for the app, and no unresponsive swapping issues.
Of course, it's a work-around, this dosen't actually *solve* your problem, but you'll have to talk to Linus and the rest of the kernel hackers to get a real solution.
ok, if i give you that....
we won the war 50 years ago. Why have we been developing even more powerful nuclear weapons every waking moment since then. Because of Russia right? So now that Russia is no longer a contender, why are we still developing weapons that are too dangerous to use? Because of the terrorists? Using nukes as "bunker busters" is just a little over the top don't you think?
There's no longer a valid reason for us to be developing weapons that if used, will likely kill as many americans and american allies as american enemies. It doesn't make sense. And provoking our enimies with nuclear threats certainly dosen't help the situation.
"North Korea ... is developing weapons of mass destruction."
Isn't it a lovely contradiction that America (the fisrt to develop, and only to use atomic/nuclear weapons) goes around talking about how these "rogue regimes" are developing weapons of mass destruction. We've proven our willingness to use them, so how do we get off saying that countries with similar strategies are terrorists?
If we simply go around threatening any country developing "WOMD", it will just encourage them to work harder so that the 800Lb gorilla will get off their backs.
it started in 1988 actually:
;-)
but any internet tech that goes back farther than the web is old enough
Think about download.com and tucows and freshmeat and napster, and gnutella and kazaa, don't they provide the same functionality as the older tools? Aren't ICQ and AIM and MSIM just like IRC and talk, and chat? Dosent' usenet live on with google groups and mailing list archives?
To me all these things are evolutionary steps forward. None of them really represent new ideas, just new ways of doing old things.
BTW, When *you* look for info on the internet, do you use archie or google
oh shut up ;-)
that's 2 different definitions of "preferred" in one conversation. The first preferred is in the license, referring to the form, but not the style.
the second is my own preferred, referring to the "preferred style" of code, in it's required form.
from the GPL:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
I interpret this to mean something equivalent to ASCII, depending on platform. Or the form of source that is usually sent to the compiler, or the form of source that the (original) developer is accustomed to working on. In other words, C source code, not XORed EBCDIC, nor a JPEG of the ASCII source, nor a stereogram, nor a t-shirt with a poetic interpretation of the algorithm used(ala DeCSS).
IANAL, so it's really up to a judge to decude what exactly this means. But i think that obfuscated source is just as good as well-documented cleanly formatted code for satisfying the GPL. Obviously the clean source is preferred, but not required.
1. maintain the GNU licensing that was there when you got it.
2. if you (re)distribute changes, you must at least distribute those changes as source code.
I understand that their actions make the source "unfriendly" but if it compiles, then I can fire up (g)cc and recreate the same binary that you have. Maybe even compile on a different platform. I don't see how this violates the spirit of the GPL, since there are no provisions in it for the quality or readibility of code. It's primarily designed to protect the openness of the code, not to protect the usability of it.
The "open source" movement can never really succeed if its main message is anti-microsoft. Just as MS will not succeed if it's primary tactic is to badmouth "open source", and it's not. They mainly license and legislate against the competition. And that's "anti" in the sense of opposition, not simply a conflicting viewpoint. Lets say MS goes out of business, then what? It takes alot more that "MS sucks" to make a difference.
I guess to me Free software is more about pro-open, and open source is more about anti-proprietary. Hopefully this part of the "open source" world will evolve into something more meaningful.
i'm no fan of lawyers, but it makes sense that professional legal experts be the ones who create laws. When you replace lawyers/laws with doctors/medical treatment, or programmers/code, or pilots/planes, it illustrates my point a little better. Any professional who has a vested interest in a field will not only have insightful ideas about how to improve that field, they will also represent their own self interests at the same time.
but if they're using a "transparet" proxy, wouldn't that speed up your connection? duh?
;-)
seriously, i doubt comcast's stopgap measures are up to par with @home's network. Hopefully they'll get it together soon enough... But i the meantime, my roadrunner connection is just a little faster that usual
I know what you mean, and in general I agree, but no, that's not what i'm talking about. Maybe someone with expertise in anticompetitive issues can chime in here... for your reference there was a case that NEC and Fujutsu lost to Cray. Fujitsu and NEC were competing with cray in the US supercomputer market, but these two large companies had much deeper pockets then cray, and sold it's supercomputer products in the US at a loss to try to cash starve cray into being a non-competitive player in that market.
MS did the same thing with netscape, in the freebie browser biz, as well as in the for profit web server biz. MS gave discounts to OEMs for including IE preinstalled as the exclusive browser. MS also gave away IE for free to anybody, while Netscape only gave their browser away to non-profits and individuals. IIS is free when you buy NT Server, and since MS declared that running anonymous (read "unlimited users") internet servers on NT Workstation violated their license, running Netscape web servers on NT (as compared to IIS) was not an attractive option. If MS did not have such tight control of the PC market, it could not afford to make these generous offers of free software when they obviously spent a great deal of money producing it. Even now they pay royalties to Spyglass for the use of Mosaic code. Check "About Internet Explorer" if you have doubts.
but the bottom line is that regardless of whether you agree with the concept of dumping, it is illegal.
competent, fair & trustworthy
One major question remains in my mind....
Say you have a company like microsoft, who rightly or wrongly acts as if it has the political clout to do whatever it wants. You see them do things like break compatibility with competing products (lotus/borland), dump software info a thriving market to starve it's competitors (netscape/qualcomm), deny deserving employees fair and equitable benefits (MS "Temps"), and block competitive access to markets ( Be/Apple ).
Assuming you can come up with a sound remedy for these types of problems, how can you get them to actually stop abusing it's monopoly power when it's monopoly power is the battleaxe it uses to hack at apart it's competitors in various markets, yet you cannot take it from them?
I can't speak on evolution vs kmail, but I use netscape communicator, and the IMAP performance i get has improved dramatically by migrating from uw-imap with mbox folders to courier imap with maildir folders.
This was primarily a change to accomodate move to qmail from sendmail, but the performance increase is tremendous. I routinely open mailboxes with hundreds of messages (over a variety of lines, from 128K to 100Mbit) and i've had no problems with speed. You might consider changing your mail server file format (if you run the mail server) to increase your performance. Otherwise, my general experience is that IMAP (header listing) performance should be equivalent or better to that on a NNTP server.
-earl
Well, there's two sides to this.
/root/.rhosts ). It's extremely convenient though.
The keychain folks have apparently taken the "rsh isn't so bad" approach. rsh and its counterparts are insecure for many reasons, only one of those is cleartext password authentication. Other reasons include unrestricted pre-authenticated per-user sessions (.rhosts files), and the ease with which someone can set up these sessions ( echo $myhostip >>
The other side is where you're coming from, that each and every session needs authentication. That's a fair stance, just inconvenient when you're making multiple connections.
I prefer an in-between approach. Start ssh-agent on login, and do the ssh-add manually. Then you can feel comfortable that someone must learn your RSA/DSA private key passphrase to use your credentials, and also that you have the convenience of not having to retype passwords, again and again, once you've authenticated once in that login session.
That's how the ssh folks designed the system to work, and I like that solution. You could also decrease your risk by requiring both RSA/DSA and passwords for authentication.
Then yout get pure openssh, along with a whole suite of unix tools on your windows box.
-earl
not true,
;-)
there's a bunch of proprietary video codecs that have no linux player.
Plus you can't watch any of those cool spank_my_ass_and_call_me_susan.mpg.exe videos
-earl
I think he's got the last laugh... ;-)
"You've got rich!"
-earl
well the trick is that in order to license something in a legally binding way, you need to prove that the licensee accepted the terms of the license before accepting the licensed material. So you've got a big fight ahead of you trying to prove that somebody who has your personal information obtained it either from a infringing source, or obtained it from you and also accepted your licensing terms. good luck.
if they're there for the money, and you can help them stay there and get more money... they'll cater to you so long as you can actually do something for them. It's the same deal for corporations and lobbyists, if they didn't have $$$ then why would the govt listen to them, what can they for for the govt but give them $$$?
but rally, that's not democracy, that's corruption, and corruption is everywhere. Even in anarchy, you will have groups of individuals conspiring against other indivuals for their own benefit. No big difference. Remember there is no magic pill that will make things better. If anarchy (as a form of "non"government) was so great, why is it so under represented in the world?
-earl